In the year 2000, Milosevic's regime
fell. The new government adopted radical reforms, which will prove to
be more damaging for Serbia than the Milosevic regime ever
was able to be. Among those devastating policies
the policy towards animals stands as the most destructive one, but it
is overshadowed by the “more serious” issues, such as dealing
with the war crimes, Kosovo disputes and pushing towards Eu. Enter
the Non Government Organisation or in short NGO's.
The way how the very definition of NGO
is perceived here, is that the NGO's are actually government but
without responsibility for their actions. Although this understanding
is fundamentally nuts and absurd, it finds its justification in the
fact that the very word regime or the government was associated with
the Milosevic's regime or the government, so the government as the
definition got the negative context. Try to picture it like this. In
the hospital, one doctor sucks as a doctor and many people seeking
treatment actually come out of the hospital sicker. The normal
reaction would be to fire that doctor and take his licence away. But
in the case of Serbia, not only that the doctor is fired, the entire
hospital is shut down and the healthcare system is abandoned as the
system, cause of that one doctor.
Story of the our NGO's is equally
absurd as it is damaging. Firstly, those NGO's are made out of pet
dog owners and dogcravers. The dogcravers were the ones whom got
bounded with the stray dogs during the Milosevic's rule so they
consider every stray dog to be their pet. They are so obsessed with
doggy love, they are so identified with the victim status that they
have absolutely no sense what so ever about wider picture. In a way,
the advocates of the pitbullery share the same treats, so how the
normal dog owners or pit bull victims feel about pitbullery is the
exactly the same as how we here feel about dogcravers NGOs and about
ALL dogs. While in the West, the pitbullery takes the victim stand
and defends unconditionally the rights of the breed and the owners,
in Serbia the dogcravers NGO do the same except they do that for ALL
dogs, regardless if they are owned or stray. Here it is absolutely
irrelevant if the child is mauled by a pit bull, by a Doberman, by a
puddle or by a stray, if it is mauled by a dog, the dog is
automatically innocent and the child is to blame for the mauling or
it was an unfortunate accident that simply happens, due to the laws
of nature.
The NGO terror started with the
formation of our first NGO back in the mid 90's. The self proclaimed
founder of that NGO is the failed veterinarian student and the mega
dogcraver. What he did was equally absurd and idiotic. Since he cares
only about the dogs, he took the Hungarian Dog protection Act, mixed
it up with the Nordic animal protection act and offered that as the
Animal Protection Act to Serbian parliament. While he was pushing for
the act to be adopted, he almost exclusivity promoted dogs and DOGma.
Since he was very well funded, his lush campaigns had the desired
result. What they did in essence was paving the way for the
dogcravers of Serbia to be accepted and perceived as ecologists and
friends of the nature. Every single NGO that was formed after that
was only dealing with the stray dogs exclusively and was mimicking
his NGO.
The net end result of those efforts was
the insanely abysmal super idiotic narrative that goes something like
this: If you care for dogs you care for animals, if you care for
animals you care for nature and if you care for nature you care for
humans. In short if you care for dogs you care for humans. Sounds
familiar? This narrative than continued to spawn other equally
imbecile narratives out of which I will mention my favourite ones:
“Be a human toward animals”.
Meaning animals are humans, which than translates to that humans are
animals, cause link works both ways due to equalisation of the
species. Religious carvers interpret this as :”We are all God's
creations, thus we all have soul and place in heaven”.
“ Humans whom harm animals seek ways
to harm humans too.” Meaning that hurting or killing the animal is
equal to killing or hurting the human. But if animal hurts or kill
human this rule is justified by the laws of nature and it is either
provoked by human or it was an accident. With humans the initial
presumption is that is international and premeditated. In other words
it is the CRIME. Now picture this narrative in the country where
hundreds of thousands dogs roam free, the crime rates are bounded to go trough the
roof.
This narrative created the infamous
link between urban green elevated ones that feel connected with the
nature trough HD flat screens(I like to call them elevators) and the
nature. Their pet animals are animals. Therefore the care for the pet
animal is the care for animals. So all pets are animals and all
animals are pets. This automatically means that the nature is home
and the home is nature. In other words the elevators think that all
animals are pets and that whole planet is one big Mc'Mansion where
all animals live as pets. Speaking of delusions of grandeur. And
since the dog became the synonym for pet or stray animal, all animals
are treated as dogs. So since dogs are by default good and friendly
and all animals are dogs, this lead to the understanding that all
animals are good and friendly.
However, this insanity trend was one of
the main causes of injuries when humans and animals came in contact.
Especially young children whom were brain-washed by these narratives,
they simply wanted to pet every animal regardless if it was a stray
or wild.
The reward for being humane was the
free ride to ER or surgery rooms.
I take my kids to a nearby zoo, and I often laugh at people's reactions to birds and animals.
ReplyDeleteThe zoo lets a turkey run loose on its grounds, which apparently scares some people - mostly kids, but some adults. I saw one woman run from it screaming, which made me laugh. Domestic turkeys are as harmless as they are stupid.
The people who fear turkeys are probably the same ones who would welcome a stray pit bull into their homes.