It's intended to kill us. It's not just intended to end or tax the use of animals. It is intended to kill human society, to end the modern era, and to kill off a lot of humans.
The "Voluntary Human Extinction Movement" or "VeHeMent" is just one of several who do not have the grace to immediately kill themselves as they recommend that the human race commit suicide. To them I say that I want to live my life even at the expense of the planet. It only makes sense to continue what evolution has led up to, what the planet seems to have willingly given itself to creating, which is humanity.
PETA and the HSUS sell the mass extinction of humans and human-owned animals to its followers, even to the grandmothers who send them $25 a year. They've soft-peddled that lately because they know that a smoking gun can derail their entire program. They look on the surface as if they are succeeding more and more but the ice is getting thinner under them.
Somehow they have us thinking that it's "just" the meat industry. Ladies and gentlemen, our brains run on meat. It takes cholesterol to grow a brain. Even the historical vegetarians in India use milk because cholesterol is a necessity. It's also because the original "don't eat cows" edict was for the purpose of preserving the use of cows for food.
Maybe some of us have noticed that animal owners have trouble tolerating each other, even within a class. Any time in any social setting when someone brings up "issues" there is some kind of fight, anywhere from a low-key verbal conflict to fist-fights and shooting.
Tolerance is a matter of survival. Learn it or die. A mind can kill the body that it possesses by intolerance, by the "Oh my God I'm so allergic to cat dander" reaction that often means that the reactor is a passive-aggressive whiny controlling brat. At one time this was well-known, that allergies are often psycho-somatic and can be created or eliminated by psychological means. The same thing can happen to a human population and the way it works is much more clear. People start destroying each other, directly or by proxy, over any kind of issue. It's generally easier to see that the issue is irrational when we can see it from the outside. Someone might be killed in LA for wearing red and green to celebrate Christmas because those are a rival gang's colors. Isn't it also irrational to want someone dead because his sixteen-year-old dog died in an outdoor kennel? "But that's a legitimate issue"?
Don't "legitimate issues" seem to be far more important to people who can't understand the meaning of those issues and don't have the requisite brainpower to deal with those issues?
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Abhorring Violence
My philosophy may be hard to explain because there is an abhorrence of physical aggression that is also compounded with a fear of hitting back at a bully. A lot of us have experienced hitting a bully only to be pounced on by several other bullies. A lot more of us believe that's what's going to happen. In fact most of the time the bullies scatter and stay away when someone hits back.
It's good that the more human, more normal, "nicer" side of the animal rights controversy abhors violence. We are the mainstream of humanity. We are almost everyone. Almost everyone hates to be violent even in self-defense.
The abhorrence of violence can be taken too far. If you're not willing to wring the neck of the little cretin who set your house on fire, twice, that might be taking a reluctance to be violent too far. That's saying that your home and family are not worth fighting for. By default that supports people who hate you and who would murder your children.
This is not a difficult problem. It's not new, either. In some form or another there have always been sneaky little cowards who would sneak into people's homes and steal and break things. There have always been small groups of people in every town who would form little gangs and believe that they stole and vandalized for some kind of high moral purpose. The humane movement allows just one easy moral loophole. Nothing else like it exists. The same moral loophole that allows these gangs to terrorize medical researchers also allows them to steal your dog and sell it, to allow deer to starve to death instead of being cleanly culled, to raise the price of your food that you can barely afford to buy now, and to inflict a whole host of other miseries on the human race.
The recent BB gun assault against animal rights demonstrators may be deplorable. I don't waste sympathy on people who want a law that mandates spaying and neutering of all pets in the state of California. I have even less than no sympathy when I know that this same group is strongly connected with exploding cars in Los Angeles. The demonstration was a gang action by a terrorist group targeting a legal business. People need to cross that picket line and make a point of attending the targeted store and buying things and the owner of the store has a legitimate need for self defense if the picketing interferes with his legal business.
