The ARs don't afford them the same rights as humans. What they actually do is put up a set of ideas, like the "five freedoms" which don't hold up under scrutiny, at all, and falsely claim that those trump human rights. If your right to eat or conduct yourself as a human or your privacy rights conflict with a vague set of wrongheaded "animal rights" then theirs trump yours. It's entirely arbitrary and intentionally confusing. They often mislabel this as "animal welfare." That is part of their drive to co-opt and coerce.
The "Five Freedoms" are listed here: http://www.fawc.org.uk/freedoms.htm The words in bold are the original wording. The words in regular type are their qualifiers. Those qualifiers were a big mistake. When your enemy hands you poison and tells you to eat it, you don't put ketchup on it and try to eat it and smile. You shove it as far down his throat as you can, doing as much damage as you can, and you explain to him that his botulism sandwich is not fit to eat.
Something had to go missing for people to be able to swallow the wording of the Five Freedoms at all, and that was the recognition of positives intentionally phrased in the negative. There is a huge difference between "freedom from hunger and thirst" and "having enough good food and clean water." The qualifiers can be shed at any time and you are left with the original crap, which the Farm Animal Welfare Council was kind enough to set in bold print. An animal that is free from hunger, thirst, exposure to uncomfortable temperatures, emotional discomfort, or injury, is dead. By species it is extinct.
It is not too strong a statement to say that the people who foisted the Five Freedoms on the world belong under the jail for infamous crimes that include vandalism, arson, death threats against human beings, and the killings of innocent animals as part of the vandalism. Let them eat what I care to feed them and they will kiss up to me and beg for Burger King.
The "Five Freedoms" were deliberately, calculatedly, written such that only dead animals could fulfill the criteria. The FAWC would have been better off biting the bullet, or shooting it at the miscreants, than modifying their demands to make them seem palatable. When they give the extremists enough rope to hang US with, our animals are DEAD.
Real animal welfare would use positives. We feed and water the animals according to their needs. We comfort them and give them medical care when they are ailing or injured. We give them happiness when we can. It's a lot easier to do that for an animal than for a human. I'm going to dismiss entirely the "normal behavior" thing because it's bunkum and not worthy of trying to explain to an extremist. None of the credit goes to the extremists for "making" me do anything. They have caused the deaths of thousands, maybe millions of animals, the non-existence of many species individuals that the world is short of, such as tigers, lions, and cheetahs, and they are crazy sick hateful. I don't worry so much that abuse is "disgusting." I am concerned with the fact that I can create a place where animals are happy and healthy and I can give happiness and health.
Friday, December 23, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
Molly Ivins on how we hurt ourselves.
"When you make yourself less free, all that happens is that you are less free...you are not safe."
Molly Ivins video
Learn it. Know it.
When you make yourself less free I am not safe either. I am also just less free.
Molly Ivins video
Learn it. Know it.
When you make yourself less free I am not safe either. I am also just less free.
Friday, December 9, 2011
More rambling...
They're really working to ignore the benefits to society. Someone wants control of those benefits and like the thieves that they are they want to get us to devalue them so that we will sell them at fire-sale prices. Even better for them, like the robber barons, if they can get us to pay them to haul them off, they will. Balderson is no better than the rest.
In many ways it would have been better for me to actually take advantage. I think I permanently put myself outside of a group that would have let me have what I desired as long as I was willing to bend over and RAPE the rest of the world. There I'd be trickling down on people because someone told me that I had to if I wanted the kind of life that I want. I feel like if I did that something would go badly wrong with my brain and I wouldn't be able to do useful work with it anymore. Which might explain a lot.
Am I abnormal because I want something less if someone else has it and doesn't want me to have it? Because I'm only willing to pay a fair price? Because I think if I rob someone I have already paid a price far in excess of the worth of whatever I took?
In many ways it would have been better for me to actually take advantage. I think I permanently put myself outside of a group that would have let me have what I desired as long as I was willing to bend over and RAPE the rest of the world. There I'd be trickling down on people because someone told me that I had to if I wanted the kind of life that I want. I feel like if I did that something would go badly wrong with my brain and I wouldn't be able to do useful work with it anymore. Which might explain a lot.
