the act of eating and drinking.rnFood and drink are on the contraryrnGod’s gift, from which we are tornpartake with enjoyment and gratitude.rnWe fast, not because we despisernthe divine gift, but so as tornmake ourselves aware that it is indeedrna gift—so as to purify our eatingrnand drinking, and to makernthem, no longer a concession torngreed, but a sacrament and meansrnof communion with the Giver.rnBut “Christian vegetarianism,” with thernwelfare of animals as its motivation, isrnnothing more than “Social Gospel”rnChristianity applied to a new “victim”rngroup.rnI expected Friedrich to answer my finalrnquestion —”As a Catholic, how dornyou reconcile the Eucharist with vegetarianism?”rn—by dismissing Christ’s wordsrnin John 6:53-55 (“In all truth I tell you, ifrnyou do not eat of the flesh of the Son ofrnman and drink his blood, you have nornlife in you. . . . For my flesh is real foodrnand my blood is real drink”) as anotherrn”parable.” Instead, he defended transubstantiation,rnthe Catholic doctrine thatrnthe bread and wine become Christ’srnbody and blood, and argued that “it’s notrna violation of the spirit or principle ofrnvegetarianism.” But if “Christian vegetarianism”rnis not based on the avoidancernof flesh, then what is its basis? Ultimately,rnaccording to Friedrich, “the issue hasrnto do with consent and acting within arnbeing’s interest.” Christ, in institutingrnthe Eucharist, consented to the eating ofrnhis flesh. Animals, however, cannot offerrnsuch consent.rnWhich brings us back to Tucson, tornthe McCartney’s ranch. If the takingrnof animals’ lives is wrong simply becausernconsent can never be given, what aboutrnthe taking of a human life when consentrnis given? Could an animal rights activistrnlike Linda McCartney go to Dr.rnKevorkian with a clear conscience?rnCould an animal rights activist like SirrnPaul morally stand by and watch his wifernend her life? Could Dr. Kevorkian be anrnanimal rights activist in good standing?rnThe answer to all three questions, itrnwould seem, is yes. By elevating animalsrnabove their natural position, humansrndenigrate their own lives, and Christianityrnis destroyed in the process.rnScott P. Richert is the assistant editor ofrnChronicles.rnECONOMICSrnPerpetual Warrnfor PerpetualrnCommercernby Bob DjurdjevicrnTalk is cheap,” skeptics say. “Putrnyour money where your mouthrnis.” “Money talks louder than words.” Ifrnthese sayings still apply today, the walletsrnof the New World Order’s elite have spokenrnloudly and clearly: Russia is still therniirnmam boi ‘gey!rnForget the cheap talk about a “Partnershiprnfor Peace.” Conniving “friendships”rnlike that are made in hell. Theyrntend to lead to war, not peace, as thernHitier-Stalin pact of the 1930’s proved.rnAlso, forget the cheap talk about “nationrnbuilding” and “exporting democracy”rnwhenever our government sends moneyrnor American troops abroad. The investmentrndecisions of the “Princes of thern20th Century”—the multinational companiesrn—show where they are puttingrntheir money. They also prove thatrndemocracy is for suckers, and that “freerntrade” and “globalization” are mankind’srnlatest “black plague.”rnUnfortunately, all this is “deja vu allrnover again.” Much of what took place inrnBritain in the 18th and 19th centuries isrnnow happening in Russia, the UnitedrnStates, and around the world under thernNew World Order’s “globalization” banner.rnA century ago, the rich got richer,rnthe poor got poorer, and the resulting socialrninjustices gave birth to such ideologiesrnas communism. They also led tornseveral revolutions and two world wars.rnWe are facing the same prospects today.rnTake the concentration of wealth, forrnexample. In 1881, 2,512 Englishmenrnowned half the land in the United Kingdom.rnIn 1994, the top 2.6 million (onernpercent) of Americans had as much after-rntax income as did the bottom 88 millionrn(35 percent), according to thernWashington-based Center on Budgetrnand Policy Priorities. The disparities betweenrnthe rich and the poor in China,rnRussia, Latin America, and other countriesrnwhich the NWO elite decided torn”globalize” (read: colonize) are evenrngreater than in the United States.rnOr take the concentration of industrialrnproduction in the cities. In 1696, onlyrna quarter of England’s population livedrnin the cities. As agriculture was the dominantrneconomic activity at the time,rnthese statistics imply that three-quartersrnof Englishmen were economically selfsufficient,rnsupporting themselves off thernland on which they lived. By 1760, however,rnonly half of the population lived inrnthe countryside. And in 1881, with thernIndustrial Revolution in full swing, onlyrnone-third lived in rural areas. Such massiverndestruction of rural communitiesrnforced a radical change in the way of lifernfor millions of people.rnIn the 1990’s, the “Princes” of globalizationrnshift manufacturing activities torncountries with low-labor costs, thus causingrnhigh unemployment and the devastationrnof communities in the industiializedrnworld (e.g., the “Rust Belt” ofrnAmerica, the textile mills of Lancashire)rnand breeding almost continuous laborrnunrest in France and social unrest inrnLatin America and Indonesia.rnNor was the British example from thern19th century a natural, voluntary shift ofrnpopulation from the countryside to therncities. Using their economic wealth tornbuy political clout in Britain’s parliamentaryrnsystem, a tiny minority of powerfulrnlandowners and newly minted industrialistsrn(like today’s transnationalists)rndrove the English farmers off the land,rnforcing them into virtual slave labor inrnfactories. They did it either by buying uprnthe impoverished farmers’ land at firesalernprices or by passing laws in Parliamentrnwhich led to a break-up of therncommon (“freeholders”) land.rnSound familiar? Remember “Reaganomics,”rnor Margaret Thatcher’s celebratedrn”privatization” in Great Britain in thernI980’s? Or similar efforts currently underrnway in France, Germany, and severalrnother “Old Continent” countries?rnThe New World Order elite and theirrnmedia outlets are telling the public thatrnprivatization is all goodness; that privaternenterprises can supposedly manage thesernendeavors more efficiently than governments.rnMaybe. But at what price? And morernimportantly—to whose benefit? Obviouslyrnto the benefit of the enterprises’rn”new” shareholders (after privatization).rnBut what about the interests of the formerrnowners—the public? What aboutrnthe corporate responsibility for improvingrninstead of impoverishing society?rn46/CHRONlCLESrnrnrn