Well, actually, no, I don't. At least not after learning what I am about to share with you. Here is yet another thing that the dumbasses are using against Furries: we hate all "mundanes" (read: humans) and believe that "hyoomans" are "yuckie". I'm not going to kid you: this really does happen. I am going to tell you why, and what to do about it.
We Furries did not originate this concept of human self-hate. It has been a staple of the so-called "New Age" movement for the past thirty years, if not longer. The New Ager, grieving over all the ways that humans have discovered for behaving foully towards the other beings with whom we share this planet, their fellow humans, and even the environment itself, has long gone in search for perfection in other species. Sometimes this is a RL species, such as the dolphin (although New Age "dolphins" bear damn little resemblance to the real deal) or fanciful extraterrestrial aliens. Does it come as any surprise that a fandom dedicated to anthropomorphic animals would provide fertile ground for such ideas? As I have stated time and again: if it exists out there in the wider mundane world, it will insinuate itself into that microcosm that is Furry-dom.
Where do such bullshit ideas come from and why? The "man the killer" myth is regularly reinforced within the popular culture. William Golding's dumbassed novel, Lord of the Flies is heralded as a "brilliant" insight into "human nature".
The theme of Lord of the Flies has been questioned and speculated about for decades. To answer the critics, Golding said that the theme was to trace the problems of society back to the sinful nature of man. He wrote the book to show how political systems cannot govern society effectively without first taking into consideration the defects of human nature.
The defects of human nature are exemplified in Golding's novel through the characters of Jack and his hunters. Here, Golding shows that men are inherently evil; if left alone to fend for themselves, they will revert back to the savage roots of their ancestors. This is seen in the novel near the end, when the tribe is hunting Ralph. Matters had become quite out of hand by this time. Even the naval officer who saves the boys knows their society has become savage.Theme Analysis
I, Simo, Furry and human, declare you, William Golding, to be a complete and hopeless fuck-tard. If the reactionary nature of Golding's idiot-ology doesn't give you the creeps, it should. Don't waste your time reading his shitty book. It has nothing of any importance, or relevance to the human situation, to say to you. It is poison for the mind and spirit; the writing, apart from the story itself, is horrible. Read my kickass fanfic instead. (Note: If you are a high school student who has been assigned to read Lord of the Flies, you have my permission to copy and paste this material. Go and have fun with your friends, play video games, get laid. Life is too short, youth too fleeting, to be wasting any of it reading this crap.)
"Finally in 1983, he was awarded the Nobel prize for his literary merits." Means nothing, one bunch of dipshit academicians rewarding a flack for the status quo for services rendered. Also consider this: these were the same assholes that gave Yassir Arafat a Nobel for peace. 'Nuff said.
Or that episode of Rod Serling's The
Twilight Stupidity Zone, where space aliens made a lawn mower malfunction and the next thing you know, it's neighbor fighting and killing neighbor. And yet, dumbasses everywhere keep falling for this crap. What do you fuckers use that 1.5 kilograms of gray squishy stuff between your ears for anyway?
Think about this: what better way is there for keeping the powers that be in power, and the "little people" disempowered? If you can convince them that man, by his very nature, is an inherently violent, dangerous killing machine whose "true" nature is barely held in check by that "thin veneer of civilization", your job is largely over. You can command obedience and exert social control over the individual. The man who sees every other man, friend, neighbor, or stranger, as a potential killer who needs but the tiniest of pushes to unleash his violent passions, will gladly surrender to his oppressors, who, at least, keep him safe from his fellow co-speciesists. Indeed, he will find it easy to call upon the powers that be for an even firmer hand. If nobody can trust anybody, then the "little people" can be kept as an impotent, atomized, mass of pliable humanity. Ultimately, he comes to distrust himself. With this self-distrust, comes degradation. With the idea that "civilization" can only be maintained by external restraint, alternative forms of organization, such as co-operative self interest of free individuals dealing fairly and honestly since honour and integrity are in the best interests of all, are not even considered. Neither do the "little people" question decisions at the top that go against their interests: sending their children off to kill the sons of other mothers in some tiny little country they probably never heard of half a world away. They hear and obey. After all, if they did not, then would not civilization come crashing down? Would not the next stop be sheer primitive barbarism: kill or be killed, "Lord of the Flies", if nothing stayed the murderous hand of man?
If man is a killer by nature, then no one can be held accountable for the violence and war. It's just shit that happens, it's as inevitable as tomorrow's sunrise. In order to correct a problem, a problem must first be perceived. If no one questions, then it won't dawn on them that obedience isn't the solution. It is the problem. If this fact were widely recognized, then either the leaders of the "pack" (i.e. gov't, the ruling class) would have no choice but to cease giving orders that lead to violence and atrocities. Or young men would simply cease obeying those orders. After all, Hitler, Stalin, Mao had no power to oppress their people other than the obedience of the people themselves. This is why it is so important for you to believe that you are an untrustworthy "sinner", a savage beast at heart. It is another BIG LIE that keeps "them" in power.