Am I abnormal because I want something less if someone else has it and doesn't want me to have it? Because I'm only willing to pay a fair price? Because I think if I rob someone I have already paid a price far in excess of the worth of whatever I took?
Just rambling I guess
I'm not going to name one particular name but she is an obvious drugged-out prostitute whose job title is a cover for selling illicit sex and drugs to whomever has the money, and she must have made a killing driving her van around servicing workers during hurricane clean-ups, until she learned that there were people who would pay her to viciously attack Michael Sandlin. Who would they be able to use but a lowlife who's about half smart?
And then we wind up being forced to dwell upon their crap. There are a lot of decent people here who, because of their decency, can't even adequately express contempt and anger when we need to. We don't know how to say "get lost" or the more popular versions of that phrase. We don't know how to use words as weapons. Our role is "straight" versus whatever they are, I guess some kind of freak or pod people or something. In all good faith some of us "went after" certain social deviants because we had to, but as soon as we did that we found ourselves more under the control of some of them than we would have been if we tried to be them.
A book that is not even yet in the works, proposed just this day by me, belongs in the potential futures of the next few months or couple of years. It might be titled "Circle of Power." It would be about all this.
I idealize contact with tigers and other big cats for reasons that I see to be as certain as some of the laws of physics. The ones who you see who own the animals who are neurotic and who attack others are the ones who "contain" them without human contact. Neurotics want everyone to be as neurotic as they are. They don't feel "safe" even though if they thought about it, the neurosis is more dangerous to them than the external dangers that they fear. Neurosis can be forced on people.
Having no defenses, being unable to self-promote, being unable to turn on one's own lights, these disabilities do not make us good people. If you read the book that hasn't been written yet, it would be easier to understand that our normal defenses and capabilities drive out corruption. Just a very few positives in any person's day drive out evil spirits, the ones that we manufacture by brooding over our hurts. Good friends, a warm cat, a good book, television, a good meal, those are positives.
The neurotic mindset sees our animals as dangerous because they help relieve neurosis and self-destructive behaviors. Ironically and not coincidentally, the people who want our animals away from us see the ones of us who need the animals the most as least suited to have them. Lord I know that there are problems with allowing unlimited access for those who need contact the most but cutting off contact is depriving humans of needed therapy. The hideous people who pretend to love animals have already attempted to deprive us of needed food. Most of us do eat animal products. I consider animal contact to be a necessity, like food, and people shouldn't be forced to consume or use what someone cares to allow them. Those who would restrain us should be kicked to the curb.
And then we wind up being forced to dwell upon their crap. There are a lot of decent people here who, because of their decency, can't even adequately express contempt and anger when we need to. We don't know how to say "get lost" or the more popular versions of that phrase. We don't know how to use words as weapons. Our role is "straight" versus whatever they are, I guess some kind of freak or pod people or something. In all good faith some of us "went after" certain social deviants because we had to, but as soon as we did that we found ourselves more under the control of some of them than we would have been if we tried to be them.
A book that is not even yet in the works, proposed just this day by me, belongs in the potential futures of the next few months or couple of years. It might be titled "Circle of Power." It would be about all this.
I idealize contact with tigers and other big cats for reasons that I see to be as certain as some of the laws of physics. The ones who you see who own the animals who are neurotic and who attack others are the ones who "contain" them without human contact. Neurotics want everyone to be as neurotic as they are. They don't feel "safe" even though if they thought about it, the neurosis is more dangerous to them than the external dangers that they fear. Neurosis can be forced on people.
Having no defenses, being unable to self-promote, being unable to turn on one's own lights, these disabilities do not make us good people. If you read the book that hasn't been written yet, it would be easier to understand that our normal defenses and capabilities drive out corruption. Just a very few positives in any person's day drive out evil spirits, the ones that we manufacture by brooding over our hurts. Good friends, a warm cat, a good book, television, a good meal, those are positives.
The neurotic mindset sees our animals as dangerous because they help relieve neurosis and self-destructive behaviors. Ironically and not coincidentally, the people who want our animals away from us see the ones of us who need the animals the most as least suited to have them. Lord I know that there are problems with allowing unlimited access for those who need contact the most but cutting off contact is depriving humans of needed therapy. The hideous people who pretend to love animals have already attempted to deprive us of needed food. Most of us do eat animal products. I consider animal contact to be a necessity, like food, and people shouldn't be forced to consume or use what someone cares to allow them. Those who would restrain us should be kicked to the curb.
