Friday, August 24, 2012

The subject.

This blog is not about dogs, this blog is about dogcravers and the cult of the dog. Dogcravers are the primary problem, since they are the main reason why the cult of the dog was established,why it is getting stronger and why it has become the threat for every society where it is allowed to exist. They are the root of the problem, they are the reason why the interaction between humans and dogs has reached such an abysmal level of absurdity, threatening to demean the very core of human society.
For me, dog is not an animal. Dog is natural as much as butter is a natural product. The milk,out of which the butter is made, is natural, it comes out of the cow's breast and it is synthesised by the cow's metabolism, but the butter as it is, is an artificial product, made by humans. Thus, wolf and the coyote are animals while dogs, trough selective breeding or genetic engineering are artificial and unnatural creatures. You will never find in the nature packs of wild dobermans, pit bulls or French puddles that exist as indigenous form of life,not in the past or in the future. There are no fossils of prehistoric sabre toothed chihuahuas. However, what you will find are the evidences of domestication of wolves and later on, skeletons of various breeds next to their respective owners. So to wrap this up, dog is a tool, the biological tool, a “Biot” or biological robot, created out of natural ingredients and molded to serve a specific purpose. That is why the breeds of dogs similar to metal alloys that are created to fulfil the specific purpose, so the creation of specific breed is justified by the task that that breed needs to fulfil. Like that, we have working dogs,sheep heard dogs, war dogs, hunting dogs etc. The link, purpose-design, in this case the breed of the dog, was the main reason for the dog presence in the human society. However, as the human society developed, the need for dogs as tools diminished, as they got replaced with the machines and systems. But the dog legacy in the human history lead to the creation of a new role for a dog and that role was a role of pet animal or a pet-dog. And that is the exact moment when the problems accrued.

The basic problem is a simple one. Since breeds were made to fulfil specific tasks, the moment when the need for those tasks ceased, that meant that the reason for that breed's existence ceased also. That created the surplus of actually obsolete and useless tools, but thanks to the legacy, they were kept and were given a new role. However, the basic purpose of those tools remained and it couldn't be erased so from that moment the original purpose of the breed will always be in conflict with the new one. Having a retrieving or hunting dog as a pet, for an example, would mean that it,by design, needs enormous amount of physical activity, but if the owner's living space or life style doesn't allow that, the dog's need for physical activity suffers which leads to behavioural changes (making the dog more aggressive and destructive) and thus problems accrue.
Actually,at the end it is a form of abuse.

But again, it is not the tool's fault cause it is misused. It is the dogcravers fault for misusing the tool.
So one way or another, it all ends up with the dogcravers and that is why they are the primary subject for this analysis.


  1. can you please define "dogcraver"? are you referring to all dog owners? or only those who suffer from some kind of psychopathology?

    1. The dog owner is consisted out of the man (the owner) and the dog. Man Owns the Dog. The dogcraver however is a man that craves a dog. In this case it would be Man Craves A Dog. Not all dog owners are dogcravers but all dogcravers are dog owners. The difference is between the Dog and a dog.
      For a dogcraver the dog is physical extension of its psyche, it is an image and not the real animal that exists as a separate independent entity, yet it is integral part of the owner. Thus they are symbiotic organism, that I call the dogcraver. If you can let your imagination free, you can picture them vividly as a man that can transform himself into a dog and back also it can transform any part of his body to a dog part and vice versa. The dog owner cannot do that, cause it knows where he begins and where he ends,which automatically means that he knows where dog starts and where dog ends. They are both defined as separate entities and they have link that bounds them. The dogcravers don't have the link cause they are one.

      The line is very thin and I am still doing my research on this, but from what I've learned in the past 20 and so years of study is that the percentage of dog owners is minuscule compared to the dogcravers.