Posts Tagged ‘Ferocity’

No Beasts, No Cry

May 1, 2016

The Kenyan government burned 100 tons of seized elephant ivory. Meanwhile in France, the environment minister outlawed the trade of any ivory object younger than 1947.

We hear from animal activists everywhere that animals should not be hurt anymore. Then they hop on a plane, and produce lots of biosphere killing CO2. How do we teach those fools that biocide is a greater crime than the suffering of a particular organism?

So let’s push the logic of the whiners to extremes. Say that, on January 1, 2017, the trade or exploitation of all and any animal part is forbidden. How much good would that do?

Africans, For Some Reason, Prefer To Enjoy Life Rather Than To Feed The Beasts. Because Villagers In Niger Were Gulped Down At An Unsustainable Rate, The Army, Well Trained By Hunting Jihadists, Was Called In.

Africans, For Some Reason, Prefer To Enjoy Life Rather Than To Feed The Beasts. Because Villagers In Niger Were Gulped Down At An Unsustainable Rate, The Army, Well Trained By Hunting Jihadists, Was Called In.

What will happen? OK, a few hundreds of millions of people would die relatively soon from malnutrition. But let’s neglect this inconvenient truth. Anti-speciesists tell us that humans are no more worthy than insects.

What would happen to the animals? Well, they would have no more economic utility. They would also present some inconvenience: forget swimming in rivers full of giant lampreys, crocodiles, or seas full of sharks and sea-going crocodiles.

Africans kill wild beasts, because wild beasts are dangerous. I have seen villagers kill venomous snakes. Even In India, land of the beasts, villagers can get tired, when a single leopard kills more than 200 people. Such attacks still happen. Elephants too can be dangerous. Videos are out there, where an elephant will attack and gore, and throw in the air, and then again and again, and finally tramples… a calf.

Still, right now, national parks are reasonably safe. I have come across large ferocious beasts in my life such as various bears (several of them threatening), lions, leopards, boars, etc. They all fled in the end, except for a charging cow which nearly got me, and a wild horse which kicked me (don’t ask).

But ferocious beasts dominate their natural ferocity and inclination to destruction, mostly because large ferocious animals are wise, clever, and completely aware of the power and cruelty of Homo. And were taught that way by their parents and fellow ferocious beasts.

If one removed that psychological factor, things would change. Ferocious beasts would start to see Homo as dinner, or an irritation.

Respecting other animals, and conceding the planet to them would make our lives very uncomfortable. Vegetarians from India may object. However, last I checked there were only a few thousands tigers there, and less than 300 (Indian) lions. 300,000 years ago, lions were the most frequent large animal (because they ate anything, from rabbits to elephants: the European and American lions were significantly larger than present African lions).

It has been suggested that Homo was prevented to penetrate the Americas, for millions of years, by Arctodus Simus, the Short Faced bear, a huge, nightmarish carnivore. Arctodus was extremely carnivorous, extremely fast (70 km/h). Only advanced weapons, 12,000 years ago, were able to master the beast… into extinction.

So are we willing to have ferocious animals around, just to look at them, and fear, and flee, for our lives, which, should we turn pacific, would become short and brutish?

I think not.

To preserve the animal kingdom, it has to manage, and even economically exploited. I am for the reintroduction of (genetically re-engineered) lions, rhinoceroses and mammoths in Europe, grizzlies in California, jaguars in Arizona (there is at least one, eating immigrants, probably). However, the animals will have to be managed. So they have to pay for their own maintenance.

One can persuade Africans to tolerate elephants, if they bring enough cash to tolerate all the problems they do, and will, cause.

On the coast of New England, in some places, thousands of seals bask in the sun. Sharks, great white sharks, will follow. Then what? Will the secret service swim around the president if he dared to stop golfing, and took a dip in the sea?

That animals had formidable rights, long neglected, was a music to the Nazis’ ears. It is actually hilariously terrifying to read the 1933 law on animal protection signed by Adolf Hitler, November 24, 1933.

That animals need more rights is fine. However anti-speciesism is a delicate concept: a mosquito is not as sentient as a parrot. Nor is a sheep as sentient as a wolf. (And certainly a Nazi should not be viewed as being as sentient as those children it is sending to the oven!)

The Nazis (deliberately) pursued their inhuman agenda by hiding it with their loud obsession for animal welfare. Some variants of present day anti-speciesism often embraces, or even go further, than the Nazis did.

