PETA, the animal activist group who uses fear and manipulated emotions to gain donations, has now decided upon their latest promotional stunt: deeming the term “Bullpen” as aggressive and offensive to Bulls.
The term earliest recorded usage of the baseball term “Bullpen” originated in 1877, yet PETA waited 144 years until they realized it could be weaponized as a marketing advantage. To gain more donations, the company decided after 41 years of operation, that it was time to go after baseball.
Now, in 2021, PETA has launched a strange propaganda campaign targeting the term “bullpen”, seeking to use censorship as a means of self promotion. Do the bulls really find this term offensive?
“Let’s ‘liberate’ the language we use in baseball!” touted PETA, suggesting their version of linguistic utopia should be forced upon successful athletes. Contrary to PETA’s statement, free speech censorship is not a form of liberation.
Corruption
It is easy to see the insincerity within their stance against the English language. PETA uses tactics to bring their name back into public media. The protection and advocation of animals is a necessary—and often overlooked—attribute of humanity, groups like PETA have the power to do that.
However, with power, comes corruption. In the case of PETA, the are focusing on the wrong things. Such as utilizing their propaganda campaign money to provide medical services for animals in need, or homes for abandoned animals. Not a worthless guilt trip on society to gain funds through fear stricken donations.
The PETA organization failed to recognize that bulls may also be equally insulted by:
- “Red Bull”, which has offended bulls since 1987
- “Lamborghini”, which uses bulls as their logo, objectifying bulls since 1963
- “Bullhorn”, a cloud computing company that has nothing to do with farming
- “Bulldozers”, which have been discriminating against bulls since 1904
- “Bull Bars” are derived from bulls and used on vehicles
- The Chicago Bulls have existed since 1966, the amount of bulls living in Chicago has declined
- “Bulldogs” which were originally named for their use in Bull fighting.
- “Bullsh-t” is a word used to describe nonsense and worthlessness. Why has our language singled out bulls?
Missing every other possible form of “Bull” would indicate that PETA does not have the interest of animals at heart, but the interest of personal donations. As long as the suffering of animals continues to exist, PETA will still receive millions of dollars of annual donations. There is no rush to stop the abuse of animals, as PETA aims to combine their cult propaganda with politically weaponized modern day censorship and word-crimes, in order to make their voices heard.
PETA’s Financial Reports
PETA’s 2020 financial reports show $63,804,688 in “Contributions”, as well as $53,542 in gross merchandise sales. During that year, PETA also received $2,416,727 in Interest, Dividends, Royalties, and “Other Income”.
While it is easy to see the suffering of animals and believe donating money to this organization will help, in reality the benefactor has no control over where the money goes. In reality, animals still suffer under Fauci’s scientific reign.
PETA Kills Animals
Data taken from The Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) in 2019 shows PETA’s kill rate is:
- Over four times greater than the no-restriction shelter rate for all animals, over
- Over six times greater for dogs
- Over three times the rate for cats
The VDACS requires all animal shelters to keep record and report the number of cats and dogs they accept each year.
As far back as 2010, organizations like PETAKillsAnimals.com obtained official summaries of findings, displaying similar statistics.
Conclusion
If the organization truly cared for animals they would realize their advocacy of the censorship of freedom of speech pits them against everything the American people stand for. Advocate for animals or not, if you are against the freedom of the American citizen, your objections to our society is irrelevant.
Oppression in any form is vile and repulsive especially from a donation-based organization’s standpoint. Thankfully far more organizations exist who thrive on actually helping animals, not discriminating against their own species for profit.
JMBK.NEWS 