On the top of the mountain...

The dogcraver is aware of the fact that the dog can cause severe injury or death. However, he sees the dog as the source of power, since he uses that energy to stay alive and to constantly run away form his fear from within. The dog is useful to him as the source of power and as the source of energy. He uses that power to dominate the outside world and also uses the energy of the dog to sustain the inner dynamic aka to stay alive.

Although he is aware of the potential danger of his dog, he is proud of it, it makes him feel good cause it makes him feel safe. He is the proud master of the situation, where ever he shows up. This relationship with the threat leads to the changes in the threat perception. The dogcraver is aware of the threat but he is also aware of his ability to control it and that feeling of control is actually the thing that makes him feel so good. Or the notion of ability to control it. To put it simply, since he sees everything as objects that either serve him or not, he gorges on the RELATIONSHIP with the object but not with the object itself. His interaction with the world is not personal cause he is locked inside of that protective shell so the only way how he can communicate is trough mediums, in this case the dogs.

Since he is the only one whom can interpret the relationship his interpretation is the only valid one. This means that if he doesn't see the dog as a threat, that dog is not a threat cause he believes in the image of the dog that he created and projected on to the dog. And that image always includes the picture of the dog that knows that HE is the master. In his perception the image of the dog is the only image that exists but as soon as dog denies that image,aka it doesn't behave according to the projected image of the dogcraver, the dogcraver immediately abandons the dog, he cancels the relationship with the dog cause now the dog is a threat to him and assumes the defensive position from the general perspective, which is his understanding of how the society sees dogs. And since society sees dogs as positive, his dog, the dog becomes a dog. This transformation from the dog to a dog, gives the dogcraver more space to manoeuvre since his defence is not connected with the dog, his dog, yet it is an abstract, a dog, or the general perception of the dog.

So if his dog, kills your pet cat and you confront him with the fact that he is responsible for the dog's behaviour and that the cat is dead cause he wasn't responsible, he will automatically assume the defensive position which states that dogs do that, dogs kill cats and that is natural. So your complaint is irrelevant since it counters the very laws of the nature. Meaning that you are the one whom doesn't see things right cause you oppose the way how nature functions. If he is bolder he will than accuse you for letting your cat out and that it is your irresponsibility that lead to cat's death. Cause you know that dogs kill cats, so by letting the cat out, you placed your pet in danger of being torn to bits by dogs. At the end, it is irrelevant if his dog got the cat, if it didn't some other dog would. So it is your fault for not taking care of your cat and you are the one to be blamed for its death.

The truth is, however much simpler, the truth is that the dogcraver doesn't give a fuck for cats, he doesn't give a fuck for other smaller animals, for other human beings, for your yard or for you. Everyone knows what the dog is and they are obligated to respect that and keep away form the dog. If the dog gets one of those, well it is nature and it is normal, so complaining on that level is insane cause who would be so stupid to argue with the laws of nature.

But if something happens to the dogcraver dog, it is the violation not only the laws of the country, it is the violation of the laws of the universe. Cause dogs are apex predators, meaning that they are on top of things and since there are no natural force, no natural predator that controls them, the dog's demise is an act of abnormal,deviant and unnatural event. In other words it is an anomaly or if you want to put it legally it is a CRIME.

Dog can do what ever it wants, meaning that the dogcraver can do what ever it wants but without any consequences for that. Cause why there would be any consequences? The dog is the apex predator, meaning that rarely there is an animal that can endanger him, especially in the urban setting, so it cannot be killed in the “natural” aka normal way. Itself can kill what ever it wants to cause it is the apex predator, it is its right to kill cause of it. The dogcraver loves animals and respects the nature, meaning that if he prohibits his dog to behave in a natural way, he is against the nature and natural laws, he violates the natural setting. But since he is all for the nature, he can't and won't do that, cause it is wrong. If hist dog kills another animal, well it is the natural aka normal thing to happen so it shouldn't be seen as a problem.