I am, of course, a human supremacist. I entertain no illusion on the goodness of animals as somehow superior to that of Homo.

Once I was on narrow mountain path, on the very steep flank of a mile high mountain, in a French national park. There were sheep around. The sort that shepherds release for summer. Big, fluffy, white wholesome wooly live sheep skins. The largest of them all, it seems, a stupendously enormous beast was spying on me with its beady eyes on the path. I stopped, wondering what could such a stupid beast think about. We looked at each other, the super predator, and the . Finally the living comforter appeared to have taken a decision, and I marvelled at the fact it could take one. It aimed straight, and tried to push the super predator off trail. I did not quite fall.

Animals, in the wild, are very smart. Homo can outsmart them, but it takes some concentration. Animals, out there, eat and kill each other, for many reasons. Once I was in a Senegalese national park, on top of a cliff. In the broad river, below, 200 crocodiles were basking in the sun. An hyppotrague (an antelope like bovid, large, powerful and ferocious), to escape an enormous lioness, charged across the Gambia where it was narrow. The lioness followed: damn the crocodiles! Both prey and predator took a calculated risk, because they knew how to take decisions, in seconds, and fiercely. (Yes, I swam in that river.)

The call of the wild is not the call of madness. It is the call of the mind, embracing the universe.

All what the call of harming no animal brings, is the disappearance of species. Many species survived only because they were useful. Even cattle, if not used, tends to disappear: see the case of the formidable Aurochs, and present day Gaur.

If an industry of cutting systematically the horns of rhinoceroses, and selling them, for cash, had been set-up, long ago, no rhinoceros species would have disappeared. And no harm would have been made to the rhinos (they like humans to scratch their backs, if they have determined them to be friendly).

The extermination of species is a higher form of immorality than the persecution of individual animals. To see this, one has to go at the root of morality, which is sustainability: a behavior is moral, if it is sustainable. Biocide, killing the biosphere, is as unsustainable as it can get. Homo has evolved into, and with, and managed, the biosphere, for millions of years. To declare that we will not manage the animals anymore is a dereliction, not just of duty, but of evolution itself.

The day wool and leg of lamb will not be needed at all, sheep will disappear. Philosophers will not be charged by sheep in the wild anymore. Much mental stimulation will be lost.

If we want to honor and love the animals and their species, the wealth of the biosphere our species evolved in, we have to accept all they can offer to us. Yes, including ivory. Grow up.

No beasts, no cry. Yes, there is suffering, so what? The day crying will be lost, much soul will be gone.

Patrice Ayme’

To Preserve Civilization, Exterminate Fanaticism

June 28, 2015

Fanatic comes from the Roman “fanum”, the temple. Thus, a fanatic is one from the temple. I let fanatics comment on my site: it’s important to know how the minds of the deranged work. So one of those who thinks that they should fight for that weakling, god, claimed that: “… you said in your other articles you wanted to exterminate Muslims…”

I, of course, never said such a thing, be it only because this would be extremely against the law in many countries. This lie is an example of the old method of aggression known as “who wants to drown his dog accuses it of the rabies.”

I, of course, never said that I wanted to exterminate all Muslims, be it only because this would be extremely against the law in many countries. Saudi Arabia has decapitated people for much less than that. And Pakistan condemned individuals to death for just telling truths about the so-called “Prophet“. Moreover, I do not think such a thing: I had very close friends, and even teachers, who were Muslims, and so on. Somewhat observant Muslim friends watch over my little daughter (I don’t mind she can’t eat pork when they feed her…)

Thousands Of Mosques Are Among World’s Most Beautiful Art. Blue Mosque, Istanbul

Thousands Of Mosques Are Among World’s Most Beautiful Art. Blue Mosque, Istanbul

This is simpler than the distinction between “state” and “particle” which has confused physicists. Islam is a system of thought. (Or, rather: various versions of Islam are systems of thought.) “Muslims” are individuals, and millions of them believe in god roughly as much as I do, that is, not at all.

Wanting to exterminate literal interpretations of “Islam” is, not just allowed, but honorable: that is what “Christians” did to hard core “Christianism”.

When fanatics claim others profer rabidly hateful, unlawful statements, they are actually trying to motivate, and justify, their own rabid rage.