So far as man's being a natural born killer, this is simply not true. The instinctive pattern of human fighting involves mainly over hand blows to the head, shoulders, and rib cage. The method of striking does not deliver a full force blow; the areas stricken are well protected. Serious injury, let alone death, is uncommon. Contrast this with the martial arts, where blows deliver maximum force to unprotected soft tissue. One single blow could prove lethal. However, the martial arts take years of training and practice to master. Indeed, when I was growing up, many of these tactics were called something else: "fighting dirty". It was a serious accusation to be made against any eight year old boy.
The Army goes to great lengths to train civilians to become soldiers. There is as much psychological conditioning, if not more, involved as there is in training in the mechanics of using a rifle, grenade launcher, knife and bayonet. Despite this, some 70% of soldiers involved in their first few fire fights, can not bring themselves to shoot enemy soldiers whose lethal intentions are not in the slightest doubt. Some "killer" instinct, huh? (See: Military Review, June, 1999. Maj. David Pierson)
Ideology - that is what gives devildoing its long sought justification and gives the evildoer the necessary steadfastness and determination. That is the social theory which helps to make his acts seem good instead of bad in his own and others' eyes, so that he won't hear reproaches and curses but will receive praise and honors.--Voltaire
Ideology isn't simply a theory. Theories can be completely wrong and therefore discarded. A theory can be tweaked and modified as it interacts with the real world, which seems to take a perverse delight in throwing monkey wrenches into the inner workings of clever theories. Ideology is an entire and complete system, and not simply a theory. As such, it can not admit to error. It can not stand modification. It can not stand for allowing anyone to state that it's wrong and that it has failed. Even the very thought can't be tolerated. Ideology will build gulags for its opponents, and go to extraordinary lengths to debauch the language of dissent. Communist ideology is a clear failure. However, this does not deter the champions of Marxian communism. The excuses are endless, and here in America, the language of dissent is suppressed under the notion of "political correctness". One can not oppose if one lacks the language to express that dissent. The excuses are endless, and the fault always lies with others. Mere failure is never enough to justify abandoning any ideology.
Ideology creates a faceless, nameless mass of "others" upon whom the blame for failure is laid. Strip away the human-ness with labels: Jews, Blacks, Moslems, etc. Demonization then becomes easy. You aren't killing men, women, and children who are not all that different from you, but rather "settling" the "Jewish question". Ideology turned small time farmers into "kulaks" and "exploiters" who were held responsible for the spectacular failure of collectivized agriculture. Never mind that these "exploiters" mainly lived little better than landless peasants, it was all that Josef Stalin needed to wipe them out: guilt or innocence did not matter. Strip away the individuality, then all become as guilty as one. Horrifying atrocities then quickly follow, along with "praise and honours" rather than "reproaches and curses". It operates on a mass scale: Inquisitions, pogroms, witch hunts, ethnic cleansing. It works on the small scale as well: yahoos who drag an inoffensive Black man to his death, ruffians who beat a young gay man and leave him for dead. Labels are all that's left: "kike", "coon", "kulak", "fag", "kraut", "jap", "charlie", "gook", "sandnigger", "dunecoon": the list goes on and on, and so does the killing. It's easy to kill a label, especially if everyone is assuring you of the "righteousness" and "justice" of the "cause".
It may seem as though this has become too "natural" to believe that it was ever any different. However, ideology, like anything else, had to be invented. People have lived without it. Consider the Native Americans. While it may be true that such things as war and slavery were not brought to North America by Europeans, it is also true that no Native Americans ever fought a war of extermination. This was a European innovation.
By "discovering" the Caribbean's inhabitants, Columbus had stumbled into a civilization about 1500 years old. Española was the center of that island civilization, and a people known today as the Taino dominated it. They had migrated from South America, along the archipelago of Caribbean islands at about the time Jesus lived, gradually absorbing/displacing a hunter-gatherer culture. The Taino were Arawakan people. There were other ethnic groups in the Caribbean, such as the Caribs, Guanahatabey and Ciguayo, although the Taino were by far the largest group and occupied the greatest portion of Caribbean land. The Taino's material and spiritual culture was what all other Caribbean groups based their culture on. The Taino were settled in agricultural communities and possessed a rich and diverse food supply. Life was easy in the pre-Columbian Caribbean, and if there could be any generalizations made of the Taino, particularly as compared to today, it would be their happiness and gentleness. Their world was about as close to earthly paradise as human existence has ever come, a fact that was not lost on Columbus, as he often remarked upon it in his log. He regularly observed that the natives did not seem capable of dishonesty.