This connection natural is normal and normal is natural is another insane mental construct of the dogcraver. He firmly believes in nature cause in nature his dog is on the top, which places him on the top and it is safe on the top. So replace the nature with normality and you will get that it is normal for him to be on the top. He is entitled to that place.

The throne.

Violator

The dogcraver in its pursuit for total dominance will constantly seek ways to expand its influence. In that quest they will seek to undermine and destroy the very laws that govern one society. The way how they are doing that is by violating the previous setting, conquer it and than destroy it. Than on the rubble of the former order they build a new. And the way how they build it is by not building it. That is right, the order of the dog is a the absolute havoc with no rules what so ever, no limitation, no structure. It is the VOID.

That real void is the reflection of the void within every dogcraver, that exists behind that protective shell that protects the very core of the dogcraver. Also in his relationship with the outside world all that the dogcraver do, except creating the void, is a-VOID-ing the rules and norms of the society, subverting them and the society to his will. Void is their natural habitat, it is the setting where they rule, where nothing exists except them. The dogcraver considers the void as a free place, free of rules,free of other influences that limit and condition freedom. His freedom must be unconditional. His unconditionality conditions him to seek unconditional freedom for himself, thus conditioning all other with his unconditionality. His unconditional love towards himself must be unconditionally respected and recognised, it must be accepted as such or not at all.

And since he loves the animal that is recognised as good and useful, he identifies the image of that animal with the animal that he owns or in other words he identifies with that image. He becomes the dog. He is loving, forgiving,just,fierce defender of suppressed and oppressed, he is the one that bares the torch, he is the leader, the most enlighten one, spiritual beyond any doubt. With his dog he is a super hero that fights for justice. He is friendly and kind to others but he knows the difference between right and wrong and he judges that. Oh boy does he judges.

Since he is naturally attuned to the known and familiar his statements reflect all that. The dog is a man's best friend, the dogs are good, the dogs love beyond, the dogs know who is bad and who is good and all empty phrases that you can think of.

They absolutely adore to point out service dogs as the ultimate proof of the doggy goodness. Dogs rescue people, dogs seek people, dogs save people. That means that dogs are good and if I own a dog I am good. The fact that various services use TRAINED dogs as biological TOOLS is overlooked.

This lunacy of this logical construct can be described as this.

-" The ambulance car transports the injured to the hospital, so ambulance car is helpful. So I will buy an ambulance car and drive it as my own vehicle cause I love people, although I don't know jack about medicine or treating the trauma injuries. But by driving the ambulance van I am stating that I am good and that I cannot be judged. Even if I run over a person, a child, go trough your yard, house."

The disconnection from the purpose or meaning, is another trademark of the dogcraver. All dogs are breed in order to fulfil certain tasks that are useful for humans. That is why the dogs are useful and appreciated by humans, because they are useful AT CERTAIN ROLES. The role of the pet animal has no usefulness beyond the owner's home or yard. Cause it serves to make the owner feel good and to cater to his emotional needs. It has no role for the others it doesn't have the purpose for the community. Why than the dogcravers can't accept the fact that their personal relationship with the dog is their own thing?

Well, because the dogcravers are people with boundary issues. They don't know where they start and where they end. Since they don't know where they start and where they end, they don't know where others start and where others end. Thus as they expand their sphere of influence they violate other people lives and spaces. And they do so not because they want to do it, but because they have no definition since they don't know where their boundaries are. And they have no definition cause the basis of their personality is again-the VOID.

"It doesn't bite"

How many times you've heard this quote? Spoken from yards away by the dogcraver, while the dog is inches away from you or your loved one. It doesn't bite.

