500

July 29, 2013

The animal crush industry generates propaganda against Stopcrush.org

“Crushers” (a term coined by Stopcrush.org to describe those engaged in creating, distributing, purchasing and/or viewing animal crush video for purposes of garnering money or sexual gratification) apparently do not like Stopcrush.org very much (what a shock). They have been frequenting internet forums and even penning articles in an effort to express their overall dismay regarding the Stopcrush.org initiative. “Crushers” are also generating accusatory rhetoric in the wake of the “visceral backlash” against animal crush videos stemming from the global public.

A recent series of articles has been posted to a blog site called Sinopathic entitled “Interviewing The Crush Video Industry”(incidentally, it would be wise to refrain from posting any violent rhetoric or threats in the comment section of the articles). These articles are apparently to be presented as a public service and/or informational blog regarding the crush industry. The author(s) have obviously worded the article in a specific manner to generate a sense of objectivity. What these articles actually do, however, is attempt to put a human face upon individuals within the crush industry, therefore eliciting sympathy from the general public for those in the crush industry. The fact remains that whether one person considers these acts “moral” or an issue of “free speech”, or whether or not there are laws specifically banning these actions, the public at large considers animal crush as heinous and without redeeming value.

The animal crush industry blames Stopcrush.org completely for the public outcry against animal crush video and although Stopcrush.org would have no issue accepting the “crushers’” whiny accusations (happily so, quite actually), it is quite common for those who commit heinous acts to cast the blame for the consequences of their actions upon others. Simply stated, and as a quasi-response to the rhetorical question (posed in part 2 of these articles) “what is morality?”, the general public does not require Stopcrush.org’s existence in order to despise those who produce, sell, distribute, purchase or “enjoy” animal crush video. The general public understands the concept of “morality”. Take for example, the following interview exchange from part 1:

“If I paid you right now, would you step on your own cat?”, old Fan tentatively asked.

“This hypothetical situation doesn’t exist; this cat has been dead for over ten years by now.”

“Let’s just say ‘if it was still living’, and that you would serve as a psychological experiment.”

“I would accept the money, but let someone else take her away [to do it]; I don’t want to see it.”

“And if you had to see your cat be crushed?”

“If… if the money was right, then it would be okay.”

That is the concept of “morality” in the mind of these individuals, in a nutshell. Despite what this series of articles attempt to convey (that among other things, Stopcrush.org is somehow responsible for threats, and in some cases, violence against animal abusers), they are obviously penned toward sympathizing with those sadistic individuals who torture animals for sexual gratification, portraying them as victims of citizens who are standing up against the animal crush industry.

The main aspect of Stopcrush.org’s work, aside from pressing for legislation against the entire sadistic, globally-based industry, is to shine a bright spotlight upon it, exposing the dark underbelly of this horrifying sickness. Stopcrush.org has helped to track “crushers”, pinpointing their identities to legal authorities in various countries and has aided groups in regard to other campaigns (both human and animal rights endeavors). Many of the women and children featured in animal crush videos have been taken through human trafficking. Some of these individuals are in desperation, emotionally unstable and exploited. Others have a proclivity for it, a sick enjoyment. The real predators in this equation however, are primarily the main producers, the distributors and the buyers. This is why Stopcrush.org’s focus has been so broad, encompassing several facets of activism and not solely focused upon animal crush video alone, or even animal rights alone.

Stopcrush.org would like to address a few false bits of propaganda that these “crushers” are currently spreading publicly in an effort to throw the general public “off-track”.

#1. “Animal crush videos are very rare and hard to find” ~absolutely false…they are neither “rare” nor “hard to find”. Prior to the passage of the first law prohibiting these videos, there were over 3,000 animal crush videos found readily available on the internet for purchase and download in the year 1999 by the Humane Society of the United States. That number has grown exponentially over the past decade. They are also oft-times concealed in any random “gore-site” and also, on the occasional random “porn-site”. Sometimes, you simply have to make an account on certain websites to have access to them. “Crushers” would rather convince everyone to believe that animal crush videos are so rare that people will feel that the problem is isolated and basically leave them alone. Well, the problem isn’t isolated and we have a mutual duty as global citizens to NOT leave psychopaths roaming free on our streets.

