Our Children Are The Guarantors

Defending Zionism from its detractors. Anti-Zionism is a form of anti-Semitism. Let the other side apologize for a change.

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

A Stinging Commentary

Markos “Screw ’Em” Moulitsas Zúniga had some tocheiche (admonishment) to voice regarding the death of Australian wildlife specialist Steve Irwin by the barb of a stingray. However, as is usual on the Left, it’s premature to assume you’ve met the worst, because there’s always someone who manages to plumb a lower depth. In this case it’s Germaine Greer, writing in the Guardian. A few [un]savory excerpts:

“The only time Irwin ever seemed less than entirely lovable to his fans (as distinct from zoologists) was when he went into the Australia Zoo crocodile enclosure with his month-old baby son in one hand and a dead chicken in the other.”

[…]

“There was not an animal he was not prepared to manhandle. Every creature he brandished at the camera was in distress. Every snake badgered by Irwin was at a huge disadvantage, with only a single possible reaction to its terrifying situation, which was to strike.”

[…]

“Some snakes are described as aggressive, but, if you're a snake, unprovoked aggression doesn't make sense.”

[…]

“The animal world has finally taken its revenge on Irwin, but probably not before a whole generation of kids in shorts seven sizes too small has learned to shout in the ears of animals with hearing 10 times more acute than theirs, determined to become millionaire animal-loving zoo-owners in their turn.”

(Hat Tip: LGF, via commenter Spiny Norman)

Let’s just say that, assuming the first excerpt is true, I actually agree it was something Irwin shouldn’t have done. See, I don’t reject an argument just because a Leftist said it, but because I really disagree, and if a Leftist says something I agree with, I acknowledge that. But there’s an issue with the child abuse bit I’ll come to later.

For the rest, here are a lot of the thought-patterns that make the Left tick. To be sure, when it’s concerning animals there are things I could find agreeable, but the trouble is Leftists so often carry over that mindset to certain human beings.

The last excerpt says, “The animal world has finally taken its revenge on Irwin”. It has? You mean, all the snakes, crocodiles, penguins etc. wronged by Irwin called a meeting one day, and then plotted with the stingrays to wreak vengeance on him? OK, I understand it’s all symbolic. Still, I can’t escape hearing that tone of “Justice done!” from Greer. In Judaism, cruelty toward animals (called “animals’ sorrow” by our sages) is forbidden, but there is none of that sentiment that the world would be better off without humans.

At any rate, there’s a basic difference between humans and animals, and that’s the issue of accountability, of awareness of right and wrong. Not only was there no literal conspiracy for the stingray to rid the world of Irwin, but that stingray itself wasn’t accountable for its action, as it was following animal impulses. Greer does acknowledge it. But what Leftists like Greer do quite a lot is transfer that animal unaccountability toward certain humans.

Do you remember the Cynthia McKinney incident, in March? She was barred from entering an office building because she didn’t have a pin identifying her as a Congress member, but she walked past the police, until one of them grabbed her, who responded by hitting him. The police officers were doing the job of keeping the building secure, and she not only ignored their shouts toward her, but hit one of them when caught. Such an event constitutes a severe threat upon the rule of law, but that wasn’t the end of the story: McKinney excused her behavior by playing the sex and race cards (“Let me be clear: this whole incident was instigated by the inappropriate touching and stopping of me, a female black congresswoman.”). The implication is that certain factors can exempt you from laws that would normally apply to all others.

Behind this incident, especially McKinney’s behavior, are the gears that make multiculturalism tick: the idea that some humans can, by their very circumstances, be as free of all accountability as are snakes and stingrays. I guess this gives Orwell’s Animal Farm and its famous adage about the equality of animals a new twist.

Why not, after all, when environmentalist fanatics on the Left keep talking about animal rights? It’s a pity for them that animals don’t bring their own lawyers, judges and tribunals to crack down on all those violations of their rights. Were it so, we’d be reading news items like this:

UO To Issue Condemnation to Irwin

Goiters – Terrier Red-Horsen, envoy of the United Organisms, has sent a letter of condemnation to Steve Irwin for his “disproportionate response” to the minor flesh wounds incurred on him by the neighboring crocodiles. Irwin’s actions, said Horsen, go beyond his right of self-defense and constitute an attack on innocent non-humans. He added that the hostilities must stop and all parties go back to the negotiations table.

Mahmoud I’manapeindrag, sitting on the UO Security Council, said Irwin’s atrocities were proof that humans are a danger to peace on Planet Earth and must be wiped off it. In a conference called “A World Without Humans”, President I’manapeindrag called the Black Death of 1348–51, which killed a third of the human population of Europe, a fabrication designed to garner sympathy for the humans and a blind eye to all their present crimes.

Mahatma Bambhi similarly issued calls for the Australian human to be tried before a court led by native non-humans, such as the marsupials of the land.

