tap into the vast gray economy, and tornguarantee investors’ rights as a means ofrnattracting productive investment in thernprovinces. He is for a Slavic Union ofrnUkraine, Russia, and Belarus, the protectionrnof Russian minorities in the “nearrnabroad” (meaning the former Soviet republics),rnself-government at the localrnand regional level, a prominent role forrnthe Russian Orthodox Church in publicrnlife, the protection of strategically importantrnRussian industries, and against messianicrnmilitary adventurism or efforts tornresurrect the U.S.S.R. In short, “fascism”rnas defined for us by the powersthat-rnbe (remember Pat Buchanan’s 1996rncampaign?). He is therefore hated byrnboth the “patriots,” the communist-nationalistrnpseudo-opposition dominatedrnby the CPRF and Zhirinovsky, boughtrnoff long ago by the Yeltsin regime, andrnMoscow’s tea-sipping (Lebed’s supportersrn—though not the general himself,rnwho does not imbibe—slam down vodkarnin blender-sized glasses) “democrats,”rnthe Russian equivalent of the West’s proponentsrnof a “democratic capitalism”rnthat is of the elite, by the elite, and for thernelite.rnI have a theory as to why the likes ofrnAleksandr Ivanovich Lebed so curdle thernstomachs of the New World Orderrncrowd, even if they can’t deny that whatrnhe says doesn’t sound threatening. First,rnit is plain to see that he is not one ofrnthem. Lebed does not don the obligatoryrnItalian-imported threads of the globalistrnnomenklatura, nor has he consulted arnhairdresser lately. He is the strong silentrntype, prone to answering questions with arndirect “yes” or “no” or with the homespunrnwisdom of the Russian peasantrnaphorism. Second, he is scary looking.rnTo the steers of the NWO corral, a bull isrnscary stuff. Lebed is a man’s man, a manrnwithout pretension or bravado who, tornthe credit of Russian womanhood, isrndeemed attractive by the fair sex of thernSlavic world precisely because he is arnman who keeps his word, fights his ownrnbattles, and does not whine or bellyache.rnHe is a combat veteran, a sportsman,rnthe faithful husband of a wife hernmarried young, a father of three grownrnchildren, and a grandfather four timesrnover at age 48. The thing that the geldingsrnof the brave new world hate thernmost about Lebed is that he remindsrnthem of their lost virility.rnDenis Petrov frequently travels tornRussia and does not think Lebed is scary.rnSOCIETYrnOf Steak andrnSuicidernby Scott P. Bichertrna I n the end, she went quickly withrnvery little discomfort, and surroundedrnby her loved ones.” Thus spokernSir Paul McCartney, four days after therndeath of his wife, Linda, as rumorsrnswirled that Mrs. McCartney, sufferingrnfrom breast cancer, had ended her ownrnlife in an assisted suicide at age 56. Thernrumors were fueled by the McCartneyrnfamily’s misleading reporting of herrndeath. The family’s publicist, Geoff Baker,rnhad initially stated that she died whilernon vacation in Santa Barbara, California,rnbut news media in Tucson, Arizona,rnwhere the McCartneys owned a ranch,rnreported that she had died there. Tworndays after Sir Paul’s comments, Linda’srnphysician (who did not attend her death)rnconfirmed that she had died in Tucson,rnclaiming that her death was due to naturalrncauses as a result of breast cancer.rnWhether from lack of evidence or a rarernfit of decency, the media then droppedrnthe assisted suicide story. But on the Internetrnand among Beatles fans, the rumorsrnpersist.rnUnless her family decides to talk, we’llrnprobably never know the full circumstancesrnof Linda McCartney’s death.rnBut the rumors themselves —even ifrnthey’re not true —are interesting. Forrnmany years, Mrs. McCartney had devotedrnher energies to the “causes of vegetarianismrnand animal welfare,” or as we sayrnhere in the provinces, animal rights. SirrnPaul, in fact, proclaimed that “The tributernshe would have liked best would bernfor people to go vegetarian, which, withrnthe vast variety of foods available theserndays, is much easier than many peoplernthink. She got into the food business forrnone reason only, to save animals from therncruel treatment our society and traditionsrnforce upon them.” Linda was. SirrnPaul stated, “the kindest woman I havernever met; the most innocent. All animalsrnto her were like Disney characters andrnworthy of love and respect.”rnIs it possible that a woman who heldrnsuch respect for the lives of animals — includingrnMickey and Dumbo —wouldrnhold so little for her own? Possible, yes,rnand even probable, because the animalrnrights movement is based on a perversionrnof both nature and human nature, a perversionrnwhich elevates the relative worthrnof animal life and consequently denigratesrnhuman life. Consider the radicalrnimplications of Linda McCartney’s desirernto “save animals from the cruel treatmentrnour society and fraditions force uprnon them.” Clearly, fulfilling that desirernrequires remaking society and destroyingrnthose traditions. For the animal rightsrnmovement to succeed, the chief traditionrnthat must be destroyed is Christianity,rnfor its unequivocal support of man’srnstewardship over animals and its recognitionrnof a hierarchy in nature present arnstumbling block and a moral challengernto those who compare chicken farms tornAuschwitz.rnWhy, then, did one of the most radicalrnbranches of the animal rights movement.rnPeople for the Ethical Treatmentrnof Animals (which Linda McCartneyrnhad long supported, both morally andrnfinancially), recently institute a Christianrnbranch, complete with a websitern{www.iesus-online.com)? Is it possiblernthat animal rightists are finally recognizingrnthat Christianity presents a moralrnfoundation for the proper and humanerntreatment of animals? A quick visit to thernJesus Online website will dispel any suchrnillusions. As the site loads, a Renaissancernpainting of Christ appears in the middlernof the screen, above the words, “Jesusrnwas a Vegetarian.” The best way to underminerna tradition is from within, andrnthe strategic planners at PETA are loadedrnfor bear. Web surfers, looking forrnChristian websites, type “Jesus” into arnsearch engine, and up pops the PETArnsite. (On one popular search engine, Yahoo!,rnJesus Online was among the top tenrnsites listed for “Jesus.” Perhaps becausernof this, the site has proved very popular,rnlogging over 20,000 hits in a mere twornmonths).rnThe opening page of the website asks,rn”Did you know that.. .rn—Jesus was a vegetarian. ThernCospels were edited in the 4thrncentury, but Jesus’ vegetarianismrncan be discerned through extra-rnBiblical accounts and soundrnreason.rn—The last supper was vegetarian.rnIf Jesus had not been a vegetarian.rn44/CHRONICLESrnrnrn