It doesn't bite can be interpreted in many ways and I will go trough all of them.
The first way is that you shouldn't be afraid of it. That means that the carnivore that is inches away from you or your loved one, is not a carnivore. Cause carnivores bite and this one won't. But the problem is, that the carnivore didn't said that, that is being said by your fellow human being. So you identify with the human being, since he or she are the same as you, so you assume that his or her statement is true. However, the organism in front of you is a carnivore and it didn't said that it won't bite. Tough, huh? So you have the dilemma, what is true and what is not true. If you believe the fellow human that you won't be bitten is the truth does that in way cancels the possibility of you being bitten? No it doesn't. Your mind has instincts, very primitive “logical circuits” that pin point if something is a threat or not and the carnivores are threat, cause you are made out of meat and carnivores eat meat. They eat you. But the more advanced, developed part of your brain, is now in conflict cause you have the information that you won't be bitten,given to you by your fellow human and you have the information that you are threaten by the carnivore in front of you. Since you know that being bitten means pain or death, your organism prepares for defence while your cognitive part of the brain tries to suppress that cause it acts according to the abstract thought, the information that the craver said, that you won't be bitten. So you have a conflict in your mind, you have a struggle. As the result of your struggle, your body reacts in a chemical way, sending hormones and pheromones that than get picked up by the carnivore in front of you, signalling that you are afraid and that you are weaker that than triggers the reaction which is that it is safe to attack and so you are attacked and bitten.

- Pause and rewind to the start.

The second way how you can interpreted the statement that it doesn't bite as the warning issued by the dogcraver. The dogcraver knows that his dog can bite. But he doesn't care, cause he is a narcissist and the only thing that he cares about is himself. He won't be bitten, you will. However, having his dog bite someone, can provoke the reaction form the setting, he can be judged, he can be submitted to the will other than his, and that is a denial of his existence, so he feels obligated to give you a warring. It doesn't bite in this case means :”I was never bitten so it may not bite you as well, not that I give a fuck if it does, though”. So his statement is an justification for the things that might happen. It is an alibi. However, in his mind the his dog has already attacked you and bite you, but he announced it thus warned you of the possibility that you will be harmed. By saying that his dog doesn't bite although that it does, means that he is conditioning you to take his word as the reality, cause if you take his word as the reality, you will be safe. The dog bites you.

- Again, pause and rewind to the start.

The third way how you can interpreted this statement is as the demonstration of power, by the dogcraver. The dogcraver knows that dog bites, but he doesn't care. He is giving you his word, he is convincing you that he is in control, that he is the master of his dog, that he knows how his dog behave and that it is ok. He wants you to recognise his dominance over his dog and over you. Therefore you must take his word as the absolute proof of the truth, cause if you don't you will be bitten. So, you are bitten.

So now you are screaming from pain as the dogcraver tries to regain the control over his carnivore. The damage has been done and that is the FACT. You were attacked and you were bitten. Why that has happened.
Answers given by the dogcraver are:

1. I don't know, it never did this before.
   
2. It attacked you cause you were afraid of it. The dog reacted by its instincts so it is your fault cause you are afraid of the dogs. You provoked it with your fear. It was an accident.
   
3. It attacked you cause you were afraid of it and you were afraid of it cause you know that dogs can sense fear. I am not afraid of the dogs, I love them, the whole society loves them, they are the man best friend, but you, you don't see things that way, which means that you have something against me, against the dogs, against the society. So it must be that you are the bad person and you know that dogs attack bad persons, not the good ones like me. It is your fault and you deserved it. The justice has been served.
   

Trough the fields of sorrow...

The dogcraver social interaction is very complex in its form, but in its essence is very simple. It is very simple,cause it is driven by the desire to control while the ways of how to achieve that control are practically limitless. So, for now, to put it simple, there is a group of people within our society that has the wish to unconditionally dominate all aspects of life. Problem is that, that “all aspects” includes lives of other people and thus the interaction between this group and the other groups, exists.

Problem with the dogcravers is that they own dogs. Dogs are carnivores, they are social and they are territorial. Since all human beings are made, for the most part, out of meat, the very fact that the dog is a carnivore leads to the first aspect of the reality of carnivore's life, and that aspect is that it eats meat. Since humans are meat and the carnivore eats meat, that leads to the fact that, if conditions are right, the carnivore will see human as a prey, it will attack it,kill it and eat it. Cause that is what carnivore animal is doing in order to survive, that is its essence,that is its life. This fact, cannot be obscured by any law,legislation, or mindset, cause it is simply the FACT of life, dogs have jaws and those jaws have teeth and that jaw is designed to crush bones and to remove chunks of meat form the prey.

