Chronicles of absurdity. Act Two- " The tribe and the pack"

Following the nature of the dogcraver, that demands safety at all costs, once the dogs became uneconomical and were harming the lush lifestyle, they were thrown onto the streets. This was the first thing to happen with the outbreak of civil war. The strays have arrived.

At first, people didn't know should they report them or not, cause they were counting that the owner would show up and pick the dog. But he never did. The first wave of strays suffered the most loses. Since they were not custom to the life on the streets, many of them died of starvation, diseases or were run over by cars. However, once whom did survived got the chance to procreate and multiply and their numbers started to grow, exponentially. But so did the war. The state was in the stage of shock and the funding had to be diverted towards the war effort, so budget cuts were made and they landed at the Animal Control desk. The number of dogs was rising while their capacities were diminishing. The equipment was obsolete and broken, their vehicle fleet couldn't was over used and without spare parts. The City animal control service was among first public services to break down and soon it became useless. But it kept working.

The citizens would call the animal service often but the number of calls was overwhelming so the response time got longer and longer, and so citizens lost the faith in the efficiency of the service. Dogs on the other hand didn't lost any of their potency and multiplied even faster. With their numbers growing they became more than the nuisance, they became the serious threat. But without working service, people decided to re-domesticate them so each part of the city had its own “guardians”. Somewhere in the mid 90es, the first animal protection organisation was formed. Thanks to its efforts, the citizens became friendlier toward dogs and the number of dogs started to rise even faster. If the first half of the 90es was characterised by packs of up to 4 dogs, the second half of the 90es the maximum number of dogs was 10 but the minimum number rose to 4.

But there was a change.

If in the first half of the 90es the citizens were disappointed with the weak results of the animal control service, thanks to the work of animal right activists, in the second half they were openly hostile. Often they would attack employees, burn their vehicles or simply hide the dogs. There are two main reasons for this change of behaviour. First, the practice of the Animal Control Service was brutal. Due to the lack of funding, it couldn't get new equipment or re train its employees for more humane practices, but also since the money was thin, the low wage would attract only the most desperate and uneducated people. Those people would than express their frustrations on the captured animals. The second reason, was that since the Animal Control Service was the state service it was, in a way the state itself and the citizens were unhappy with the government. So attacking the Animal Control Service was their way of showing their discontent with the politics and with the Slobodan Milosevic's rule. However, this was another exercise in futility cause the number of dogs, continued to grow and with them the number of attacks mounted. As it was seen in Greece nowadays, the dog became the symbol of oppression and as a victim of the system. The people and the dogs, formed an alliance and detached themselves from the Milosevic's thing and that was the first sign of rebellion against the regime that will from that moment, only grow.

The people whom would do something against the dogs were immediately associated with the regime and labelled as backward,radical, pro-war, and evil. On the other side, people whom protected the dogs saw themselves as progressive, liberal,peaceful,ant-war and good. There was the third group of people, that was against the war but also against the strays cause it saw them as the hazard for public safety, but since the narrative was already formed, it was attacked and dismissed by both blocks. I was the part of that group and had ,at the time ,a solid working experience in rescuing stray cats from the streets and moving them to the village where they were urgently needed cause the rural areas were de populating rapidly due to economic crisis.

The period of the 90es is also significant cause at that time, first pit bulls were introduced and soon they became the favourite breed for the various bad asses and criminal structures across the Serbia. Since it was isolated and under the economic sanctions, with the war going on, many of the young men started to see Serbia as a ghetto and thus identified themselves with the US ghetto gang hip hop rap culture, especially after seeing “Boyz n the Hood” movie. The must have accessory for them was the pit bull. They totally identified themselves with the image of American ghetto that was portrayed in the music videos and movies,and started to use the same slang and dress code. They became know as the “Bro generation” cause word bro was used excessively in every possible situation. So you had a Serbian teenager gangsta rapper whom raps in Serbian, tries to look like Ice Cube or Ice-T, and thinks that he lives in ghetto, while in reality he is the son of the communist general whom got retired early and lives in the projects that were built in the 50es.

It was like Stalin meats DMX in the 50es and I don't know if it can get more absurd than that.

