Category Archives: Unspeakable Cults

Post-Modern Post-Racialism and the Obama Presidency

Posted on by

Yesterday leftist rag The Daily Beast ran an article by squishy White “Republican” John Avlon claiming that everyone in the “birther” movement is a racist who hates Black people. The birther movement, for those of you unfamiliar with it, is a collection of mainly conservatives who are convinced Obama isn’t a natural born citizen. The Birther-in-Chief is actual Black man Alan Keyes who has been hitting this note for about a year.

Nowhere in Avlon’s lefty hit piece does he mention that Alan Keyes is the driving force behind the birther movement, nor does the bleating mass of commenters lapping up his intellectual sputum mention that or the fact that Obama isn’t a “Black man.” He is, like me, Bi-racial. Unlike me, his Black ancestors have not been in America since the 1700s, he has no roots in the Black community, and grew up in countries that had no Black population to speak of. There is even some evidence to support that his violent communist family from Kenya is involved in ethnic cleansing of Black Africans from different tribes, and those of different faiths.

Yet for Avlon, Barack Obama is the perfect Black man.

Obama promised a post-racial presidency but his entire appeal to White liberals is his “Blackness” which is mediated to the extreme by his unfamiliarity with Black American culture. The media criticized Michael Steele for making a joke about bring fried chicken to a picnic without bothering to figure out if fried chicken is something Black people like to take on picnics. It is, and my Grandmother’s fried chicken was Ambrosia wrapped in aluminum foil and slightly chilled from being in a cooler full of Shop Rite brand sodas on the way to our favorite family fishing hole.

It should be noted that the criticism of Steele, based solely on his off-hand remark that shared Black American culture with the world, came from White Obama supporters like noted hack Bill Browning. Browning claimed that Steele, a Black man, was racist against Blacks for mentioning fried chicken as a picnic food. Obama encourages this sort of post-modern redefinition of racism implicitly by standing idle now, and during his entire political career, while his clan of White “liberals” burned their rhetorical crosses on the lawns of anyone who dared to criticize the essentially White progressive agenda Obama represents. Obama is not Black and he is by any definition a token for the far left, but in this wildly redefined world he is representative of a people he knows nothing about and the power of White leftists to delineate what is “real” Black behavior and who is an Uncle Tom.

It’s an upside down world, but one in which there is still one fiction that has survived, if only because it is too important to the race baiting industry that has stolen the cause of Black advancement, and that is the Black man as perpetual victim of a racist state. In his rambling and asinine address on health care last night I saw that one of the journalists in his harem threw him what he considers a soft ball and asked him about overrated academic hack Henry Gates’ arrest. Obama lied about the details of the arrest, then called the police stupid in a display so childish all Americans should have been mortified. That the officer who the left is now claiming falsely is a racist, James Crowley, once gave a Black man mouth-to-mouth resuscitation and only arrested Gates when the belligerent Harvard professor followed him out of the house to berate him is almost a given. Obama’s friend got arrested, and since he is a Black man it was racism.

Ignore for a moment that it’s fairly unimportant. A couple of thousand people are getting arrested and thrown in a drunk tank or holding cell as you read this, only to be released after they cool off in a time honored policing technique designed to keep the arrestees from getting in more trouble. Obama supporters care about none of these people, or the addictions/mental illnesses that lead many of them into these situations. Obama is “their Black” and Gates is the Black guy who writes the books they leave on their coffee tables to show people how “aware” they are so a defense of them is tendered, so paternalistic that it’s a surprise they didn’t baby powder Gates’ little tush afterward.

The Boston Globe did, when they removed the arrest report because it reflected badly on Gates, you know, by telling the truth. If Gates wasn’t drunk during this encounter he is frankly the biggest ass in Cambridge. The Globe removing the report was an attempt to make the arresting officer look racist, even though there was no racism in the incident. Obama added fuel to that fire in what he laughably calls a post-racial presidency. White leftists are already orgasmic over Barack’s “honesty” about a subject they know nothing about which is how Black Americans are treated by the police. Ironically, the man that gives them license to do so, Barack Obama, knows nothing about it either.

The consequences of this post-modern post-racialism are an increase in racial animosity and the potential for violence and civil unrest. I blogged yesterday about a tense racial stand-off in Texas, and in this new post-racial America vicious Black on White hate crimes like the Newsom/Christian murders or the Wichita Massacre have still yet to be addressed by the national media. Both cases have been slowly scrubbed of their most horrific details on the web, as the ever shrinking Wikipedia entries for both attest to. Most recently, the assault on a White family on the Fourth of July by a gang of Blacks who made racist comments during the attackshould prove that the leftist class/race warfare narrative in this country does more harm than good, and the post-modern construct of post-racialism will only lead to more mayhem.