Nothing dispels intimidation like doing something that scatters a crowd of cowardly terrorists. I'm laughing at the whining of Judie Mancuso about being shot at with BBs. This really doesn't match up against someone's car exploding in his driveway, or someone's house on fire, or millions of dollars in research being destroyed by a bunch of little jerks who are no better than the neighborhood troublemakers who steal your DVD player and scatter flour all over your kitchen.
They do a few things that intimidate people from doing so much as contradicting them. They seem to form an impenetrable shield, but when this shield is broken they are so screwed. They're peeing their pants right now, afraid that real bullets are next. This puts us in a better position to deal with them politically because we wake up and realize that we are dealing with impotent cowards rather than a political juggernaut. They've lived by undermining society way too long. It's time to take it all away from them.
It's good that the more human, more normal, "nicer" side of the animal rights controversy abhors violence. We are the mainstream of humanity. We are almost everyone. Almost everyone hates to be violent even in self-defense.
The abhorrence of violence can be taken too far. If you're not willing to wring the neck of the little cretin who set your house on fire, twice, that might be taking a reluctance to be violent too far. That's saying that your home and family are not worth fighting for. By default that supports people who hate you and who would murder your children.
This is not a difficult problem. It's not new, either. In some form or another there have always been sneaky little cowards who would sneak into people's homes and steal and break things. There have always been small groups of people in every town who would form little gangs and believe that they stole and vandalized for some kind of high moral purpose. The humane movement allows just one easy moral loophole. Nothing else like it exists. The same moral loophole that allows these gangs to terrorize medical researchers also allows them to steal your dog and sell it, to allow deer to starve to death instead of being cleanly culled, to raise the price of your food that you can barely afford to buy now, and to inflict a whole host of other miseries on the human race.
The recent BB gun assault against animal rights demonstrators may be deplorable. I don't waste sympathy on people who want a law that mandates spaying and neutering of all pets in the state of California. I have even less than no sympathy when I know that this same group is strongly connected with exploding cars in Los Angeles. The demonstration was a gang action by a terrorist group targeting a legal business. People need to cross that picket line and make a point of attending the targeted store and buying things and the owner of the store has a legitimate need for self defense if the picketing interferes with his legal business.
Nothing dispels intimidation like doing something that scatters a crowd of cowardly terrorists. I'm laughing at the whining of Judie Mancuso about being shot at with BBs. This really doesn't match up against someone's car exploding in his driveway, or someone's house on fire, or millions of dollars in research being destroyed by a bunch of little jerks who are no better than the neighborhood troublemakers who steal your DVD player and scatter flour all over your kitchen.
They do a few things that intimidate people from doing so much as contradicting them. They seem to form an impenetrable shield, but when this shield is broken they are so screwed. They're peeing their pants right now, afraid that real bullets are next. This puts us in a better position to deal with them politically because we wake up and realize that we are dealing with impotent cowards rather than a political juggernaut. They've lived by undermining society way too long. It's time to take it all away from them.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Protecting Innocent Owners
What are human rights worth? We kill billions of animals in order to eat, and that is completely acceptable. I even applaud the practice. This way we feed other species first and we manage their populations so that there are large, healthy populations of pigs, goats, horses, cattle, sheep, chickens, and more. We even do this in a way that reduces the impact on wild animals. This is a good thing.
I don't believe that one set of rights is more important than another. You could argue that the right to keep and bear arms is important because it helps defend the rest of the list, and the right to free speech is like that too. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are being treated with contempt even though they are listed in the body of the Constitution as rights.
We are in a war and we have to understand what the animal rights activists want to compromise and how they plan to do it. They want to compromise our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the Bill of Rights is intended to spell out in a little more detail how the Constitution is to protect that.