Chronicles of absurdity, Act One-" the Last days of normality"

This is the story of how the Dominion was created, how it endured and how now it rules supreme. As any good narcissus I needed the pompous title so there you have it, the Chronicles of absurdity. Catchy?Wink...:)

Before the collapse, this place was a decent place to live. Well, at least on the surface it was. The big star of the 80'es was the German Shepherd dog. This breed was popularised on the basis of the communist myth, that during the second world war, the lifetime president and the leader of Yugoslavia, Josip Broz Tito was saved by his German Shepherd named Lux from the shell explosion. The legend goes that the dog heard the incoming round and threw it self on to the Tito, saving his life while losing its own. This selfless act served as a proof of absolute goodness of the dog and was just another myth among tomes of myths about doggies.

The validity of this story cannot be confirmed or denied, but considering the gap between the image of the dog and the dog, I think that it is quite safe to say that this story is a bullshit. The dog was simply thrown away by the blast's shock wave and its body received most of the shrapnel.

However, the role of the German Shepherd in the second world war waged in the Balkans has the dark side as well. These dogs were often used in killings of captured resistance fighters and civilian supporters, by letting them maul and disembowel the prisoners. In retaliation the captured dogs were equally brutalised by the guerilla, as their tongues would be cut off and than they would either suffocate in their own blood or die slowly of starvation and thirst.

But that was overlooked (as it is in any story of the dogs) so the German Shepherd was the good one and we have to be thankful cause it created our state so everyone wanted one. And so everyone got one.

Back than, it was considered normal that if you notice the stray dog, to report it to the animal control service. Animal control service would respond and the dog was caught. Back than, the stray dogs were considered as a threat to public health and were terminated immediately. The result of this setting was that the owners took a good care of their dogs, took them for a walks always with the leash and if the dog had a nasty temper, it had a muzzle, and that there was no stray dogs on the streets. The dogcravers of those times, took the word walk the dog literary, so they would often run with their dogs on leash which contributed to their and the dog's good health. The only animals that were in abundance were cats, but they also were subjected to the animal control. However, people saw them to be useful cause they would take care of the mice and rat issues. In the rural areas, the problem of stray dogs was solved in the old fashion way, by the hunter's lodge,with the lead therapy.

But the dark clouds were gathering on the horizon.

Unforeseen consequences

While cruising trough the blogosphere I've noticed that most of the blogs that deal with this subject, deal almost exclusively with the pit bulls. Although it is justified and right thing to do, focusing only at the pit bulls and other “dangerous” breeds carries with it self some unforeseen consequences.

First, it places the pitbullery under the spotlight and on the media throne, which is exactly where it wants to be. So these talks actually aid to the pitbullery's agenda. Second it focuses on the horrors of pit bull attack and tries to use that as the argument which again, adds to their agenda, cause it shows the raw power and the might of the breed. Third it points out at the impotence of the system to sanction and prosecute the pitbullery which, again, adds to its popularity. Cause if the damage is done by a pit bull, hey, have no fear, the cartel is right behind you. Fourth it minimises the damage done by other breeds and also presents them as less harmful or more safer. On the other hand it treats the pit bull as an exception to dog's world. All other dogs are good but pit bull is something else. All that is bad about dogs is thrown at the pit bulls. All that is bad about irresponsible ownership is thrown at the pit bull owners.

But pit bull is not the exception.

Pit bull is the pinnacle of dogcravers engineering, it is the perfect dog. Pit bull is the dog done right, it has all the treats that the dogcravers want. It is dangerous, it is strong, it is unpredictable, it is safe cause no other dog can endanger him and it has the reputation or fame around it. Exactly all the treats that any dogcraver wants. Plus now, it has the cartel behind it that offers legal protection in ANY CASE. The craver might go to jail, but the dog will be given the second, the third, chance and as cartel gains strength, the pit bull can maul 1000 humans before the right one is found. Cause, you know, it works both ways, there is the right dog for the right owner but also there is the right owner for the right dog. Lets not be stingy with rights and abandon the agenda and our ultimate goal, which is to make the world a safe place for doggies. We own them, they did so much for us, lets be honest.

So the quest must go on at what ever the cost might be, cause the promise of dogtopia is greater than us.

This absurdity in thinking is driven by the same futile mechanism or setting that is found in the core of any dogcraver. It is the self defeating loop that has as the end result, the cancellation of it self. It is self destructive, so applying the self destructive formula on anything, placing that formula as the new rule in the game, self destroys anything that is applied to. But it does that with good intentions, you know-don't mind the damage, IT'S THE THOUGHT THAT COUNTS, no hard feelings.