***

The problem with Islam is simple:

the Qur’an has around 83,000 words. However, in the following post, the author has isolated hundreds of verses of the Qur’an, for a total of around 10,000 words, calling for violent acts, many of them most gruesome:

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2009/06/22/some-violence-in-holy-quran/

I have quoted some of the verses in the Qur’an before, complete with all references, and the magazine “The Economist” then censored the posts, as it claimed they “violated guidelines“. That “The Economist” considers that the Qur’an ought to be censored, speaks volumes. Now “The Economist” pretends to have something to say on the subject: “First, Do No Harm” (it’s better than their old Politically Correct, insipid, anti-civilizational and despicable positions).

Similar calls to violence exists in the Bible, which inspired the Qur’an. However, around 400 CE, the so-called “Fathers of the Church” decided that such statements were allegorical, and metaphorical (still the question was debated for another 13 centuries, and many were burned alive, when the Church insisted that “scripture” had to be taken seriously!)

So what to do? Certainly shut down all religious establishments and preachers who do not present the material in the Qur’an as allegorical and metaphorical.

Tunisia took such measures today, closing scores of mosques where a literal interpretation of the Qur’an was made.

Another important point to be made is that it is the West itself, or more exactly its dark operators, all the way to the president of the USA in 1945, which encouraged violent, literal interpretations of the Qur’an, in the apparent hope of dividing Muslims, and manipulating them.

https://patriceayme.wordpress.com/2015/01/29/great-bitter-lake/

An example is that the CIA and its colleagues pushed, financed and armed Khomeini and his Shias to revolt against the Iranian Parliament in 1953. The bloody coup enabled to institute there Reza Pahlavi ‘s absolute and torturous monarchy. No wonder Khomeini viewed the USA as the “Great Satan”.

Hence, if the (supposedly secular) West stopped flattering Islam obsequiously (as Obama did) to just then bomb its strictest adherents (as Obama does), that would constitute a measure of progress.

Secularism is the religion of doing our best now, according to the science, technology, and understanding we have. It is millions of year old. It is the attitude which propelled human evolution. It is the natural religion of man.

Islamism, like Christianism and Judaism which inspired it, is a fascist religion. It is focused on the myth of a (quasi) omnipotent, jealous and furious god in the sky, who is a murdeorous maniac. According to the Bible, in the so-called “Ancient Testament”, god is furious against King David of Israel, because the latter refused to exterminate an entire people. God had told David to exterminate that People, and David refused. So what does “god” do? God tortures to death David’s son, for a week, just to punish King David.

With a god like that, who needs rabid dogs?

Of course that ideology, Abrahamism, justifies all and any fascist method: if the Great Leader orders you to kill your child, you must immediately obey, and all Muslims are supposed to celebrate Abraham’s abject and murderous superstition, every year.

Justifying fascism of the worst type is the bottom line of Abrahamism. Abrahamism is an embarrassingly primitive religion. Make no mistake: sometimes, it’s optimal. It’s thanks to that crazed ideology, perfect for making armies of fanatics, that, in a few years, Muhammad and his followers, were able to carve the world’s largest empire. Neither the Romans, nor the Persians, were ready for seeing the wounded being exterminated on the battlefield (Arab women did this, accompanying the initial 40,000 men Islamist army). Rome and Persia were caught by complete surprise by the ferocity of Arab Muslim warriors, and that allowed the latter to succeed.

So today’s ferocity is nothing new. When three massive Islamist invasions of Francia happened between 712 CE and 745 CE, the Franks reciprocated in kind: after the battle of Poitier (732 CE), they let all their slain enemies, thousands of Muslims, rot in the sun, refusing them burial.

Ferocity can only be defeated by a greater ferocity: just ask the Nazis. Earth is now a village, and it has no place for maniacal fascism. Ignoring this fact all too long, will only make the situation worse.

Two days ago, a solitary student walking on the beach with a sun umbrella, revealed his weapons, and proceeded to kill and wound 80 people in seven minutes. (Videos showed he had been trained by the Islamist State.) The next day, the Tunisian government closed down 80 mosques teaching literal Islam.

In the Eight Century, the Franks, who, by then, called themselves the “Europeans”, responding to the Islamist invasions, nationalized the Catholic church, and then forced all and any religious establishment to teach secular knowledge; thus the West rests on secular intervention by the government. And that does not mean to put ; nice to see Tunisia emulating that example.

Literal interpretations of Islam ought to be made unlawful. As the Christian ones already, de facto, are.

As simple as that.

Patrice Ayme’