Animal culling, sterilization, vaccination and micro-chipping - right or wrong?

People campaign against mandatory vaccination programmes for humans but I don't hear of anyone doing so on behalf of animals. People protest at the idea and reality of human micro-chipping but this is routinely done to animals and no one says anything about that.

Conspiracy theorists claim a human cull or depopulation programme is currently going on run by the elite of the planet or the mysterious Illuminati or "shadow government." They give plenty of evidence for this, but what about the culling of animals? Scientists and even some animal-lovers will say that it is necessary to keep animal populations in balance, but who decides on this? Not Mother Nature, but humans who decide on what is to live or die!

People protest against the idea of enforced sterilisation of humans and family planning but spaying and neutering of dogs and cats is regarded as 'normal' and a good thing. I have thought a lot about these issues and only have my own conclusions over what is right and wrong. I have also concluded that humans can often be hypocrites and seem to live by a code that says what is bad for us must not be allowed but for animals it doesn't matter!

Millions of people worldwide, and I include myself amongst these folk, are refusing vaccinations and believe that vaccines can cause serious harm to the body. It is believed, with scientific evidence and reports to back it up, that vaccines contain dangerous toxins such as mercury.

Pet owners are all encouraged to have their animals vaccinated against all manner of diseases and there are legal requirements for this in many places and for many situations, and such is the case for humans too.

I would argue that if vaccines are a potential danger to us then surely the same can be said about them for animals. Are we not hypocrites if we refuse vaccines for ourselves but allow them for our animal companions? And who really benefits? Big Pharma drug companies and owners of the medical Mafia!

Dogs and cats in many countries are legally required to be micro-chipped and many owners think nothing of this. There has been some evidence shown that micro-chips beneath the skin can cause cancer, but while that may be debatable, if humans would not want to be micro-chipped themselves then why should our pets be subjected to this?

Conspiracy theorists would be quick to tell you that having animals micro-chipped is a gradual way of getting people used to the idea and the eventual plan by the elite is to get all the human population micro-chipped too. This sinister idea was admitted by Nick Rockefeller to the late Aaron Russo, and the Freedom to Facism film director talks about it when he was interviewed by Alex Jones.

David Icke says that the Illuminati plan is to create a New World Order in which all the masses are micro-chipped and can thus be controlled in a totalitarian Fascist state. There would be no physical currency, only electronic and a world bank run by computers. It is believed that the current banking crisis has been engineered as another step towards this. 

This disturbing idea is in line with Biblical predictions about only those with the "mark of the Beast" being able to buy or sell. All physical money would be done away with for a micro-chipped population but the controllers could simply turn your chip off they wanted and then you would have no way of making a digital transaction or buying anything.

Are the conspiracy theorists right? Did Rockefeller really tell Russo about their plant to chip everyone? If it is wrong to micro-chip humans then why are we allowing this for our animals and paying for it too?

There has been a great deal of talk about the human population being too great and a need for population control. Many people are worried that a human population cull has been put into practice and they cite the words of the Georgia Guidestones as part of the evidence that the elite want to get rid of most of us. The first point the Guidestones make is to "Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature."

Looking at the world of animals we hear the same thing: that culls are needed because the populations of many mammals are too great. Deer and seals apparently need culling. Feral cats do too and stray cats and dogs. Who decides on whether these animals are to live or die? People decide. Not God, not Mother Nature, but humans, usually male scientists!

At the same time most animal-lovers and animal activists agree that the cat and dog populations need to be drastically controlled and all dogs and cats should be preventing from reproducing. In the horrific insanity of the world as it is I have to agree this is right or else millions more are born to suffer and die anyway. I am also well aware that feral cat populations cause the threatened extinction of many animals and birds and that something has to be done to control this.

But if it is right to sterilise dogs and cats, is it right to do this to humans? Many people agree it is right if people voluntarily agree to such operations but the idea of enforced sterilisation appals them!

People are so irresponsible when it comes to cats and dogs. They take them on and then abandon them. This is clearly not right and adds to the problem and goes on worldwide.

But what about wild animals? How can some human decide if a species needs culling? Scientist will say that getting rid of the weaker individuals amongst a group of animals is a good thing but if you were to apply this to humans there would be an outcry!

In all cases I see human beings as being the cause of the problem in the first place! So I suppose it is right that humans should provide the solution but this means a small number of humans play God. Who gives them that right?