Saturday, November 26, 2011
They see virtue as dangerous
In my carefully considered opinion when IFAW granted money to WAO, they wanted the Asvestases to work with them against private owners. I am suspicious that Jack Hanna and someone who we are still pretty sure is on our side have both been given "silver or lead" ultimatums, either work for them and be paid or die. I can see it in the expressions on their faces The Asvestases were already darkside. Their affects never change. If you catch that utterly fear-struck, blood-drained, "my whole world is collapsing around me" look of Jack Hanna's and you see it on someone else who has been in the news, you just know. I'll give Hanna this much credit. He knows that he's going against his better self and he can't keep the fact from showing on his face.
Weak attempts at preservation are worse than no attempts at all. Any controlling agency can suck the virtue out of a project along with the money and virtue can be bought and traded. Eric Blair, more commonly known by his pen name "George Orwell" wrote about a Ministry of Love that did exactly the opposite of its name, and conservation organizations make far more money with weak and failing attempts and policies than they would by succeeding or allowing success.
It's no surprise if someone finds an agency that they think is decent and then they want a piece of it. I can name the virtues of the big cats half a dozen different ways. Among the ways that I can name it, I could say "essence of common decency." It's real. You could call it "virtue" also. This is something that a man or a woman will strive to have a little bit of to the exclusion of every primary drive that I can name. All but the most addicted to gambling or drugs can replace them with that essence. Those who can't want to.
Having us by our sensitive parts is passe. This is something that people who have a clue about would rip their own sensitive parts off to have. It is not materially different from the love that a mother and an infant have for each other. If this is ripped out of a person everyone knows it, too.
The virtue that I am talking about is the only thing that people like John Kasich see as dangerous. They use the term "danger" as their private code word. We think that "danger" means something entirely different and we act accordingly when they tell us to get rid of or regulate "dangerous" animals. Then they laugh up their sleeves at us. With six ODNR people on the panel and Kasich egging them on we are dealing with bullies, a collection of the usual pathological jerks and cretins. Who else would twist the head off someone's pet owl in front of him?
I could of course write a longer essay and even a book on this one subject. The term "virtue" covers a lot of territory. It is the basis of competence in all areas of life. It can't be forced into a person and attempts to do so take it out of individuals and groups. Having it gives you immunity to parasite, which is why parasites see it as dangerous.
Weak attempts at preservation are worse than no attempts at all. Any controlling agency can suck the virtue out of a project along with the money and virtue can be bought and traded. Eric Blair, more commonly known by his pen name "George Orwell" wrote about a Ministry of Love that did exactly the opposite of its name, and conservation organizations make far more money with weak and failing attempts and policies than they would by succeeding or allowing success.
It's no surprise if someone finds an agency that they think is decent and then they want a piece of it. I can name the virtues of the big cats half a dozen different ways. Among the ways that I can name it, I could say "essence of common decency." It's real. You could call it "virtue" also. This is something that a man or a woman will strive to have a little bit of to the exclusion of every primary drive that I can name. All but the most addicted to gambling or drugs can replace them with that essence. Those who can't want to.
Having us by our sensitive parts is passe. This is something that people who have a clue about would rip their own sensitive parts off to have. It is not materially different from the love that a mother and an infant have for each other. If this is ripped out of a person everyone knows it, too.
The virtue that I am talking about is the only thing that people like John Kasich see as dangerous. They use the term "danger" as their private code word. We think that "danger" means something entirely different and we act accordingly when they tell us to get rid of or regulate "dangerous" animals. Then they laugh up their sleeves at us. With six ODNR people on the panel and Kasich egging them on we are dealing with bullies, a collection of the usual pathological jerks and cretins. Who else would twist the head off someone's pet owl in front of him?
I could of course write a longer essay and even a book on this one subject. The term "virtue" covers a lot of territory. It is the basis of competence in all areas of life. It can't be forced into a person and attempts to do so take it out of individuals and groups. Having it gives you immunity to parasite, which is why parasites see it as dangerous.
Friday, November 4, 2011
Vote "NO" on the Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act?