The road to Hell is indeed, paved with good intentions.

The Lurker

In the case of teenage pregnancy, there are many reasons for it, but the cause of it,is only one. Same goes for the dogcravers. The cause of the problem with dogs are dogs, cause without dogs there wouldn't be problems with dogs, cause there wouldn't be dogs. However, the reasons for the dogs are many and are irrelevant in this case, cause problems with dogs are caused by dogs.

Pure and simple.

The dogcravers case follows the same path. There is only one cause for him to have a dog and the cause is craving while the reasons or the interpretation of that craving can vary. It can be safety, it can be trend, it can be statement, it can be privilege or status symbolism, it can be conviction, it can be religion,it can be for profit, it can be erotic desire you name it. You can interpret the craving in bzillion different ways.

Problem is, as it has always been, the definition. Since you are unaware of the problem, you can't define it and thus you can't formulate the response to it. And this issue has been cloaked over and over for centuries in the web of self delusions and dogmas that became movements and reached political level and decision making processes. As such it is now enforced by the law, it demands to be accepted and respected. Unconditionally I might add.

You have to accept that dogs are good and that they are not a threat. They are threat only if the owner makes them aggressive. Helloooo? The dog is SEPARATE entity, SEPARATED from the OWNER. Let me rephrase this? Why the dog existence is denied? Why it is not recognised as a separate and independent entity? For one simple reason.

Without the owner the dog doesn't have the purpose and thus the reason for its existence. The very existence of the dog is bounded with the fact, of how much it MEANS to a person or a group of persons. It is the MEANING of a dog that counts, not the organism itself. On its own, a dog as a organism, doesn't belong to nature, cause it is created by humans yet if the humans don't want it it has nowhere to go. It doesn't belong neither to the nature or to the urban setting.

Truly that organism is the saddest organism that exists and the only thing that overshadows its destructiveness is its tragedy of existence. Cause it is sentenced to endlessly exist between the nature and the human, urban setting, like some perverted, twisted abomination that lurks in that foggy border that separates natural and human realm. If it is free in nature,it destroys it completely cause it is an artificial organism. If it is free in the human setting it also destroys it completely cause it is an wild animal.

It can exist only as the denial of itself and the denial of its existence is the reason for its existence.

Cruelty?

“If I had a donkey wot wouldn't go,

D'ye think I'd wallop him? no, no, no!

But gentle means I'd try, d'ye see,

Because I hate all cruelty;

If all had been like me, in fact,

There'd have been no occasion for Martin's Act.

Dumb animals to prevent being crack'd,

On the head.”

In 1822, the British parliament adopted one act that will lead to the situation we face today. The act was called The Cruel Treatment of Cattle Act 1822 with the full name “An Act to prevent the cruel and improper Treatment of Cattle” but it is more commonly known as the Martin's Act. Two years after the act was adopted, on June 16^th 1824 a new organisation was formed the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals which will later be known as-Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. The RSPCA.The man behind this act was called Richard Martin, also know as the “Humanity Dick” nicknamed by the King George IV himself.

So who was Richard Martin?

Well, he was the only son of Robert Martin Fitz Anthony and Hon. Bridget Barnwall, born on January 15^th 1754 in the Ballynahinch Castle,County Galway, on the coasts of western Ireland. His family was Catholic, Jacobite, and also one of fourteen old families that ruled the Galway from 14^th to 17^th century, collectively known as the “Tribes of Galway”.

Richard Martin , however, was raised protestant.

He entered the Irish House of Commons in 1776, sitting for the Jamestown until 1783. Also he was appointed High Sheriff of County Galway in 1782. In 1798 her was returned to Parliament for Landsborough, advocating the Catholic emancipation. When the act of union, in 1800 was adopted, unifying the Kingdom of Great Brittan and the kingdom of Ireland thus creating the United Kingdom of Great Brittan,the Martin was already the MP for the Galway county and as such he entered the British parliament. There he continued to push for the Catholic emancipation with little success. Aside for pushing for Catholic emancipation, Richard Martin also pushed for the animal rights, and so, in 1822 the Martin's act was adopted.

What this act did, among other things was to ban blood sports, such as dogfighting, bull bating and bear bating. All these “sports” share one common thing, they are all linked by one participant and that participant is the dog-the BULL DOG.