On December 25, 1492, with Columbus aboard, the Santa Maria ran aground at night while a boy was steering. The local village came to the rescue and unloaded the sinking ship. Columbus was amazed at the natives' helpfulness, and assured his king and queen that "not even a shoe string (more literally "lace point," used to secure shoes and clothes - ed.) was lost!" The cacique of the helpful local village, Guacanagarí, welcomed the stranded sailors.Columbus, The Original American Hero
Historical records, including the logs that Columbus kept, reports from scholars and priests, soldiers and sailors, all testify to the friendliness and gentleness of the natives of the various Caribbean Islands. When asked what they thought of the Europeans, the thing that struck them as being the most different and problematic wasn't the manifestly superior technology, or even their greed and blood lust, but rather the Europeans' lack of capacity for love. It's a story of technologically backward "primitives" and "savages". They were not one and the same.
Here is man living as close to nature, as free from the constraints of civilization, as possible. "Lord of the Flies"? Not hardly! Man, free of bullshit ideologies, is a remarkably inoffensive creature. "Hyoomans" aren't so bad after all. If you, Furries and mundanes alike, cut through the bullshit and feel the need to hate something, then hate ideology -- in all its forms, not humans.
There. Don't you feel better already?
I have written many times about the practical, worldly reasons to oppose same-sex marriage. But it's time to get down to basics. There is a reason most people frown on homosexuality. It is not prejudice. It is not bias. It is not irrational. It is because God has pronounced it wrong, immoral, abomination, sin.
Here is a stunning example of what Orwell referred to as "double-think" in his novel, 1984: the ability to hold two mutually exclusive propositions while believing both at the same time. Farah proclaims that this position of his is not "irrational". First of all, how about backing that train of thought to the station. Before telling us what God has pronounced as being "wrong", "sinful", "abominable", or "immoral", how about establishing the existence of this God? Nowhere in his diatribe does Farah do this. If you can not establish the existence of the pronouncer, then the pronunciation is rendered null and void. To insist otherwise is highly irrational, and these simply become opinions, bias, and prejudice. Period. End of discussion.
When we reject the One True God, we have nowhere to turn but to depravity of all sorts -- base and vile actions, of which homosexuality is just one.
Here, we have both an unsubstantiated claim: a "One True God" that can only be rejected if, in fact, such a thing exists. This has yet to be established. Secondly, it's a false dichotomy. There is no evidence presented that there are no other alternatives than "depravity".
Marriage is not an institution invented by man. It is an institution created by God. It was created not just to make man happier on earth, but as a way for men and women to better know God.
More baseless claims that he can not verify.
Homosexuality is nothing new.
It has always been around.
But it does thrive and flourish when it is condoned.
In fact, it has led to the downfall of more than one civilization when it has consumed societies \u2013 blinding them to right and wrong, robbing them of prosperity, infecting them with diseases of the mind, spirit and body. [...]
Our society is on the verge of hammering what may be the final nail in the coffin of our American way of life.
Here, he gets to the point: the demonization of an entire class of human beings. Of course, he can not offer any proof that "it" (meaning homosexuality) can cause the downfall of civilizations. He can't even provide one example, nor explain the mechanism by which homosexuality does this. However, he is certain that it does. So we have these homos infecting people with "diseases" of the body, mind, and spirit. So does this mean that I can call in gay? As if catching the gay weren't bad enough, our "American way of life" is in jeopardy.
Farah's thinking here is but a short hop, skip, and a jump to a full-blown "Holocaust". The similarities to Nazi propaganda is striking. Jews were also characterized as vectors of "disease", as "vermin", as a serious threat to the German "way of life". One eliminates disease-carrying vermin, doesn't one? What patriotic German would not want to defend the German way of life; what patriotic American would not want to defend the American way of life? Is that not a good thing? As for Farah's beliefs, he is hardly alone in believing as he does. You can find many well-meaning believers who would have no trouble agreeing with Farah, and would be appalled by the suggestion that they wanted to murder all the homosexuals. Such is the insidious nature of ideology. It is not too difficult to see how the mass exterminations of gays would be greeted with "praise and honours" instead of "reproaches and curses". You can be sure that if you confronted Farah with this possibility, he would deny it with vigour. He might even mean it with all sincereity. However, all it would take would be a skillful demagogue to put the machinery of mass extermination into motion. Regardless of how sincere and well-meaning Farah is, he still has paved the road.
Should that day ever arrive, will you hear and obey? Can you really be so certain that you would not?