Friday, April 8, 2011

A Proposal to Consider

Would animals in general be better off if no one could ever again be punished for inhumane treatment of an animal?

The term "humane" is definitely unconstitutionally vague and we have to face the fact that the politically active humane societies use "inhumane" the same way that people once used the "n" word or words like "faggot." They use it the way that people still use the word "pervert." It is a verbal club.

How many thousands of dogs, cats, lions, tigers, and so on must be killed or prevented from being born for the sake of this "humane" crusade? If you knew for a fact that a certain number of each species would be tortured to satisfy someone's sick sadism, would you think that it is better that the whole species dies out? I've seen words to that effect, animal rights activists saying that extinction is better than humiliation at the hands of humans.

Any book that accuses a segment of the population of being evil and sadistic attracts a like-minded following. Focusing their anger creates a certain pressure that gets people to believe that something "has to be done" no matter how stupid or destructive that something is, or how unnecessary it is.

I've said it a dozen times. What actually encourages humane treatment of animals? It is love. Love is the active principle of life. That is why people risk their lives to save the lives of animals. That is why we feed them and pay a lot of money for their medical care. Threats of punishment take a lot of the virtue out of the good things that we do for animals. Worse, they give the threateners undeserved credit.

If you try to threaten people to make them get in line, you become a threat to society and yourself. Overall only scientific progress and prosperity improve animal care. Laws that threaten people have too many takebacks. If they do provide some temporary benefits, the people who wanted those laws go around and steal what they feel like stealing. The stealing, the laws that ban breeds and species, and the limit laws actually reduce the number of paws on the ground, which reduces the number of animals that are being cared for humanely.

Maybe we can do better without any humane laws at all.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

"Irresponsible" Pet Owners of America

It's going to be a funny-looking acronym when it is shown this way: "I"POA.

This is something that is vitally needed. I sit before you as a person who has had every responsibility in his life thrown in his face or stuffed up his behind and then forcibly ripped from him before he could "get it." What does the term mean? The term "irresponsible" is a weapon that is used against others the way that the "n" word is used against black people. Black people took to calling each other that in normal conversation. When used by black people who are talking to black people, it means "brother" and "one who I have common cause with" and also "human being." When used by a white man against a black man it means some pretty degrading things.

Both "puppy mill" and "irresponsible" are routinely used as terms of degradation, terms of bigotry, terms that denigrate others. If "responsible" means that a person is a good person and "irresponsible" means that a person is a bad person who shouldn't own a "king", then the term is used to set one's self up as the judge of another. Calling myself an "I"POA person means that I am no one's judge.

Were I to try to be an animal owner I would have to fight terrorists who work under the color of law and people who will freely label me negatively if I fail to measure up to their allegedly high standards. I've been seeing the term "irresponsible" tossed around pretty freely lately. If it is because someone was irritated with me and wanted me to shut up, she has her wish, at least on her forum.

An "I"POA person has principles and one of those is "thou shalt not judge." Another is "thou shalt not steal." A "responsible" person seems to have to be responsible for someone else's actions. The same person will fight to the death of his person and his culture to get at those "irresponsible" people. Well excuse me all to hell. I'm not going to kill myself or my culture over someone's allegedly dirty pen.

People in this society have shown a willingness to bring down society entirely to get at the black people, the sex perverts, the drug users, and now, the allegedly irresponsible pet owners. It's always something isn't it? The pattern of attack is always suicidal. They're in it for the suicide, not to get at anyone else but themselves. When you go on the attack against a class of people, it's always an attack against yourself first. This is true directly because it's usually an attack against something that you hate about or within yourself. It is true indirectly because it gives opportunities for exploiters to come back and beat you up.

The only responsible pet owner is one who defends her own.

Wednesday, April 6, 2011

A Simple Concept

Tim Harrison has been caught lying. PETA and the HSUS have been caught lying. They perform their vocations or avocations in a manner that is threatening, dishonest, destructive, and sometimes illegal. They act as accusers, which may be the most important part of this.

The burden of proof is on the accuser. In any reasonable interpretation of legal tradition or social custom, the burden of proof is on the accuser. What has happened to our minds so that when someone pulls something out of his ass to accuse someone else of, the person who is accused has to prove his innocence? All that the accuser has to have is a slightly higher status than the person who he accuses, and a certain lack of good conscience. This is something that Carole Baskin can do with great ease, routinely, and that Zuzana Kokol couldn't do with a gun to her head and a million dollar bribe.