The bulldog was the gladiator that was used to amuse the crowd and the brutality of those fights, equally amused the rich and the poor so the event itself was serving as vent for channelling the aggression and discontent among population. In a way it had the same, “adrenaline rush” feeling as the professional wrestling or NASCAR has today. It creates an overdose of excitement after which you feel, lets say, “more content” with your life. Or to put it in short, it is a tranquiliser drug. But with this ban, bulldogs lost their purpose and instead of being terminated as a breed,Oh by the glorious consensus rules!, they were kept alive. They went underground and continued to be used in illegal dog fighting.

Bulldogs were also transported to the New World, where they were used for the same purpose. However, the New World was in its infancy and was pretty much a wild and disorganised place to live in and so, eventually, those bulldogs became strays. The damage that they were doing was so vast, that no weapon was good enough to stop them. They soon became dreaded creatures, that were mauling humans left and right. So something new was needed that will contain the threat of roaming bulldogs. The “solution” was found in the creation of specific breed of dog that is designed with one thing in mind-to fight bulldogs. Enter the pit bull. Yes, that is right, the pit bull is the biological weapon designed to contain and exterminate bulldogs that were roaming free and unemployed across England and United States at the end of 19^th century. This is, again, dismissed by the consensus as the notorious nonsense, cause it is true. Why would you have a dog that is specifically designed to attack other dogs and not only to attack them but to kill them, if you don't feel threaten by those “other” dogs?

So there you have it, that is the true nature and the agenda behind the creation of pit bulls.

But back to the “humanity” Dick. Humanity Dick was so humane that he was involved in more than 100 duels fought with sabres and guns. He held a military rank, he was a Colonel. Also somehow he appears in the American and French revolutions. He ended his life in France, where he fled after being accused for intimidation charges. To make things more bizarre, the formation of RSPCA was held in a coffee shop called "Old Slaughter's" and during his lifetime, the Martin was passionate fox hunter.

One event from his life, actually describes the true nature of the dogcraver better than I would ever be able to do.

“Hair-Trigger Martin”

Reported to be of rather average height, with a brawny, stocky build, the ginger-haired Martin was also considered the most formidable and well-known fire-eater, or duelist, of the 18th century, having fought on over 100 occasions. An illustrious example of his skill and compassion relates to one incident involving a beloved canine by the name of Prime Serjeant.

Claiming the wolfhound was consuming meat scraps that should have been destined for the poor, George Robert “Fighting Fitzgerald” shot the dog with a pistol, but allowed the women in the Browne domain to keep their lapdogs. As a dear friend to the Browne Family and Prime Serjeant, Martin personally vowed to avenge the dog’s untimely end which he did some years later in a heated clash with Fitzgerald. (As he wasn’t the guardian of Prime Serjeant, Martin had no legal grounds to pursue justice at the time of the shooting.) Martin was maimed in the chest and proudly sported his battle scars in the years to follow, while the twice-hit Fitzgerald went unscathed as he had sneakily donned protective undergarments during the scuffle.

There are quite a few sympathetic animal tales like the above, some of which even Martin himself would recount in Parliament. At the ripe old age of 67, MP Martin stood on a street on London’s Ludgate Hill, watching a man mercilessly beat his equine. Out of nowhere, two men emerged, yanking the man away from the horse and dolling out punches on the animal abuser. The two avengers had been paid five shillings a piece for their act. Their financier? Richard Martin. Martin’s physical and legislative fight for four-legged creatures would continue in the decades leading up to this point and following it as well.”

No comment...

Divided we stand, Dogether we fall

It is amazing, isn't it?

How something that obvious cannot be comprehended and understood. Since it cannot be comprehended it cannot be defined and thus the response is impossible to form. But it is there, you can feel it, it damages your physical and mental health and you point out but its like you are pointing at the wrath that only you can see. All others that are standing by you think that you are crazy, that you are the problem and that they are the solution. But IT'S A DOG,MAN!!!.People complain about mosquitoes so much, they bite, they transmit diseases, just like dogs do, yet you don't hear, but its a MOSQUITOES MAN!!! Or the bees, the killer bees, oh horror, oh horrible mutants will kill us all. So? It's a BEE MAN!!!

Funny isn't it?

Mosquitoes and bees are smaller than dogs, yet they do the same thing that dog does, they bite or sting, they harm us, but the relationship toward the same thing, the damage or the threat to our bodies is seen differently. But its not different it is the same, it is the damage and it hurts.