Isn't it more important to protect the quality of life of the vast majority of humans who have committed no offense heinous enough to warrant the loss of life and limb, liberty, or property? The ability to use excessive force against anyone who is accused or suspected of animal abuse is being widely used against animal owners. Animal control has actually stunned older disabled people with a stungun. The Yellowstone County sheriff's department broke dogs trying to stuff them into carriers that they didn't fit into. There was nothing wrong with the dogs before the sheriff's department arrived. Some damn animal rights representative always seems to be able to wind these people up to do atrocities against citizens and that's exactly what they did to Germany.
The right to confiscate animals enables bad people to do bad things to good people and use animal cruelty as an excuse. The damage is done before the courts can decide if any abuse has been taken place and the same confiscations are used to psychologically damage the victims and coerce them into signing away their rights. The dogs are often killed or given away before the court date. It is actually possible for the animal rights activists to use this, as they plan, to get rid of all animal breeders without any of the breeders being convicted of a crime.
This is why confiscation of animals should be banned. No one, period, should be allowed to confiscate any animals. Confiscation destroys the innocent. Those who think that the rights of innocent humans are not worth this much, maybe you should just kill yourself. My right to keep my animals humanely and safe from inhumane shelters and rescues supersedes their right to "do something about animal abusers." They don't know how to go after the ones who need to be shut down while protecting the ones who are doing good for the animals, so they should have no power at all and no money.
I don't believe that one set of rights is more important than another. You could argue that the right to keep and bear arms is important because it helps defend the rest of the list, and the right to free speech is like that too. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are being treated with contempt even though they are listed in the body of the Constitution as rights.
We are in a war and we have to understand what the animal rights activists want to compromise and how they plan to do it. They want to compromise our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the Bill of Rights is intended to spell out in a little more detail how the Constitution is to protect that.
Isn't it more important to protect the quality of life of the vast majority of humans who have committed no offense heinous enough to warrant the loss of life and limb, liberty, or property? The ability to use excessive force against anyone who is accused or suspected of animal abuse is being widely used against animal owners. Animal control has actually stunned older disabled people with a stungun. The Yellowstone County sheriff's department broke dogs trying to stuff them into carriers that they didn't fit into. There was nothing wrong with the dogs before the sheriff's department arrived. Some damn animal rights representative always seems to be able to wind these people up to do atrocities against citizens and that's exactly what they did to Germany.
The right to confiscate animals enables bad people to do bad things to good people and use animal cruelty as an excuse. The damage is done before the courts can decide if any abuse has been taken place and the same confiscations are used to psychologically damage the victims and coerce them into signing away their rights. The dogs are often killed or given away before the court date. It is actually possible for the animal rights activists to use this, as they plan, to get rid of all animal breeders without any of the breeders being convicted of a crime.
This is why confiscation of animals should be banned. No one, period, should be allowed to confiscate any animals. Confiscation destroys the innocent. Those who think that the rights of innocent humans are not worth this much, maybe you should just kill yourself. My right to keep my animals humanely and safe from inhumane shelters and rescues supersedes their right to "do something about animal abusers." They don't know how to go after the ones who need to be shut down while protecting the ones who are doing good for the animals, so they should have no power at all and no money.
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Terrorist Attack Planned Against German-Owned Power Plant in England
No kidding. As I've been saying, give the environmentalists an inch and they'll take your food, your water, your fuel, and leave you shivering in the cold and starving.
These people will kill their fellow human, actively or by neglect, for the sake of a rat or an owl. They want laws against what other people do but do not want to obey laws. They will destroy animals alleging that those animals are tainted by human manipulation. If they successfully shut down a power plant they will have succeeded in committing a terrorist act, blatantly, and I would just as soon they die before they get in the door rather than have good men risk their lives trying to root these damned rodents out. So happy hunting, whoever is guarding the Ratcliffe plant. Let Ratcliffe be their Waterloo.