When he leaves office Obama will have allowed a White driven academic understanding of racism to drive policies that will further segregate America and undo years of struggle to bring Americans together. If that’s what he meant by post-racial, then he’s a success, but I suspect he meant something entirely different. That lofty goal cannot be achieved within the White progressive power structure, and a Black man would know that.

The Bitter Irony of Cap-and-Trade: Radical Environmentalism Will Kill Off Most Environmentalists

Posted on by

A couple of weeks ago my wife and I went to a farmer’s market that was, I’m ashamed to admit, in the parking lot of a local Whole Foods. As you would expect it was filled with people who arrived in hybrids festooned with bumper stickers promoting “localism” and the fight against global warming. Although the area of South Carolina my wife and I have moved to is within easy driving distance of many small farms (and I live within walking distance of two) it didn’t surprise me that the few stands there offered an extremely limited and expensive selection of produce and some meats that could not serve to feed the population of the greater metro area.

When I lived in New York my wife and I would often go to farmer’s markets and they were much the same. Though they were good for the few small farms in the area, urban farmer’s markets are pretensions that give the illusion of an area’s ability to sustain itself when in fact that area can only sustain its population through large scale industry providing citizens with cheap, readily available goods. The New York tri-state area would experience a famine of biblical proportions if the residents were forced to only buy food from local sources which farmed using practices recommended by environmentalists.The bitter irony is that the environmental movement is largely populated and driven by these same urban residents who have, for generations, been cut off from nature and the simple truths of the food chain. That is about to change with cap-and trade and all the other radical environmentalist legislation that the left in this country is pushing.

Make no mistake. The cap-and-trade (which is the first salvo in a green agenda onslaught about to be unleashed on Americans) will adversely affect the industries urban environmentalist rely on to live. All those hippies in Berkeley, all those hipsters in NYC and every Che T-shirt wearing house frau who haunts the Whole Foods produce section while sipping their Starbucks are completely unable to survive without an intricate network of businesses whose sole purpose is to ensure that people who have no idea how to produce food themselves don’t starve to death.

Large scale industrial farms burn millions of gallons of fuel to grow vegetables for people who don’t realize it’s unnatural for most of the country to even have access to fresh vegetables in the winter. Billions more gallons of fuel are burned by trucking companies who bring food into the cities where residents are blissfully unaware of the fact that should these trucks stop running grocery stores would be empty within 3-5 days. Stores spend millions of dollars a year on refrigeration to unnaturally extend the life of food, and the carbon footprint of the factories that process the canned, preserved and pre-packaged foods city dwellers rely on must surely make those urban environmentalists cringe.

Cap-and-trade is just the first attack on that system, which has functioned so smoothly and flawlessly that these same people attacking it have no idea how dependent they are on it to live. American vegan and vegetarian diets are only possible because of industrialized agriculture, especially in places like the northeast where harsh winters ensured for millenia that people needed to hunt for meat to survive. Healthy veganism and vegetarianism are only possible through the vitamin and supplement industry. Few environmentalists in fact are promoting any real sustainable lifestyle, but are instead promoting a moral philosophy based largely on secularized New Age clap trap.

It seems to have escaped our urbane friends in the Green movement that putting legislation in place that will effectively eliminate most of the activities that make megalopolis living feasible by a certain point in time will effectively eliminate not only those areas we would refer to as megalopolises (and in fact any large metro area) but will also eliminate those who live within them. With ethanol mandates already starving out poor people in third world countries, the Greens are now pushing to make farming yield even less by making it less efficient. They are destroying the ability of farmers to transport their goods to city dwellers without having a working alternative to the trucks they so despise. They are hampering the ability of grocery stores to make a profit by making their expenses go up, and those stores will attempt to recoup those losses by raising prices.

There are rosy scenarios being floated around on the right where businesses pick up and leave America causing massive unemployment and a spike in prices. These scenarios are rosy because they presume that we will still have food on the shelves, albeit more expensive than ever. But the Green agenda which is pushing cap-and-trade, just as it pushed the disastrous ethanol mandates, is setting up a system where less people will produce less food for more people. Small farms, already shrinking at a rate that makes food shortages inevitable, will disappear even faster. Trucking companies will make less runs into the cities. Less food and livestock will be available as farmers cash in on government sponsored demand for bio-fuels and then we will see the end result of the Green agenda: food shortages.