Therefore, the reality of the dogcraver is a man with a carnivore animal along his side and that makes him a threat to others.

Since dogs are social organisms, they tend to view humans as dogs and, due to the pack mentality social hiearchy forms. The pack mentality is the enabler for the dog, since in the wild, pack as form of existence enables the wild carnivores to hunt down much larger prey, prey that they are unable to take out on their own. The strength of many, the power of the pack, multiplies the “sense” of strength in the individual dog and thus changes its behavioural patterns. So the pack of two, the dogcraver and the dog is the setting in which dog is enabled to be more powerful. This duo is than doubles the threat since not only that the dog is a threat on its own, by just being a dog, it is empowered by the very presence of the dogcraver.

Therefore, the reality of the dogcraver is that he and his dog are dangerous mix, since they are the basic unit of two, the basic unit of the pack, with the dogcraver being the alpha male or the leader of that pack.

The third characteristic is the territoriality of the dog. Dogs are territorial animals, they conquer and dominate the physical spaces. This means that the dogcraver space is, in most cases, the dog's space too. It is the dominion of that pack. Also this means that when ever the dogcraver takes his dog for a walk, that space moves with them. The area of influence is dynamic. As the dogcravers move, they move their dominion with them and within that dominion they dominate.

Therefore, the reality of the dogcraver is that he owns the physical space and that that physical space is not static, yet it is dynamic. It is RANGE of influence, like the radar in a fighter jet. As the fighter jet flies, everything that is within its radar range can be destroyed. Can be killed. And since the death is final, it doesn't offer the choice aka you can't be slightly dead or less dead, the finality of death makes the death a FACT. So the space around the dogcraver is a kill zone and therefore its a threat, making the total threat that the dogcravers present in reality, triple.

Those things are simply FACT and not the FICTION. 

Some notes...

I've been studying the dog owners since 1990 till now. The country I live in, does not have the laws that regulate a lot more important areas of life, let a lone the pet ownership. So I think that this setting creates the unique opportunity to study this relationship, when it is not being governed by the outside force aka the law and the state. When it is not being conditioned and when it is left to be as it is. When it is almost...natural and untamed. When it is in its original form.

What I've found out is devastating.

Since 1990 till 2012 the dogcravers never, and I mean never, did any attempt to regulate and organise their dog ownership. They didn't formed any group or sent their representatives to the city council. They never felt the need to limit the space that is available for their dogs. Although they had the money, they never attempted to protect the children's playground from the dog fesses contamination or dog attacks. They never cleaned after their dogs in or around the playground.

They never tackle the stray dogs and cats issues. They never helped the strays if they were injured by their dogs. Not only that they didn't care for the injured, they never cared about the corpses of the dead animals that were killed by their pet dogs. They never cared about the pain and the traumas that they inflicted on to other people whom took care of the strays. In the most cases they never trained their dogs and when they did they used the public spaces for that. For 22 years, our public spaces were and are constantly filled with dog shit and mangled up stray cat corpses. Attacks on humans got the miserable attention and were exclusively placed in the well known context that dog is good and that it doesn't attack unless it is provoked. Thus the dog and the owner were never guilty yet presented as innocent victims.

As soon as the dog became an economic burden, it would be thrown out to the streets, creating the stray dog population. Over time that population exploded, leading of massive packs of dogs with unpredictable behaviour that roam everywhere. Not ever was this issue brought up under the public spot light. Yet it became the part of the “reality”. Anyone, like myself, whom wanted to raise the voice about this was automatically labelled as the animal abuser and animal hater. As the insane person that does not accept the reality.

With this, I am ending the basic psychological profiling of the dog owner and moving towards the social realm, where the society and the dogcravers meet.