What do I have to say to the police and security forces who are guarding this power plant that is vital to the security and safety of the citizens of the human race? Shoot to kill. Load up the worst people-killer rounds that you have. They work on environmentalists also. If they want to make martyrs, draw a one hundred meter perimeter and drop them there. I would also be happy to see them bleeding on razor wire.Protesters target E.ON's Ratcliffe plant
Environmentalists campaigning against climate change said on Monday
they would attempt to shut down German utility E.ON’s power station at
Ratcliffe in central England in a mass action planned for October.
These people will kill their fellow human, actively or by neglect, for the sake of a rat or an owl. They want laws against what other people do but do not want to obey laws. They will destroy animals alleging that those animals are tainted by human manipulation. If they successfully shut down a power plant they will have succeeded in committing a terrorist act, blatantly, and I would just as soon they die before they get in the door rather than have good men risk their lives trying to root these damned rodents out. So happy hunting, whoever is guarding the Ratcliffe plant. Let Ratcliffe be their Waterloo.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
"Shoot to Kill"
I've said this about people whose children rob convenience stores using threats of violence or weapons: If you want your demon-spawn to come back alive, teach them how to behave in a civilized world. You expect civilized behavior of the clerk at the store when he deals with your children. You expect it of me when I deal with your children. Expect that of your children and you've got a shot.
My ride, that is, my car, is worth more to me than the life of some idiot who wants to steal it, break it, or burn it. That is because like so many people my age, and I am over 18, I don't have the time or the energy to walk as far as my job is. My house is worth even more, and if I have a home business, a farm, or a profitable kennel, that is also worth more than the lives of people who want to break it, burn it, or steal it. I advocate a shoot to kill mentality for home invaders, vandals, car thieves, and of course anyone who sets fire to anything that belongs to you. A fire should legally be considered a death threat and a deadly assault. Whosoever initiates an arson attack should be considered a dangerous person who should be shot to death on the spot.
There is a tremendous difference between violence that is used to coerce people who are minding their own business and violence that is used to defend what rightfully belongs to you on your own property. The first is wrong even when the law does it. The second is right.
Most puppy mill raids are illegal, period. If you can get the legal representation that will follow up on it, the city, or usually the county that conducted the raid is responsible for damages when they do them. It's difficult to impossible to get away with asserting your rights by using a gun, but insist enough and you can get something done legally. That's costly and I can understand people who simply run out of money, time, and energy.
A "shoot to kill" mentality in this arena means that one should be willing to go all out to gain a legal redress of grievances. Someone's going to have to build a law firm that is willing to predate against a county government and local humane societies. "Shoot to kill" means that your legal team goes after all assets belonging to whoever judgments are gained against, and you don't back down because they claim "it was for the animals" or "we won't be able to help the animals if you bankrupt us." You don't fall for the sociopath's "pity me" act either.
A particular humane society has such a horrible history of attacking owners for no good reason that its hundred-year-plus history should be brought to an end. Saving animals by destroying their homes and owners is the wrong way to do things. Profiting by illegal acts is wrong. They even take animals out of circumstances that they are comfortable with and place them in far worse circumstances. They should be treated as the criminals that they are. I won't name the one I'm thinking about largely because they aren't the only one. Don't pity them. They've had over a hundred years to learn how to take care of animals and if they don't understand how it works that's their problem.
Even a somewhat less than standard commercial breeder is better than most of these so-called humane societies and SPCAs and they do one thing that is positive: They breed. Above all a species needs to breed and propagate to survive. The pet trade is how humans assist in this vital function. I don't place the rights of animals above human rights but it is fitting that the pet trade works for the animals, perhaps better than it works for the humans involved. Humans are the one species that is often willing to live with the excrement of another species just to keep that other species alive. We also work our hearts out for them. Give us a lot of credit.