The average “Green” is used to a life of leisure. He or she has not competed for resources, has not relied on a day’s catch to feed his or her family. They have not known hunger or want. They will be thrust into a world where people fight over the last loaf of bread.They will suddenly, ironically, come face to face with real nature as they struggle to survive in a world where their own agenda has made it impossible to live in a New York, where hungry masses fight over the limited resources that occur naturally. The fewer deliveries of food from all across the country, and the world, will literally translate into starvation and collapse for the 9 million or so people in New York City.

I grew up in the 70s when my family kept large gardens, and fished for vacations. We kept the fish we caught in a deep freezer, we stored our tomatoes and cucumbers to eat. We stretched every dollar until it screamed, and pinched pennies so hard we left dents. I am not a great fisherman and the tomatillos I grew this year leave much to be desired, but my wife and I are prepared (or preparing really) to rely less on grocery stores. We will never live within a large city again and practice walking the 3 miles to the nearest large grocery chain for the inevitable time when gas becomes so expensive that we only drive in emergencies.We know what it is like to live simply, and perhaps violently, and though we don’t like it can get by when that time comes.

But what of those Birkenstock clad women in their paisley summer dresses shrewfully wagging their fingers at the world while their husbands pay for their “fair trade” papayas on their American Express? When food riots in New York inevitably move into their expensive suburbs as the poor, priced into starvation by the Green agenda, explode into violence how will they survive? When shelves are empty what will they eat? When the park system is emptied of its wild edibles (and Van Cortlandt park is the best place to forage for wild greens by the way) what then the family of four who never realized they would need to find a way to feed themselves that didn’t include a cashier?

The Green agenda seeks to push America into a more agrarian 18th century style country. They seek a 21st century world where 20th century technology is banished and cities take on the characteristics of Walnut Grove. But these are no Ingalls family, able or willing to live a life of self-sufficiency. These are people completely reliant on post-industrial society, hooked to the slow and steady intravenous drip of industrialized food production and oil based delivery systems. In their stupor they seek to tear that line out of their own arm, even though it will likely kill them.

And they will take many of the rest of us with them.

The Martyrdom Fetish: The Modern Liberal’s Obsession with You Dying for Their Beliefs

Posted on by

Yesterday Politico’s Josh Kraushaar wrote this in response to Marco Rubio’s common sense observation that the Iranian people would have been better off if their divinely given right to bear arms in their defense had been respected:

Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio is the latest to make his own curious comparison drawn from the Iranian demonstrations — that the protesters would have more success if they had a constitutional right
to bear arms.

“I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd amendment like ours,” Rubio tweeted on Sunday.

Not sure if Rubio was advocating an armed uprising from the otherwise peaceful protesters, but his follow-up tweet was a bit more dovish: “Hoping police and military in Iran will refuse to attack unarmed civilians if ordered to do so.”

Kraushaar seems to imply that the massacre of unarmed protesters by a theocratic regime is a more desirable outcome than an armed insurrection where the people could defend themselves from government paramilitary forces and allies, including Palestinians imported into Iran by the Mullahs because they knew Hamas thugs would be more brutal to the protesters.

As Ed Morrissey pointed out Rubio’s point is hardly “curious” and shouldn’t be controversial. The theocracy of Iran can only enforce its will on the people through its monopoly on arms. That monopoly on arms makes protesting pointless, as the savage barbarity of Baharestan Square makes clear:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEtVRgZ3Szw[/youtube]

According to Threats Watch 10,000 Basiji Militia waded into the protesters with axes, clubs, and of course, guns. The helpless protesters could do nothing but die in droves, unable to defend themselves from axe wielding thugs. There’s a picture of one of the dead with an axe wound at Threats Watch if you want to see the end result of civilian disarmament.

Kraushaar seems to think this outcome was better than the one Rubio and I and I’m sure any person with an ounce of compassion would want, which is a population who can resort to use of arms to prevent their loved ones from being hacked to death, their wives and daughters taken back to Palestine as Hamas war booty. Kraushaar is arguing that it is in some way immoral to wish that the Iranian people, like we Americans, had the resources with which to resist governmental tyranny.

