Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Saturday, 26 December 2009

The true barbarity is loving foxes more than people

Socialists as a group aren't terribly fond of people. Oh, they like the idea of people, alright; the idea of a great amorphous mass awaiting Fabian revelation and compliantly doffing its collective cloth cap saying 'Well, I never thought of it that way before, guvernor', but not actual, real people themselves. Real people are too difficult. They keep defying convenient stereotypes; they have aspirations founded in inequality in that they want a better paid job, a newer car, a bigger garden and a bigger-breasted wife than their neighbours when the theory says that they should delight in socialist uniformity. They don't always obey the law. They drink. They fornicate. They smack their kids. They say things that cause gasps of horror in Lady Toynbee's salon. No, by and large, for most Socialists, real people are best avoided.

Animals are always safe territory for Socialists. Saving dolphins from capitalism, Orang-Utans from greedy loggers, tigers from superstitious primitives, donkeys from Spaniards and cats from the Greeks is not only virtue in itself but has the advantage that the recipients of such care don't answer back. Unlike people. And saving animals gives Socialists the opportunity they love most of all things; lecturing their fellow man on his moral shortcomings, whether for abusing the ickle animals or not speaking up against the abuse.

So it's no surprise to see Young Lord Benn, son of the erstwhile Viscount Stansgate, standing up for animals - foxes, in this case. He doesn't care for the lives and families that would be cast into penury without hunting, he doesn't care for the communities of people struggling to keep their identity in the face of a ruthless Statism, he doesn't care for the mortar that binds the blocks of many people's lives and has done so for centuries. Real people - the blacksmith, the property developer, the farmer, the water engineer and the housewife - who ride with and follow the hunt aren't important, or at least aren't as important as foxes.

And that's the true barbarity. People like Benn who love animals more than their fellow humans. It's perverse, it's delinquent and saddest of all, to a Socialist it makes perfect sense.


Anonymous said...

One could make exactly the same argument in favour of dog-fighting. After all, think on all the extra revenue generated for the vets by dog-fighting; think on the illegal bookmakers who rely on dog-fighting for their living.

If you can kill this set of animals, why can't you kill that set?

Fundamentally, Raedwald, if you enjoy killing animals, there is something mentally wrong with you. You are a sick and probably dangerous individual. Serial killers start with animals. The American Psychiatric Association (which, I am sad to say, is light years ahead of the British in this field) puts the enjoyment of killing animals as their number one sign of future problems with violent deviant behaviour and as a clear sign of mental illness.

This is not a left-right issue. Ann Widdicombe has done her damnedest to oppose fox-hunting and other types of animal cruelty. Or is she now a state-crazed leftist? Some people, even on the right, believe that torturing animals is not a good thing. Some of us, who vote Conservative and fight the good fight against the state, believe that the essential liberties for which we strive do not include the liberty to randomly torture animals to death because you happen to find the sight of blood and suffering exciting.

Raedwald said...

Oh dear - so many non sequiturs

'If you can kill this set of animals, why can't you kill that set?'

Because one set are either food or predate on our sources of food, and can thus be legitimately killed, and the other set are not. But you knew that.

'Fundamentally, Raedwald, if you enjoy killing animals, there is something mentally wrong with you.'

I agree. I take pleasure in many things associated with field sports; finding, flushing and putting up game on a rough shoot, my accuracy and speed in firing, and the health, size and attributes of the bag. But in the death of the quarry is always a little sadness - some small part of you always dies. It's the same when killing a chicken for the pot, or sending a calf off to the abattoir. And it's the same for all the good people I know. I can't think of one who enjoys killing animals.

And I can't think of anyone who 'randomly tortures animals to death' either; foxes are targets because they predate on poultry and lambs, and those most likely to be caught are those most likely to be the biggest problem to humans. It's the opposite of being random - the process is selective. And they're killed almost instantly as soon as they're caught by hounds - dogs are unfamiliar with killing things slowly, unlike cats. In fact your description 'randomly tortures animals to death' applies perfectly to cats. But not, I'm afraid, to field sportsmen.

Have a good new year!

Mike Spilligan said...

I'm sure that the American Psychiatric Association has a hypothesis on why the most vituperative comments on a subject are nearly always made by someone from the family Anonymous.
Also, what a pity that Mr Benn can't divert his mind to more important matters such as why farmers are still having problems getting payments from the Rural Payments Agency, while others are pleading for DEFRA to mitigate losses occasioned by "the rules", and yet others - dairy farmers - are increasingly going out of business due to Benn's lack of interest in their plight.
While Brown was giving away £7.5 billions of our money to counter the effects of non-existent global warming, DEFRA is allowing, as a deliberate policy, parts of East Anglia to sink into the sea, because "we can't afford to protect the coastline" - although I have read that special arrangements are in place concerning the river bordering the Stansgate estate.

Elby The Beserk said...


Tell me - why do you believe you have the right to force your "moral" code on others? You would seem to me to be the essence of the vile nastiness at the heart of New Labour, that the likes of you truly believe you have the right to dictate to others what they can and cannot do.

Dogs hunt, sunshine - it is what they do. They hunt. My dog has already got a deer this year, and a squirrel. It is in his DNA. And do you know what, twatface,
man has hunted with dog since the dawn of time. And enjoyed it. Regardless of your pathetic anthropomorphising of fox.

I guess you don't spend much time in the country do you? Shame - we could hunt you down. And enjoy doing it.

English Pensioner said...

"if you enjoy killing animals, there is something mentally wrong with you.". No, in the case of fox hunting, you would be enjoying a job well done, and one in which one gets a pleasure in doing, the removal of vermin. The argument for dog fighting or cock fighting is totally different. There is no need for either of these, both dogs and cocks perform useful purposes and if necessary can easily be controlled by other means. There are far more injured foxes in the countryside than ever before because they are not being properly controlled and have no natural predators.
What I fear is that with the growth of urban foxes which seem unafraid of humans, there will be an increase in the attacks on small domestic animals (my neighbour's guinea-pig hutch was upset, the animals killed and just left there) and sooner or later a baby or child will be badly hurt or killed.

Scrobs... said...

Silly old leftie wofflers and their priviledged sons will always be astonished that anyone could see this.

Usual rubbish from the spongers - er - sorry Lulab spongers. He used to be an interesting politician, now he's neither.

JuliaM said...

I don't mind people being anonymous, but for heaven's sake, is it that hard to choose a penname? How are you supposed to know which 'anon' is which?

On the subject of 'toturing animals to death', taking pleasure in the killing of things is one of the points on the 'homicidal triangle', along with fire-setting and bed-wetting. I think you'd find very few true hunters on that scale, and many, many more anonymous blog commenters...

Anonymous said...

When it comes to cruelty, I'll tell what gets my hackles up. Lets start with the fact that 200 hours of parliamentary time was spent discussing fox-hunting and only 20 spent on debating whether we should invade a sovreign power on false pretences. And "anon" - don't say that it isn't tru coz Blair has now admitted it.

So, we'll slaughter sons, brothers and fathers but not poor lickle foxes. OK with that are you?

Then there's Wooten Basset - that poor English village that will be scarred for centuries by grief. Lefties (probably like you) support the right of some jihadist enemy within to defile the memory of these people who died doing their duty - and I guess that's OK with you as well?

Its as plain as plain can be,to anyone with a modest brain, that banning fox hunting had nothing at all to do with the welfare ofoxes. No, it was a nasty piece of class war waged against the wrong class, because 90% of hunters are working folk from a wide variety of backgrounds, which goes to prove Radders' orininal pretext that Labour don't like people.

Coney Island