It would be an… uh… interesting world, but it’s interesting enough as it is with human Leftist ideologists both calling for “animal rights” and arguing for the animal-like innocence of some humans. I guess Darwin’s Theory, when taken to its ideological conclusion (that is, beyond its scientific content), inevitably leads that way.

Now, I said I agree with Greer that holding a baby in the vicinity of a crocodile is a bad thing to do. It’s one thing right-wingers and left-wingers can agree on. What a lot of left-wingers don’t agree on, however, is that bringing up a child on an education of suicide-bombing, taking a photo of him with weapons even as a baby, is child abuse too.

Picture: A Palestinian baby made to pose holding a gun and a rifle
Child abuse in the “Palestinian Authority”. Picture from the massive Palestinian Child Abuse slideshow on LGF.

It seems that, in the name of “resistance to Western colonialist rule”, the charge of child abuse goes out the window, and the equation of the human (that means fully accountable for their actions) monsters who brought the child up that way with stingrays striking a nearby human comes in instead.

Labels: , ,

8 Comments:

Anonymous religion of pieces said...

"In Judaism, cruelty toward animals (called “animals’ sorrow” by our sages) is forbidden, but there is none of that sentiment that the world would be better off without humans."

Oddly enough, this is very similar to the teachings of Buddhism (a religion arising from a completely different tradition from Judaism.)

In Buddhism the animal realm is regarded as being characterised by profound ignorance, fear and suffering. Only the human realm offers the gateway to liberation from these afflictions.

Buddhism and Judaism seem to be the only religions that expressly forbid infliction of unnecessary suffering on animals.

I've heard of this Jewish teaching before, I think it was in the context of Jewish denunciations of the brutal Roman wild beast 'circuses' in the Coliseum, but I've never been able to find a reference to it. Is it in the Old Testament?

September 06, 2006 1:32 AM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...

The Written Torah commands against harming a donkey, be it even your enemy's, in Exodus 23:5. The Oral Torah elaborates this to a general prohibition of harming animals beyond necessity. A necessity would be the slaughter of an animal for eating its meat; even then, the pain inflicted on the animal should be the minimal necessary for the slaughter, the quickest death possible. This, by the way, puts the lie to the libel that kosher slaughter is cruel, in much the same way the Torah's prohibition of blood consumption disproves the blood libel upon the Jews.

Are you a Buddhist, rop? Getting Buddhists into the Infidel Alliance (bother Bloggers and real-world) is something very worth doing.

September 06, 2006 12:16 PM  
Anonymous religion of pieces said...

The Jewish teaching seem similar to the Buddhist ones. Animals may only be killed for necessary purposes. (Not all Buddhists are vegetarian - it is impossible to obtain an adequate diet in places like Tibet without consuming meat)

Animals should be killed with as little suffering as possible, and they must never be killed or tormented for sadistic pleasure.

I'm not a card-carrying Buddhist but I am influenced by Buddhist philosophy. Most Buddhists I know think that Islam is just another 'path up the same mountain', like Judaism and Christianity, and don't actually see it as a path down to somewhere very nasty.

This is despite what happened at Bamiyan and what's going on in Thailand.

Very few Western Buddhists are aware that the anarchic Islamic hell-holes of Afghanistan and Pakistan were once part of a peaceful, prosperous and artistically productive Greco-Buddhist civilization, which was destroyed by the invading Muslims.

Maybe something ought to be done to increase Islamic awareness among Buddhists.

September 06, 2006 6:30 PM  
Anonymous religion of pieces said...

Although Buddhists are mostly too fluffy to see Islam as a major threat in the way that non-self-loathing Jews and non-moonbat Christians do, the same does not work in reverse. Muslims clearly see Buddhism as a threat to Islam.

From http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=611882006

“Bin Laden said the United Nations was also part of the campaign against the Muslim nation and he termed the security council a "tool" of the United States.
"This International Crusade and Buddhism have the permanent five chairs [on the UN Security Council] ... America and Britain represent the Christian Protestants, Russia represents the Christian Orthodox, France represents Christian Catholic and China represents the Buddhists, but the Islamic world is made of 57 countries and 20 percent of the earth's people ... who have no seat in the Security Council."

This is the Muzzie worldview; everything is seen in terms of a clash of religions. Now it may come as a surprise to the Dalai Lama to be told that China is Buddhist, (or to the Pope to be told that France is Catholic), but presumably the Muslims recognise China as a culturally Buddhist civilization, and view it as a potential ally of the Crusaders in preventing Muslims gaining their rightful place in the world. (I’m surprised he doesn’t mention the Joooooz, but since they control everything, maybe it’s taken for granted that all the various denominations of Christianity and Buddhism are actually the puppets of the Elders of Zion).

September 06, 2006 9:30 PM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...

rop: Most Buddhists I know think that Islam is just another 'path up the same mountain', like Judaism and Christianity, and don't actually see it as a path down to somewhere very nasty.