Instead they cheer on the protests and the slaughter. They love to see Martyrs to the cause of Democracy, but they can’t abide heroes. They won’t support Iranian self-determination, or the Iranian people’s right to overthrow a regime that rules only through force. It would be easy to claim that for people who spent the last eight years pretending that they were fighting a fascist dictator through blogging on DailyKos seeing true heroic resistance to oppression, and the horrible consequences of civilian disarmament (a policy they support) too painfully exposes their own childish perfidy. But that’s not the reason the Kraushaars of the world find the idea of Iranians having the means to defend themselves abhorrent.

I maintain that to fully understand modern liberalism you have to understand it not as just a political ideology, but as a state worshipping pseudo-religion. In fact, modern liberalism is little more than secularized radical Christianity where God and Jesus have been replaced with “the common good.” Liberal thought posits that the world is divided into good and evil people. Where this bastard offspring of radical theology and academic Marxism truly perverts Judeo-Christian thought is in how good and evil is judged. In fact, the act of judging something or someone as evil is, to the Liberal cultist, evidence of not only the evil of whoever it is making that judgment, but of the victimization, thus the goodness, of the object judged. Victimhood is to the modern liberal what Sainthood is to the Christian.

Those who don’t want to be victims, those who seek the means to keep ourselves from being victimized, are not just rejecting liberal pacifism, but the entire cosmology on which that selective pacifism is based.  Kraushaar no doubt finds my personal gun ownership as “curious” as the wish for Iranians were armed. He would find the pepper spray my social worker mother habitually carried with her into rough areas of NYC, a practice that was illegal for much of my life in both NY and NJ, “curious” as well. Women carrying anything more than a “rape whistle” (and anyone who thinks that’s a good idea should read this) to prevent being victimized are no doubt met with the same naive disdain disguised as curiosity that Kraushaars showed Rubio.

The modern Cult of Liberalism, an anti-theist doctrine that searches for cultural rather than personal salvation, seeks to achieve heaven on earth through class, race and gender warfare. This warfare, which has never fully erupted, needs a soldier that is willing to tear down entire classes, races and genders. It needs people who are not only victims, but people “stuck” in their victimization. Stuck in the anger, resentment and fear victimization breeds. Victims are kept by modern liberalism in a state of perpetual co-dependency, and encouraged to continually define themselves as victims. They are never encouraged to use their victimization to learn how to protect themselves. Victim status is fetishized and sought after, making examples of of people refusing to be victims, or ideas which would ensure people can’t be victimized, greeted with the same enthusiasm Christians would greet a heresy.

The Utopia the Kraushaars of the world envision is one in which the individual is completely reliant on the state. The State Will Provide will be the new mantra of the non-Jesus freaks, assured that a benevolent all-encompassing and ever watchful state will feed, clothe, shelter and protect them while they revert to a child-like existence of pure innocence, worrying only about nothing more important than what trendy restaurant to eat at. Their fantasy ignores reality as it is. If the outcome of the protest, now massacres, in Iran would have been more positive by people owning weapons and defending themselves, then their faith is undermined. It is better for liberals to claim that the act of being killed is superior to killing to defend yourself.

The Iranians will pay in blood for this leftist hubris, and all they will get in return is some theatrical hand-wringing and and some talk about how brave the dead were. But like Darfur, Burma and dozens of other outrages, the Iranian government will suffer no consequences for the slaughter, and those who will continue to suffer for the next few years as these crackdowns continue will be left impotent martyrs to the long abandoned cause of freedom, whose throat was slit long ago by the “the common good.”

It is perhaps the worst part of the secularization and perversion of Christian doctrine that is modern liberalism. You must die for their beliefs, because if you as an individual can resist victimization you will have undermined their foundational mythology. There can be no Liberal Heaven on Earth if there are still men and women who can care for themselves, and desire their freedom more than a false sense of safety provided by weapon restrictions. Those of us willing to fight and die for our lives and our families, and worse yet kill for them, are truly the Fallen in the modern liberal’s view, and must be sacrificed on the altar of The Common Good.

Queens Mother Burns Child in “Voodoo” Rite

Posted on by

A Haitian immigrant is being accused of pouring brandy on her child and setting the little girl on fire in a rite that authorities are claiming was called “Loa.” I’m no expert but the Loa are, in Haitian Voodoo, God’s intermediaries on Earth. Usually a Loa is a being that Voodoo practitioners interact with for religious or magical purposes. In other words this report is either incomplete, or there’s something we’re not getting:

Determined to drive evil spirits out of her daughter, a Queens mom performed a bizarre voodoo fire ritual that left the 6-year-old girl scarred for life, prosecutors say.

While young Frantzcia Saintil was “engulfed in flames,” Marie Lauradin let the screaming girl burn, Queens District Attorney Richard Brown said Thursday.