Before I vote "no" on the Traveling Exotic Animal Protection Act, I want to see at least three very specific people, Who Know Who They Are, vote "no" on licensing requirements for private owners of exotics.
Friday, October 21, 2011
What did Governor Kasich do?
He handed the state of Ohio over to the HSUS on a silver platter. His executive order will encourage every two-bit "humane society" in the state to go into people's homes and confiscate animals. This has been building for years, to every one of those organizations already has a list of targets. I watched the video. Kasich's part had been prepared, with the help of the fraudulent charity that sponsors domestic terrorism, for months now. So had Terry Thompson's spectacle.
Sheriff Matthew Lutz labeled it suicide before the coroner had looked at the body. While the coroner did indeed rule that it was suicide, it looks like he was killed with a 30-30. A 30-30 is a long rifle and if you even can pull the trigger while it is under your chin, no one has arms long enough when it's pointed at the stomach. The rest looks like an animal rights group attack, with locks cut off and fences cut, and of course for some reason Lutz, who has been hovering over this situation for years, had to claim that Thompson did this to himself.
As I have learned the hard way, the Feline Conservation Federation has decided that their policy would be that Terry Thompson did it to himself, and that it is incorrigible and otherwise speculative and vexatious to get on their Facebook page and claim that the animal rights people did it. Someone is having trouble remembering who is famous for cutting locks and fences. The idea that this man committed suicide and did all this insults the intelligence. Malicious releases of animals is a trademark of the Animal Liberation Front but I'll bet a dollar that they don't claim this one. Or do you all think that the ALF absolutely has to spray-paint its logo on something everywhere that they go?
Were this an animal rights assault it would look foolish for Governor Kasich of Ohio to push for a mass punishment of all exotic animal owners in Ohio, which is what his executive order amounts to. Allowing the employees of every two-bit humane society in Ohio to kick people's doors down will be punishing for thousands of owners. One can hope that the news will come out that it was an AR attack and then Kasich will have to resign in embarrassment. I have no sympathy for him. This is a horrible thing to choose to do, to mistreat every exotic animal owner in a state at once using a very exceptional incident as an excuse, even if it was a real incident.
There will be more to come on this. Joe Schreibvogel of GW Exotics in Wynnewood Oklahoma tried to help and Sheriff Lutz prevented him from doing so.
Sheriff Matthew Lutz labeled it suicide before the coroner had looked at the body. While the coroner did indeed rule that it was suicide, it looks like he was killed with a 30-30. A 30-30 is a long rifle and if you even can pull the trigger while it is under your chin, no one has arms long enough when it's pointed at the stomach. The rest looks like an animal rights group attack, with locks cut off and fences cut, and of course for some reason Lutz, who has been hovering over this situation for years, had to claim that Thompson did this to himself.
As I have learned the hard way, the Feline Conservation Federation has decided that their policy would be that Terry Thompson did it to himself, and that it is incorrigible and otherwise speculative and vexatious to get on their Facebook page and claim that the animal rights people did it. Someone is having trouble remembering who is famous for cutting locks and fences. The idea that this man committed suicide and did all this insults the intelligence. Malicious releases of animals is a trademark of the Animal Liberation Front but I'll bet a dollar that they don't claim this one. Or do you all think that the ALF absolutely has to spray-paint its logo on something everywhere that they go?
Were this an animal rights assault it would look foolish for Governor Kasich of Ohio to push for a mass punishment of all exotic animal owners in Ohio, which is what his executive order amounts to. Allowing the employees of every two-bit humane society in Ohio to kick people's doors down will be punishing for thousands of owners. One can hope that the news will come out that it was an AR attack and then Kasich will have to resign in embarrassment. I have no sympathy for him. This is a horrible thing to choose to do, to mistreat every exotic animal owner in a state at once using a very exceptional incident as an excuse, even if it was a real incident.
There will be more to come on this. Joe Schreibvogel of GW Exotics in Wynnewood Oklahoma tried to help and Sheriff Lutz prevented him from doing so.
Saturday, May 7, 2011
What Kind of Realities Can We Face?
I would think that it would be a coward's motto. "I can't face this", "I can't face that" and "I couldn't live with myself if..." How many people remember when such phrasing would have earned you contempt from most listeners? How many of us remember when they started shoving that very thing down our throats and treated us with malice and if possible destruction if we balked at it? Moral and physical courage seem to have fallen into disuse and even contempt.