My ride, that is, my car, is worth more to me than the life of some idiot who wants to steal it, break it, or burn it. That is because like so many people my age, and I am over 18, I don't have the time or the energy to walk as far as my job is. My house is worth even more, and if I have a home business, a farm, or a profitable kennel, that is also worth more than the lives of people who want to break it, burn it, or steal it. I advocate a shoot to kill mentality for home invaders, vandals, car thieves, and of course anyone who sets fire to anything that belongs to you. A fire should legally be considered a death threat and a deadly assault. Whosoever initiates an arson attack should be considered a dangerous person who should be shot to death on the spot.
There is a tremendous difference between violence that is used to coerce people who are minding their own business and violence that is used to defend what rightfully belongs to you on your own property. The first is wrong even when the law does it. The second is right.
Most puppy mill raids are illegal, period. If you can get the legal representation that will follow up on it, the city, or usually the county that conducted the raid is responsible for damages when they do them. It's difficult to impossible to get away with asserting your rights by using a gun, but insist enough and you can get something done legally. That's costly and I can understand people who simply run out of money, time, and energy.
A "shoot to kill" mentality in this arena means that one should be willing to go all out to gain a legal redress of grievances. Someone's going to have to build a law firm that is willing to predate against a county government and local humane societies. "Shoot to kill" means that your legal team goes after all assets belonging to whoever judgments are gained against, and you don't back down because they claim "it was for the animals" or "we won't be able to help the animals if you bankrupt us." You don't fall for the sociopath's "pity me" act either.
A particular humane society has such a horrible history of attacking owners for no good reason that its hundred-year-plus history should be brought to an end. Saving animals by destroying their homes and owners is the wrong way to do things. Profiting by illegal acts is wrong. They even take animals out of circumstances that they are comfortable with and place them in far worse circumstances. They should be treated as the criminals that they are. I won't name the one I'm thinking about largely because they aren't the only one. Don't pity them. They've had over a hundred years to learn how to take care of animals and if they don't understand how it works that's their problem.
Even a somewhat less than standard commercial breeder is better than most of these so-called humane societies and SPCAs and they do one thing that is positive: They breed. Above all a species needs to breed and propagate to survive. The pet trade is how humans assist in this vital function. I don't place the rights of animals above human rights but it is fitting that the pet trade works for the animals, perhaps better than it works for the humans involved. Humans are the one species that is often willing to live with the excrement of another species just to keep that other species alive. We also work our hearts out for them. Give us a lot of credit.
Friday, July 31, 2009
Michael Vick or the HSUS?
I've said before that it's a step down for Michael Vick to consort with the HSUS. Let's look at some facts:
Michael Vick helped out his mother with a lot of money. The HSUS helps attack elderly women for breeding dogs, at all, and lies to get then in trouble. So does the SPCA.
The HSUS got more dogs killed at one time than Michael Vick is alleged to have killed, and in a way it's worse because it's colder, it was done for political purposes, and they are supposed to be the people who would know that it is unnecessary to do this to pups who haven't been fight-trained.
Michael Vick may have taken the blame for some of his friend's actions to get them out of trouble. The HSUS tries to get people in trouble for small things like dirty water dishes.
The HSUS has secretly killed thousands of dogs and hurts owners whenever it can. Michael Vick is only just now starting to do that.
Michael Vick helped out his mother with a lot of money. The HSUS helps attack elderly women for breeding dogs, at all, and lies to get then in trouble. So does the SPCA.
The HSUS got more dogs killed at one time than Michael Vick is alleged to have killed, and in a way it's worse because it's colder, it was done for political purposes, and they are supposed to be the people who would know that it is unnecessary to do this to pups who haven't been fight-trained.
Michael Vick may have taken the blame for some of his friend's actions to get them out of trouble. The HSUS tries to get people in trouble for small things like dirty water dishes.
The HSUS has secretly killed thousands of dogs and hurts owners whenever it can. Michael Vick is only just now starting to do that.
Sunday, July 26, 2009
They are NOT for Animal Rights
The party line is that animals have a right to live free of human interference. I'm not giving them the "free of human interference" part for several reasons. One is because if it is a moral principle, then moral principles come from the alleged minds of people who have anti-social personality disorder because their "reasoning" comes from a hatred of their own species.
