Sunday, January 1, 2012

On Pets (for Jim)

Jim writes that he does not control his pet cat, and that his Obama-support, alongside pet-caring, is a good thing.

Addressing now Jim: You exercise total control over whether or not the cat will go in or out; whether it will eat or drink; what rooms it shall be allowed into and what it shall be allowed to play with.  It is not rare, but exceedingly common, for first-world people to utilize pets as child substitutes, either before a couple is ready for children, before a lonely individual has had them, or after they've left the house. Our lack of interconnectedness as humans causes many to turn to the use of domesticated ("safe" and unnatural) animals as an outlet for their emotional needs. Massive funding to the Humane Society and its various imitators, in the face of homeless, hungry human children, is just one of the indications of this disease.

Remember also that the entire underclass of domesticated animals is a result of a system of eugenics practiced for centuries in order to produce docile entities which would be forced to rely on humans for food, cheaper and less rebellious than human children, and with few, if any enforceable, established social rights.  Your sweet care for the feline may be genuine; southern white slavemasters prior to the American Civil War argued for their own empathy and goodness for how they treated their darkies.

In some cases, they were right.  Many of them had good human relationships with their "slaves," and were able to use their status as white landholders to make life a little better for black friends amidst a terrible social system.  They might even have bought a slave away from someone else, or raised an unwanted child in servitude, in order to protect it from the exposure of the world.

That did not change the awfulness of the system of slavery.  Nor does it alter the utter horror of the creation of a subclass of sterilized, specially-bred affection beasts made to validate the emotional needs of their owners.  It is no surprise that, in the Pax Americana, the American bombers and slayers lavish love and wealth upon their companion animals while butchering foreign human beings, foreign domestic animals, foreign wild animals, and innumerable future possibilities.

Stop validating the killing and starving of people (and animals, lest we forget!  There are puppies and kitties in Irakhistan, too!), and then come forth to claim that your caring for the animal(s) is proof of a higher moral quality.

White people just love their dogs.  Extrapolate to any pet you wish.

Happy New Year.  More later.


  1. High (Low) Arka --

    I figured I would respond to you on your Blog so as not to clutter up Wolff's Blog with our conversation. I will say that you make some interesting points, but I can't help thinking that you are somehow "off". You note that I wrote that pet caring, alongside my Obama support, is a good thing. If you re-read my post, you will realize that I said nothing about support for Obama. Why assume that? My post had nothing to do with Obama. Also, to reiterate, I don't control my cat. She comes and goes out the backdoor as she pleases. When she is in the house, she is allowed to enter every room unhindered. True, I do not allow her access to everything in my refridgerator, but I don't think I would grant that access to a human friend either. I guess I fail to grasp why you take issue with the fact that someone cares for an animal -- particularly if that someone cares for humans on the same level. It really has nothing to do with paternalism -- or slavery for that matter.

  2. If your only structural relationship to the cat is allowing it inside your house and offering food and companionship, that (assuming there are no forcible surgeries involved) would be a positive thing.

    (Unfortunately, even if that's the case, it occurs within the context of all of the "pet" things discussed above, but if you're one of the rare ones who is not using the pet as a doll, and it doesn't occur in the context of supporting imperialism, bless your friend and your relationship.)

    Working on the underground railroad could have been done for good motives (helping people escape and/or minimize evil), or it could have been done for bad motives (look how rebellious I am against those ignorant southerners! i.e., see "The Help."). If you're on the pet railroad, and there for the right reasons, don't forget about the only way that poor domesticated creature came to exist as a plaything for the members of the dominant-est, destructive-ist species. Even buying a slave and setting it free supports the system, by maintaining the idea of a "price" for something that is "owned."

    Which isn't to say that buying any one, or any many, individual slaves and setting them free or helping them out is wrong.

    In the case of the Professor, the animal companionship occurs in the context of simultaneously destroying the better part of the world, for both humans and animals. In that case, no matter how sweetly one pats the cat, the morbid undertone permeates like so many wet corpses in the basement. Given the sycophants traditionally fluttering 'round the Prof., if this one wrongfully slapped you with a similar set of tendencies, you have this one's utmost apologies. This one doesn't enjoy being labeled an Obama zealot when arguing with Republicans.

  3. High Arka --

    I think I see what you are getting at but, I will say, you write in a vague way at times.

    With that in mind, I would like you to explain how Professor Wolff's "animal companionship occurs in the context of simultaneously destroying the better part of the world, for both humans and animals." Remember that he found the cat in a tree in his yard and the cat decided to stay (I know, I know; you may take issue with the term "decided"). Keep in mind that my experience with strays has demonstrated that they will stick around or leave irregardless of access to food or shelter. When a cat decides that he or she "wants" to stay, then I believe that he or she really does want to do that. I truly think that it is disingenuous to assume that Professor Wolff's relation with the cat that stayed behind is "destroying the better part of the world". I mean, really.

    Any thoughts?

    -- Jim

  4. Many apologies for the delay; this one hasn't yet figured out how to be notified by e-mail when something updates.

    In the case of Dr. Wolff, he is one who goes out of his way to support the candidates offered by the DLC, the oldest and deadliest political machine on the planet. The Democratic Party is responsible for African-America slavery, the Filipino genocide, America's entry into World War 1 and 2, the dropping of the atomic bomb, the Vietnam War, the Iraq genocide, and most recently, everything Obama has done. The horrors committed by this awful "party" (and its associated murderous elites) are as innumerable as they are terrible.

    Why does this mean anything in relation to Wolff's cat? Well, if you see someone warmly caring for a sick child, it's a good thing. However, if you know that the person is a serial child murderer, it's a very eerie sight to see them being so sweet to a different child.

    This isn't to say that Wolff is more (or less) evil than the psychopath in the example. However, eerie caring, in tandem with brutal disregard, reveals a more complex problem even than a simple murderer who isn't nice to anyone. Discovering the nature of how Wolff--or any other "Eichmann" one might care to identify--can be a decent person in some aspects of life, while committing horrors in another, would be a valuable insight into how to begin healing this species.

    If the confusion here is simply a failure to fathom the full extent of the horrors committed by the "Democratic Party," "Obama," "Wolff," or just "America," this one is available to discuss them.

    Your thoughts?