This leads to the first thing that I would like to talk about and that can be roughly named as the threat perception.

The threat perception is consisted out of two subjects, the threat and the perception. If you perceive something to be a threat you form a response to it. The threat how ever exists independently from the perception, cause it is a separate entity. In the case of dogs, the dog as an entity is a threat, it is an carnivore organism, it is blood lust organism, it is the social and territorial organism. The threat from a dog comes form direct dog attack and it comes indirectly from the space around the dog, or the space that dog considers to be his. So the when combining those two you get the overall threat that is bigger than the physical size of a dog. In other words its BIG.

So how come it is not perceived as such?

It isn't cause the over time the control is introduced so the dog became a controlled threat. With the training and the responsible aka aware ownership, the problems with dogs would not exist at all. Well not quite, cause the dog as the entity is a threat by default and the level of danger that it represents actually never ceases, cause it is what it is. This means that, in essence, the question of the control is irrelevant cause it does not make the dog safer. However again, this is dismissed at the start, by the consensus. The consensus defines the threat of a dog as lack of control so the weaker the control is the more the dangerous the dog is.

This is basic mistake and all that grows from that, from that initial root is wrong. That error than is branching into endless multiplications trying to prove itself as the right one. Its not the dog it is the owner, its not the dog it is the victim,its not the dog it is the environment, it is not the dog it is weather, it is not dog it is the cosmic rays, it is not dog it is the bad spirits. It is always something else but it is never the dog. But it is always the dog.

Reason why this wrong perception exists is very simple, the power of craving or need to have a dog is much greater than the power of the dog. So the more people feel threaten or weak, the more powerful craving they have and the more weaker they feel the more powerful dogs are needed. So there is a link between how people feel and the number of dogs that they own. 

The weaker the society is the more dogs there are.

The weakness of society can come in may different ways. The society can became poorer, it can be disrupted by some internal strife or conflict, it can be exposed to natural disasters or it can become so large that the sheer scale of that society is so big that it cannot be coherent and unified. This last reason is specifically true for the detached suburban lifestyle, where everyone lives for themselves and where although they live together physically, there is no sense of community. 

So as the dog is the substitute for the individual, on this scale the dog ownership is a substitute for the community and it directly reflects the lack of it. In those places, common good and common interest is subjected to individualism and personal interest and thus the excessive dog ownership is present. The dogs than prevent social cohesion and thus contribute the one society or community's demise and death. Just as I said before, the dog is a scavenger animal it feeds on carcases so in this sense the dog ownership feeds on the carcase of dead society or community. 

It is a sign of entropy and decay and it accrues once the society looses the energy that keeps it together.

I shit you NOT!!!

So,what shall we do?

We have identified the main cause of this new threat that was able to creap up to our doorsteps unnoticed. It is a movement, consisted out of people whom refuse to grow up and are doing everything they can to transform the reality so that it can suite them. Instead of creating grown up, responsible society the construction of the largest kindergarten is in progress. The problem is that, instead of toys they play with genetically engineered organisms that crave for blood and soul of every living thing that walks on the Earth. They have developed the symbiotic relationship with this organism, thus creating a new life form, the dogcraver, which combines the brute force of dog's jaw, loudness of its roar with nasty personality treats. No matter how problematic they are, they are intelligent and that is what makes them dangerous. It makes them dangerous cause they are blood lusty and intelligent.

They are able to organise themselves into the movement and as such, they fight for their rights within the system and the system, since it wants to provide stability, caters to their needs as well as it caters ours. Problem is that the system is catering one group which lifestyle cancels the lifestyle of another group, thus making the system work against one group. You know, the friend of my enemy is my enemy.

But this analogy can be considered valid however the more appropriate comparison would be that in the soul asylum the insane people are the doctors and personnel, not the patients.

For the western readers take the good look at the pictures of the dominion, this is your final destination, with one big exception. Unlike our situation, your mutts are pure breed killers, pit bulls and pit bull mixes. If you think that this is untrue, well, I am sorry to disappoint you cause this process is well under way, assuming that what I read on blogs is true. And I don't have the reason to doubt cause I recognise the patterns and sequences, cause I've been trough all this.

With this the story about the dogcravers as a group is over and we are moving towards the final frontier, the society. How it reacts to this behaviour, why it fails,what are the consequences and at the end what the future brings.