The human species is the first species that has shown a desire or an ability to be less destructive to its own environment. This destruction is a normal product of use. Herbivores use the environment and if predation and disease didn't stop them they would eat all of the greenery and starve and die. Even the greenery would choke itself off and die if it didn't have the herbivores and fire to kill some of it off once in a while. An intelligent species can control this process with less waste, less disease, and can ensure the future of other species. One of the best things that we have done is transplant other species around the planet, thus increasing the geographical spread of unique genomes.
I can't say that a species has a right to what it needs as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Other life competes with and fights with each other. Humans have at least as much right as other animals to be a part of this. There are other examples of different species that cooperate with each other but humans are the one species that seems to be willing and able to work cooperatively with a very wide variety of non-human species. We are also the one species that is willing and able to work on behalf of that wide variety of species.
Were there such a thing as an animal rights activist, that activist would be for the most essential rights of an animal. These would be the right to exist and the right to propagate. They would be for legislation that forced humans to take in as many animals as possible, and considering how loosely connected to reality the "animal rights" activist is, "possible" takes on a whole new meaning. It's kind of a relief because I might find out that I only want one or two big cats, not the whole hoard that keeps getting thrust on big cat enthusiasts.
It's not just PETA killing animals or the HSUS with its killing vans and swindling judges into ordering the deaths of pitbull pups. It's a determined effort to stop private breeding and to get as many non-humans dead or under their control as they can. Preventing births looks a little like saving lives, but it works like euthanasia in advance. When one to three percent of the pet population ends up being killed as "overpopulation" then for every pet saved from that experience, at least thirty-three births have to be prevented. That's a dead loss. If we looked at it from a viewpoint that permitted joy, we would take pleasure in the fact that very few pets die that way.
PETA, the HSUS, and the growing cottage industry of swindlers, self-haters, and terrorists don't care about the animals. They just care about money and the pain that they can cause humans and animals.
The human species is the first species that has shown a desire or an ability to be less destructive to its own environment. This destruction is a normal product of use. Herbivores use the environment and if predation and disease didn't stop them they would eat all of the greenery and starve and die. Even the greenery would choke itself off and die if it didn't have the herbivores and fire to kill some of it off once in a while. An intelligent species can control this process with less waste, less disease, and can ensure the future of other species. One of the best things that we have done is transplant other species around the planet, thus increasing the geographical spread of unique genomes.
I can't say that a species has a right to what it needs as long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of others. Other life competes with and fights with each other. Humans have at least as much right as other animals to be a part of this. There are other examples of different species that cooperate with each other but humans are the one species that seems to be willing and able to work cooperatively with a very wide variety of non-human species. We are also the one species that is willing and able to work on behalf of that wide variety of species.
Were there such a thing as an animal rights activist, that activist would be for the most essential rights of an animal. These would be the right to exist and the right to propagate. They would be for legislation that forced humans to take in as many animals as possible, and considering how loosely connected to reality the "animal rights" activist is, "possible" takes on a whole new meaning. It's kind of a relief because I might find out that I only want one or two big cats, not the whole hoard that keeps getting thrust on big cat enthusiasts.
It's not just PETA killing animals or the HSUS with its killing vans and swindling judges into ordering the deaths of pitbull pups. It's a determined effort to stop private breeding and to get as many non-humans dead or under their control as they can. Preventing births looks a little like saving lives, but it works like euthanasia in advance. When one to three percent of the pet population ends up being killed as "overpopulation" then for every pet saved from that experience, at least thirty-three births have to be prevented. That's a dead loss. If we looked at it from a viewpoint that permitted joy, we would take pleasure in the fact that very few pets die that way.
PETA, the HSUS, and the growing cottage industry of swindlers, self-haters, and terrorists don't care about the animals. They just care about money and the pain that they can cause humans and animals.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