The Mimicry

I happen to believe, that in nature, the ability to mimic something is a form of passive technique of survival. Organisms that are able to present themselves as something that they are not, use that ability to divert attention from itself. Same mechanism applies also at the dogcraver behaviour. The dogcraver will mimic any mainstream socially acceptable behaviour, in order to conceal himself. On that way he can “blend in” with the crowd and become undistinguishable and thus safe. That is why one of the main characteristics of the dogcravers is that they are more attuned to the mass gatherings, crowd based events and behaviours while the only condition is that those type of activities are uniform aka that they follow the same idea and same thought processes. They are drawn to the many, to the numbers. To the quantity or MASS. And since mass is a physical value, it is real, it can be directly sensed and experienced and thus realised. All this, actually points at the nature and natural behaviour patterns, that have no ability to generate the abstract within itself.

Most dogcravers are unable to generate abstract thoughts. Their mindset revolves around the already known, the familiar and the proven. Around the facts and statistics. This is again, the reflection of their inner mechanism, the cyclic dynamic of self defeating loop created by the fear and passivity that create stable and familiar orbit that creates safety.

One thing that has been noted, while studying them, was that they all tend to live really good and lush lives, in the material sense. The dogcravers dwell in reality that they create, and since that reality is well known and stable they exploit it and dominate it. They are often wealthy, well situated,rich and they lead very rich social life. They are very communicative, outgoing and happy.

When all is said and done, they are the masters of reality,masters of repetitive patterns,cycles and routines. Also they are great supporters of power,order and rule, organisation and management and they excel in those roles.

In fact they are the maintainers and guardians of reality.

However their lack of ability to generate abstract thought, makes their lives painfully boring and predictable. They don't see the unknown as a challenge but as a threat. They fear the unknown and are hostile towards any type of exploration and challenging the mainstream. This is again, the reflection of their inner mechanism, which is static,chained in fear and torn by it. So often they engage in the irrational “getaways”, sudden and unexpected adventures, irrational risks behaviours.

They are willing to put great amounts of energy just so that they can get the thrills that make them feel alive. And when they set themselves loose into the unknown, that is not seen as the exploration but as the act of conquest so what ever new they find they throw in chains and subject to their will.

They, in other words, destroy.

...to the eruption of madness

Due to the inability to control himself the dogcraver seeks ways to control the outside world and the others, in the attempt to achieve safety. His inner feeling of insecurity than turns into the desire for total dominance, since only than he can fell safe and be able to function. To put it in the most blunt way, since he is unable to adjust to the outside he adjusts the outside to himself.

The way how the dogcraver interacts with the outside world is trough his dog. The dog is the statement, the status symbol,the communication device for the outside world. Since the interaction with the outside is not personal, but it is done trough the device, the dogcraver is safely hidden behind the wall, disconnected from the reality. This detachment from the reality, is the basis for the further development of the dogcraver, since it gives him a sense of invulnerability. The dogcraver takes that as the definition of freedom and acts according to it.

Depending on the strength of the society the dogcraver will adjust his behaviour.

If the society has strict rules and laws, that are always accompanied by the penalties, this social conditioning will shape the dogcraver interaction with the reality. But since he is ever poised to dominate, when ever the freedom is given, that space of freedom will automatically be turned into the dogcraver's despotic dominion, thus nullifying the very thought of freedom. However, since he is poised to dominate all life, the dogcraver will constantly seek ways to expand and to conquer more and more ground and thus it will seek ways to influence the society to accept his need for more space aka his need for more domination. He will fight for his domination in every way shape or form, sacrificing everything with no mercy and without compassion. Actually, not sacrificing cause he can't sacrifice anything cause he counts the sacrificing as losing and for him sacrifice is the cost, the damage that needs to be avoided at all costs.

This is another trademark of the narcissistic nature of the dogcraver's personality. Everything is seen as merchandise and it is judged by its usefulness, by the benefits it brings to the dogcraver. Cause only thing that he values is his own personal well being, his safety.

If the society does not have the strict laws, the dogcraver expands uncontrollably. In these societies the laws are subjected to the dogcraver and are installed to protect him and his behaviour at the expense of others. His personal safety is above the safety of the whole society and thus everyone else feels insecure and subjected to the will of the dogcravers.