ZY: That's one of the things that make Islam so dangerous--this being wrapped up in the mantle of religion. The word "religion" is enough to shore up respect from the Paladins of Political Correctness.

drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2006/09/their-pc-plan.html

drybonesblog.blogspot.com/2005/10/old-nazis.html

If people just switch into the realization that Islam is a political movement with a few religious trappings, the whole game will change.

rop: Very few Western Buddhists are aware that the anarchic Islamic hell-holes of Afghanistan and Pakistan were once part of a peaceful, prosperous and artistically productive Greco-Buddhist civilization, which was destroyed by the invading Muslims.

Maybe something ought to be done to increase Islamic awareness among Buddhists.

ZY: I just remembered I have an historical encyclopedia (an old one but very good even now) with lots of photos of artifacts from that Greco-Buddhist culture. I'm thinking of mining it for materials for that purpose (of raising Islamic awareness among the Buddhists).

September 06, 2006 10:05 PM  
Anonymous religion of pieces said...

"ZY: I just remembered I have an historical encyclopedia (an old one but very good even now) with lots of photos of artifacts from that Greco-Buddhist culture. I'm thinking of mining it for materials for that purpose (of raising Islamic awareness among the Buddhists). "

RoP here's some info that might be of use ...

Greco-Buddhism, sometimes spelled Graeco-Buddhism, is the cultural syncretism between Hellenistic culture and Buddhism, which developed over a period of close to 800 years in Central Asia in the area corresponding to modern-day Afghanistan and Pakistan, between the 4th century BCE and the 5th century CE.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism
and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhist_art



Destruction of the Buddhist university of Nalanda
See http://www.indiaplaces.com/india-monuments/nalanda-university.html


Islamic rampage through India
"The Islamic conquest of India is probably the bloodiest story in history. It is a discouraging tale, for its evident moral is that civilization is a precious good, whose delicate complex of order and freedom, culture and peace, can at any moment be overthrown by barbarians invading from without or multiplying within..."
See http://www.geocities.com/scimah/idols.htm


Modern day genocide of Buddhists in Pakistan and Bangladesh
"Surely the Hindus of Pakistan and Buddhists in the Chittagong Hill Tracts deserve better? If the international community remains silent about this crime, then soon these lands will be Islamized and ethnically 'cleansed.' This is a shame for regional nations and the global community, for they are leaving the most vulnerable and 'voiceless' without any hope. Are you alarmed, if not, why? "
See http://www.faithfreedom.org/oped/LJWalker30916.htm

Destruction of Bamiyan statues. What the Buddhists had created 1500 years earlier was so difficult for these Muzzie morons to demolish that Taliban Information Minister Qudratullah Jamal lamented that, "this work of destruction is not as easy as people might think." Maybe Allah wasn't feeling all that Akhbar .

The two largest Buddhas faced dynamite and tank barrages and were demolished after almost a month of intensive bombardment.
Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates would later condemn the destruction as "savage." (taqiyya alert!) But a Swiss documentary reported that locals claimed to have seen Pakistani and Saudi engineers on site to help with the destruction of the statues.. A Pakistani 'charity', Al Rasheed Trust, based in Karachi, had published a special calendar with photographs to commemorate the destruction.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhas_of_Bamiyan



Persecution of Buddhists in Kashmir
"The territorial dispute has since escalated into a full-fledged
religious war, with Islamic militants focusing their gun sights on local
Buddhists in retaliation for their decisive role in beating back an
Islamic attack on Kargil in 1999. The Buddhists of Ladakh are the main target of the Kashmiri militants now that the Pandits [Kashmiri Hindus] have been ousted from the Kashmir
Valley," said Tsering Samphel, head of the Ladakh Buddhist Association,
in the district capital of Leh."
See http://www.tibet.ca/en/wtnarchive/2001/8/5_1.html


Saudi supported jihad in Thailand
see http://pedestrianinfidel.blogspot.com/2006/01/update-on-thailands-jihad.html

September 07, 2006 1:19 AM  
Anonymous religion of pieces said...

In contrast to the previous comment, there are two countries in the Islamic world where Buddhists aren't persecuted, they are Indonesia and Malaysia. This may seem strange in view of the persecution of Christians in these countries (eg beheading of school children). However there are five factors which work in favor of religious tolerance for Buddhists:

(1) Most of the Buddhists are ethnic Chinese.

(2) Mother China looks after her children.

(3) China is not too far away.

(4) China has a large navy.

(5) It's an old Chinese custom to blast blue daylights through potential jihadists, see http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/swank/2005/07/why-dont-muslims-kill-in-china.html

Confucius says: If you dont want Muzzies at your throat, keep them at your feet.

September 07, 2006 2:31 AM  
Blogger ZionistYoungster said...

Thanks for the info and links, rop.

Re. the Chinese Muslims: it's the same story all over again: the Muslims are "brave" in the face of cowardly enemies, and cowards in the face of enemies who put up a fight. This makes good anti-appeasement material.

September 07, 2006 11:43 AM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home