#2. “Animal crush videos are usually outlawed throughout the world.” ~Absolutely false…The vast majority of nations on the planet do not have any legislation whatsoever to specifically address animal crush video. “Crushers” would like for everyone to believe that laws against the depictions exist throughout the world because obviously, they wish for the public to be lulled into a false sense of security (as they full-well know that there should be legislation in place against animal crush video in any civilized society) and again, do absolutely nothing, thereby leaving the crush industry alone. Sorry…not going to happen. Ironically, one recent article posted continually insisted that no laws were broken in creating these videos.

#3. “The Animal Crush Prohibition Act of 2010 bans something that United States citizens already could not put on the internet, sell or share with anyone.” ~Absolutely false…Prior to the passage of the Animal Crush Prohibition Act of 2010, it was completely legal to sell, publicly display, purchase and own animal crush videos or depictions thereof. “Crushers” would like everyone to believe that generating a federal law against animal crush video was a waste of time; therefore citizens should not feel compelled to defend the law when the time comes for it to be properly implemented, as Stopcrush.org is currently in the process of doing (likely not a coincidence). If the Animal Crush Prohibition Act of 2010 (up to 7 years in a federal penitentiary, along with a hefty fine for any dealings related to animal crush video) served no viable purpose in thwarting the animal crush industry, “crushers” wouldn’t consistently be attempting to publicly attack it or Stopcrush.org for that matter.

#4. (a) “Stopcrush.org promotes violence against those who produce, sell, distribute, purchase and own animal crush video (namely, “crushers”), as well as other animal abusers.” ~Absolutely false…At no time in the history of Stopcrush.org has any officer of Stopcrush.org (the only officers being Anthony Damiano and Marla Stormwolf Patty), it’s volunteers or administrators speaking for the Stopcrush.org initiative itself, or the AELLA organization, promoted enacting violence against anyone for any reason. As a point of fact, the Stopcrush.org initiative has always promoted for legal action and the incarceration of any individuals connected to the animal crush industry, whilst discouraging violent action or rhetoric. It will continue to do so. “Crushers” accusing Stopcrush.org of violently pursuing them are the equivalent of serial killer Ted Bundy accusing his victims of being uncooperative. Point of fact, Ted Bundy would most certainly have purchased animal crush videos if he were alive and free today.

(b). “Crushers” have also accused Stopcrush.org of supporting violence against Zhou Ying, a woman in Shanghai who routinely tortured animals until citizens demanded that the police do something to stop her (See example of accusation in article Part 4). After the woman’s release from the police sub-station (sometime in May of 2012), a group of people, furious with the lack of support from police and government officials, decided to take matters into their own hands. Stopcrush.org has never encouraged the act, nor has Stopcrush.org praised it. Stopcrush.org simply penned an article in regard to the story and implied that the Chinese government should listen to its citizens’ demand for a stronger stance in regard to animal protection.

(c). The specific articles discussed also make a transparent attempt at undermining Stopcrush.org’s credibility by posing a ludicrous claim of inactivity. Stopcrush.org maintains an active presence within the animal rights community with many thousands of members/supporters and has created chapters around the world designed to educate people about this intolerable abuse. Clearly if Stopcrush.org were inactive, then the initiative would not be singled out as a threat to those who participate in the crush industry and those attempting to defend the crush industry.

A final note to “crushers” and citizens around the world; Stopcrush.org remains staunchly unapologetic in regard to any of its campaigns against the sadistic animal crush industry. The Stopcrush.org initiative will continue to facilitate a global means of generating a complete societal intolerance toward animal crush video until such a time that the entire horrific, prurient interest is eradicated from our world.

The team at Stopcrush.org