The girl told cops “the flames crawled up her body and burned her,” the criminal complaint said.

Eventually, Frantzcia’s grandmother doused the flames with cold water, but the women then put the girl to bed instead of getting her help, Brown said.

Frantzcia suffered for a whole day before a relative begged them to take her to a hospital.

When doctors finally saw her, Frantzcia had second- and third-degree burns covering 25% of her body, including her face, torso and legs, court papers state.

Lauradin, a 29-year-old Haitian immigrant, was charged with assault and endangering the welfare of a child. She faces up to 25 years in prison if convicted.

This seems more like abuse with a religious covering. Here’s the part where the rite is described:

Lauradin, her mother and her daughter lived in the basement of a two-family home in Queens Village, where neighbors said they were not surprised.

“They weren’t into conversation,” neighbor Henry St. Jean said. “I used to hear them scream at [Frantzcia]. They would tell her to get on her knees for a couple of hours.”

Lauradin allegedly burned her daughter while performing a ritual that Brown called “Loa.” She sprayed a circle of rum on the floor around her daughter – poured some on her head – and ignited it, police said.

A “friend” named Sketch helped set up the ritual but hasn’t been charged, leading me to think that the child’s mother and grandmother were “winging it” and maybe decided mid exorcism to hurt the child, as the neighbors reports on the child’s treatment indicates they family enjoyed tormenting the girl for some time. Sounds to me like the mother was the one possessed.

But the authorities and papers may just be misunderstanding. Though most practitioners of Voodoo and its relatives are no more likely than anyone else to commit a crime, especially one involving their religion, there are instances of rites and rituals that are criminal coming to light. The murders by Adolfo de Jesus Constanzo and his cult are said to have occurred so he could “feed” his Nganaga, a kind of familiar spirit created by Palo Mayombe practitioners that resides in a cauldron through a magical process that involves Necromancy, Sorcery and religious devotion.

The cult of Santa Muerte (Saint Death) that is so popular with criminals in Mexico is likely responsible for human sacrifices and I believe there is a connection between Constanzo and the spread of the Santa Muerte cult.

But this crime happened in New York and Palo, Sante Muerte worship, Voodoo and all the other Afro-Caribbean traditions are similar to the scholar like myself, but as different from one another as Islam, Christianity and Judaism are. What’s more, practices in these religions often vary from region to region, so New Orleans Voodoo will be different than New York Voodoo.  Because the mother in this case is from Haiti it’s likely she at least thought she was practicing good old fashioned Haitian Voodoo, although I think it’s possible she was practicing what we might call “Spiritual Christianity” where Voodoo is completely subsumed into Protestantism, which puts a special emphasis on casting out devils. I’d still be curious as to what the rite they were practicing actually was intended to do. It is a common practice to use fire to “cleanse” people (as in passing a hand quickly through a candle flame) but I’ve never heard of someone being set alight for a ritual.

Having lived in New York I’ve come across stories of children being injured in makeshift exorcisms with alarming, and tiresome, regularity however. Religious aspect or not, abuse is abuse and the adults here should be locked up for what they’ve done and I’m sure readers will keep the poor child in their prayers.

Here’s a great essay on Voodoo that’s informative if a bit “undergrad” in its barely hidden moralizing. The unfortunately hard to find Divine Horseman by Maya Deren is a good place for the dilettante to start if voodoo peaks your interest.

Humanity in Decline: Spate of Cougar Attacks in Canada Causes Spate of Internet Anti-Human Moralizing

Posted on by

There have been two attacks by Mountain Lions on humans in Squamish B.C. which most people seemed shocked by, even though any old timer or even better any book written when Cougars roamed wild will show you that while uncommon it is not unusual for America’s big cat to attack humans, specifically children or people who look either injured or disabled. From CBCNews:

Conservation officers in Squamish, B.C., continue to hunt for two more cougars after a rash of attacks, including one in which a mother fought off an attack on her daughter, 3, who couldn’t understand why the big kitty didn’t want to “play nice.”

Five conservation officers aided by two dogs and their handlers eventually tracked the cat through several yards and eventually shot it just off Depot Road in the Brackendale neighbourhood, about 60 kilometres north of Vancouver, four hours after the attack Tuesday evening.

DNA samples taken from the cougar will be used to determine whether it was the one that attacked the child, they said.

The cougar is the second killed by conservation officers since Saturday. The other was shot after two dogs were attacked on a popular hiking trail on Friday and Saturday.