People have to face things. On what basis do we keep nursing our mental injuries? When I had to handle my first dead person as part of a job as a nurse, I simply faced it and did as I was instructed. Then when I learned what I was supposed to do, I washed them according to protocol and that was that. It was upsetting and frightening at first. I faced that. I went in knowing that it would be a problem and I faced it. I took the pain. I lived with it.
Cowboys don't turn away from their jobs when they see a friend being killed by a wild horse or a bull. They don't try to lock everything away and revamp all their systems and rules every time someone dies. It would make them crazy and paralyze them if they did. Deaths on the job and at the rodeo are a part of the life. The people who say they want to make us "safe" want us to be paralyzed cowards who can't do anything to help themselves. They also want us to do nothing but what they tell us to do.
Animal rights activists even have a book that says kill yourself if you can't face life. I would rather say pucker up and face it. Don't let the naysayers intimidate you, don't let me intimidate you or play you, don't let someone tell you that you are an idiot if you face it, be proud of being who you are and what you do, and live in that strength. You're not encouraging people to take insane risks. You are encouraging them to live. That's what I want to tell the world. Even a few years of actually living are worth more than enough to compensate for dying in a horrible accident. I'll even bid three months, or if it's really good, a single day.
You have to take risks to live.
People have to face things. On what basis do we keep nursing our mental injuries? When I had to handle my first dead person as part of a job as a nurse, I simply faced it and did as I was instructed. Then when I learned what I was supposed to do, I washed them according to protocol and that was that. It was upsetting and frightening at first. I faced that. I went in knowing that it would be a problem and I faced it. I took the pain. I lived with it.
Cowboys don't turn away from their jobs when they see a friend being killed by a wild horse or a bull. They don't try to lock everything away and revamp all their systems and rules every time someone dies. It would make them crazy and paralyze them if they did. Deaths on the job and at the rodeo are a part of the life. The people who say they want to make us "safe" want us to be paralyzed cowards who can't do anything to help themselves. They also want us to do nothing but what they tell us to do.
Animal rights activists even have a book that says kill yourself if you can't face life. I would rather say pucker up and face it. Don't let the naysayers intimidate you, don't let me intimidate you or play you, don't let someone tell you that you are an idiot if you face it, be proud of being who you are and what you do, and live in that strength. You're not encouraging people to take insane risks. You are encouraging them to live. That's what I want to tell the world. Even a few years of actually living are worth more than enough to compensate for dying in a horrible accident. I'll even bid three months, or if it's really good, a single day.
You have to take risks to live.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Evidence
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.
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.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Fences
They're not trying to get us to build fences high enough to contain our tigers. They're trying to make us build fences high enough and strong enough to keep them from taking our tigers. Since there is no such thing we find ourselves with a compulsive-obsessive disorder, driving ourselves to exhaustion trying to cover our backsides while failing to face them down.
The unlawful, the unruly, the people who talk out of both sides of their mouths and screw around, they have a big advantage in this field. It seems like a drug-addled idiot can get a free pass out of the people who are grabbing our cats if he just kisses their asses and helps them screw everyone else over.
(edit) Funny thing is at the same time the gun grabbers are finally failing the cat grabbers are rising to power. They even use rhetoric like "a big cat is like a loaded gun." Possession of a gun is an absolute right guaranteed under Constitutional law, so that is where we should be but of course "they really don't mean it that way."
The unlawful, the unruly, the people who talk out of both sides of their mouths and screw around, they have a big advantage in this field. It seems like a drug-addled idiot can get a free pass out of the people who are grabbing our cats if he just kisses their asses and helps them screw everyone else over.
(edit) Funny thing is at the same time the gun grabbers are finally failing the cat grabbers are rising to power. They even use rhetoric like "a big cat is like a loaded gun." Possession of a gun is an absolute right guaranteed under Constitutional law, so that is where we should be but of course "they really don't mean it that way."
Saturday, January 22, 2011
Giving up domain name
I'm sorry to be doing this on short notice but I honestly thought that I was going to be able to pay for my domain name until today. From now on the URL is realanimalculture.blogspot.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