We have to understand that this kind of enemy is a liar. There is no "this time I'm telling the truth" with known liars such as PETA or the HSUS. It's all lies. When they make a business of lying they don't get to turn our heads with a new video or photograph or "evidence." We have to watch out for the way that every time they pull something out of thin air, people pay attention. And if it is a video where someone like them has total control of the subject matter and editing, don't believe a damn thing. If we keep believing them they will keep manipulating us. The stakes are a lot higher than whether someone might have a little too much shit in a lion's pen.

Some people might think I'm making too much of this but this is almost all of our meaningful defense. It is also how we will be able to keep from damaging each other or allowing damage. Right now it's real easy to get one owner to hate another. I've spent years cajoling one group of animal owners to get them to reach the understanding that we can't believe accusations that are being hurled at breeders by mortal enemies. I have also been looking for the understanding of the idea that we do not need to create weapons against other humans to force them to "straighten out" or whatever we want to call it. I am glad to see that at least one group is getting it.

I understand very well that when a group is under attack this kind of thing happens, and when it happens, the group fragments and we have problems. We have to solve these problems instead of hacking each other up using rules that are imposed on us by people who hate us and want us dead.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Believing the Word of Our Oppressors

Another good title for the book "Malleus Maleficarum" would be "The Book of Dirty Lies." It invents, in graphic color, lies that can be told about individual humans.

The French Aristrocracy called the common human the "proletariat" which means "syphilitic." "Original sin" means that we're all trash that can only be redeemed and made human by obeying our overlords.

A witchsmeller is nothing but a dishonest storyteller who can lay down any kind of fantastical story about your neighbors and make you believe it. Had Whitley Streiber's books gained a little more credibility the witchsmeller could get us to believe tales of being abducted by UFOs and being probed by small skinny aliens.. Uh...

Why do so many of us seem to swallow a story by PETA hook, line, and sinker? Think about it.

It is so hard to believe even what we see with our own eyes, and so hard to understand the import of that which we do believe, that we are seriously harming ourselves if we believe the word of anything that comes from the HSUS or PETA. We're screwing ourselves if we believe their videos. Dan Christensen saw them in action, staging videos in trucks that they brought to the scene. I suspect that it was dog shit that Tim Harrison was shoveling out of that trailer at Terry Brumfield's place.

The rite of due process means that the evidence doesn't exist unless it is proven to some degree of certainty. We are dealing with people who would pack a dog crate with manure, shove your dog in that manure face first, and take a picture. So where does the slightest chance of believing their words come from?

I know. It's a form of suicide. They throw so much garbage that some of it sticks and since it's mental garbage you might not know which garbage stuck and what it did to you. We're too generous. We give up too much to them when we should be treating them as if none of their evidence exists.


OK, so I haven't seen "Elephant in the Living Room" and I've only heard a little bit about it.

People have already told me that there is evidence in the film against the late Terry Brumfield, that apparently he didn't keep the lion's housing too clean.

Trouble is, I don't believe the word of people who are financed by the HSUS to produce a horrible screed against animal ownership. Belief goes out the window when I see certain names as producers and cast, and when they use their ultimate dishonest: They say that this is why private ownership should be banned.

So I had a tiff with someone about this evidence and I'm obviously wrong because obviously evidence is evidence or something, I haven't worked this out. Yet this someone seems to believe evidence from known liars, thieves, swindlers, and people who hate us and wants us dead. I've seen people who should know better believe everything that comes from PETA, too. As if a known jerk can't stage sweeping shit out of a trailer for a film production.

Whatever it is I might attempt to do for the sake of our freedom to own animals, this is a handicap. It's a hell of a block. (to me)Evidence from known liars with an agenda is not just suspect, it doesn't exist. (but)As long as I am part of a certain group, or more like a dangling chad and Internet troll, let's face it, I seem to have to accept any evidence that gives ammunition to the other side.

At least on Petlaw no one seems to be believing statements by abusive raiders.

It may be pissing in the wind, but it's my piss. Asking the world to live up to its own minimal standards is pissing in the wind, but there I be. I don't even mind tolerating a certain amount of dirt and shit as long as things are somewhere near being between the rails, and the animals are happy, well-fed, and comfortable. But if people can't quit hacking at each other, I don't want to screw with it. Maybe giving me a lot of money will make me feel better. Then I could afford a psychotherapist, some antidepressants, and a real bed to sleep in. But if I can't own a pet tiger without a bunch of strangers having to share the experience and "making sure" that I satisfy whatever dark desires they have, I'll buy them each a pet tiger for themselves if I get rich, and they can have mine, too. And maybe we can talk some time, but right now I'm sick of talking about animals.