That’s nature. It’s why you take a gun in the woods, or nowadays with people who have never been in the wild making the rules for state land why you need a walking stick, a good knife and a first aid kit when hiking. Animals sometime attack humans, humans must protect themselves and their families. Like this brave mother:

In the attack on Tuesday, the cougar pounced on Maya Espinosa from behind as she and her mother were walking their dog and picking berries in Fisherman’s Park near the Squamish River.

Maureen Lee told CBC News she was turning away to pick a berry when she thought she saw another dog approaching out of the corner of her eye, but it was the cougar coming to attack her daughter, Maya.

“All of a sudden it just flew on her, rolled her a couple of times and grabbed her under its belly on the ground like in the fetal position,” Lee recalled.

“She [Maya] was on her back and he had his paws in her head, and I just knew I had to react quick, so I just jumped in there and wedged myself between the cougar and her on the ground, and I just got up and threw it off my back and grabbed her and booked it,” she said.

The toddler suffered puncture wounds to her left arm and head, but was recovering well, her mother said.

Neighbour Wade Rowland said it appeared the young girl didn’t entirely understand what had happened.

“Everyone’s taking it well, they’re in good spirits,” he said. “The little girl, her big comment was, I guess, ‘Why didn’t the kitty play nice?’ ”

Pablo Espinosa, Maya’s father, told CBC News his daughter thought the cat was playing. She was eager to return to kindergarten to tell her classmate what happened, Lee said.

Astute readers will suspect a theme in the attacks. Dogs and children were involved, and though we can’t be sure I assume most of the dogs were medium sized or smaller. In other words Cougars are attacking meal sized animals, even human ones. What is worrisome is that adult humans are not scaring the big cats off.

Scary stuff, unless you’re some left-wing environmentalist for whom children and people walking their dogs have less “natural rights” than predatory animals who might eat them. Here’s a sample of the kind of comments I saw on this story:

Get this straight: no particular cougar near Squamish ate any human flesh. This makes much of what people are saying, in over 300 posts off topic. Cougars that are in this particular prime real estate area are a huge problem because they are also in Olympic Territory. The “world”, meaning more and more ignorant people are arriving for the “games”. Ignorant wandering around wilderness “parks” during berry picking season are a danger to large animals–they are killed. Unless the B.C. government has already decided to kill off all cougars in that area they should stop killing and start relocating these huge cats and other the other large animals such as bear to areas where deer and rabbits are in abundance. One advantage Canada has is her vast mountainous regions that are sparsely populated by humans. Or…the government should just be truthful and admit that they will do nothing and deal with consequences as they happen.

MOM admits, on the video, that she was irresponsible. I am glad, for her sake and her daughter’s, that she was also courageous. It seems that ignorance rules though–most people writing here have “war mentality”.

Their advice is to kill the cougars so they will be safe. Get this: wars do not create peace; they create hatred. Wilderness trails are NOT SAFE and cannot be made safe by killing. Especially during berry picking season.

Or this gem from PaulStacey:

With 7 billion of us. close as dammit, on this earth, why are we so vicious to those animals that would try to redress the balance?

Or this comment from Bubblebum:

looks like people are all for the killing of innocent wildlife.
yes, innocent. They were walking through a forest, where do you think these creatures live?

maybe i should go wanter through your home, then later one have someone shoot you because you wanted me out of your house?

This is where they live, and that is BC shouldn’t you be careful what woods you wander in to? plus they don’t even know if they shot the cougar that attacked. they randomly killed an animal because they thought it might have been it.

You get the idea. Lefty “nature lovers” are completely separated from the nature they love and fantasize about animals in pre-teen anthropomorphic terms. No animal is “innocent” certainly not when they begin hunting humans or the pets of humans. Humans culling dangerous game isn’t “war” against nature, it is nature. The woods aren’t a cougar’s “living room” or house. Most importantly, humans have a right to follow their nature and make their territory safe.

To these armchair naturalists, a child being eaten is “redressing the balance” by some avenging hand of nature. This is nihilism not nature. The anti-social cheering on death and mayhem (much of it avoidable if liberals would allow people to interact with nature armed as we are meant to) because they simply hate other people. Powerless but angry, wallowing in the imagined misery that gives them their perceived moral licenses to be misanthropic, the commenters above live vicariously through reports of their fellow humans being killed by animals because the animals are doing what they lack the courage to do.

Cheering on a child’s death is almost as repellent as killing one, the difference is not in the character of those who do either, but the degree in which they act out their most evil inclinations.