Of Iconic Lions and Hysterical Hyenas

Lindsay Perigo's picture
Submitted by Lindsay Perigo on Sat, 2015-08-01 05:24

The fathomless fatuity of Faecesbook infantiles and their ilk on or off the Internet—not to mention the warp in their moral compass—has been abundantly evident this past week as they have gone into outrage-overdrive over the killing by a recreational hunter of Zimbabwe icon Cecil the Lion. It was the wont of Cecil, a tourist attraction, to roam around Hwange National Park, where he had protected status. On the occasion in question he was lured out by hunting bait. The hunter, American dentist Walter Palmer, was unaware of Cecil's identity and celebrity status. Having acquired, he claims, a legal bow-and-arrow permit, and the right to hunt with it, Walter shot Cecil. But not fatally. Cecil fled. He was found two days later, despatched with a rifle shot and beheaded.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) co-founder and President Ingrid Newkirk released a statement that included the following:

Hunting is a coward’s pastime. If, as has been reported, this dentist and his guides lured Cecil out of the park with food so as to shoot him on private property, because shooting him in the park would have been illegal, he needs to be extradited, charged, and, preferably, hanged. [My bold—LP] To get a thrill at the cost of a life, this man gunned down a beloved lion, Cecil with a high-powered weapon. All wild animals are beloved by their own mates and infants, but to hunters like this overblown, over-privileged little man, who lack empathy, understanding, and respect for living creatures, they are merely targets to kill, decapitate, and hang up on a wall as a trophy. The photograph of this dentist, smiling over the corpse of another animal, who, like Cecil, wanted only to be left in peace, will disgust every caring soul in the world.

Hollywood bimbo Mia Farrow tweeted the address of Palmer's dental surgery, presumably so that deranged PETA-types would go there, do a Baltimore on his premises and do to him what, in other circumstances, Cecil might have done: tear him limb from limb. Or, perhaps, hang him.

Oscar Wilde characterised fox-hunting as "the unspeakable in pursuit of the inedible." It may be that Mr. Palmer did something unspeakable. There may well be a legal and moral case to make against him for the terrible suffering he inflicted upon Cecil; regardless, what he did was not remotely—or shouldn't be—a hanging offence. That, however, is not my concern here. My issue with the unhinged zealots rampaging on Twit-Witter and Faecesbook is that few of them have any business invoking "caring souls" in any of their ejaculations whatsoever since their stunning indifference when it comes to murder and torture perpetrated upon human beings by totalitarian dictators shows them to be as uncaring as it's possible to be when it matters most. By their conspicuous silence, these people support those despots!

The regime of the Marxist Mugabe in Zimbabwe itself is a classic case in point. Mugabe has the blood of tens of thousands on his hands, beginning in the 80s and continuing to the present day. Notwithstanding an exemplary new constitution approved by referendum (allowed by Mugabe under extreme duress) in 2013, laws remain in place that stifle free speech and suppress dissent. While it is nominally otherwise, Zimbabwe remains in reality a one-party state. Women engaged in political opposition are routinely raped by Mugabe's goons. Journalists who write critically of him are still likely to be beaten up by those same goons. In its latest Freedom in the World Report, the respected Freedom House still classifies Zimbabwe as "unfree" (its other two categories being "free" and "partly free"). Which champion of Cecil the Lion, which PETA assassin, has ever had a word to say about this?

Gay sex continues to be illegal in Zimbabwe. According to Mugabe: "It degrades human dignity. It's unnatural, and there is no question ever of allowing these people to behave worse than dogs and pigs. If dogs and pigs do not do it [sic], why must human beings? We have our own culture, and we must re-dedicate ourselves to our traditional values that make us human beings. ... What we are being persuaded to accept is sub-animal behavior and we will never allow it here. If you see people parading themselves as Lesbians and Gays, arrest them and hand them over to the police!"

Not just mutual penetration, but hugging, kissing and holding hands by members of the same sex are imprisonable offences. When the US Supreme Court gave the nod to gay marriage, Mugabe mockingly sought Obama's hand. (Actually, it would be a good match. Economically speaking, Mugabe is merely Obamarx on steroids, without pesky constraints.)

What men may not do to each other in Zimbabwe, Mugabe has assuredly done to the economy. Years ago he confiscated the farms of 4000 white farmers and handed them to blacks who had no clue what to do with them, fast-tracking his country to basket-case status. At the time I write this, 1 USD = 361,900 ZWD.

Again I ask, where are the PETA assassins and their fellow-travelers in all of this? Nowhere in sight. In truth, if you pursue them on such matters, you find that typically they're sympathetic to the regimes of Zimbabwe, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, ISIS et al, since those regimes are anti-capitalist and anti-America ... and American capitalism, of course, is the origin of all evil, including cruelty to animals. PETA's hysterical hyenas may be up in arms about the posthumous beheading of Cecil, but where are they on the live beheading of humans by ISIS? People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals are remarkably unfastidious when it comes to the unethical treatment of people. Indeed, we might say of Ms. Newkirk and her ilk that they are "overblown, over-privileged little people, who lack empathy, understanding, and respect for living human beings."

Rights pertain to the species capable of conceiving them—human beings. Cecil had no concept of rights—just ask any zebra or tourist he might have eaten. Humans may arguably bestow honorary rights on animals incapable of conceiving them (or protect them via ordinary human property rights), and prosecute each other for their breach, but let's keep our empathy for Cecil in perspective. It shouldn't blind us to or trump—much less justify—man's inhumanity to man.


A free market solution.

Richard Wiig's picture

No

Jules Troy's picture

I think a "national park" or any park could be run far better by private enterprise.

Poaching a species to near

Richard Wiig's picture

Poaching a species to near extinction is of course a property rights and free economy issue. They don't poach to extinguish a species, but to make a living. Take national parks out of the hands of government. Would you have a problem with farming lions to supply the limp dick market? The furore, which Kyrel seems to see as a sign of growing enlightenment in regards to animals, is opposed to any kind of free-market and property rights when it comes to animals. It wants all animals to be owned by the state.

Well..

Jules Troy's picture

I don't have a problem with responsible hunting.  I do have a problem of poaching a species to the brink of extinction so a mystical Chinese shitbag can get his dick hard even though it doesn't work.  (Hello Viagra you limp dicks.)

As a wildlife photographer I have learned a few insights.  As far as economics go ecotourism/wildlife photography tours bring in 13-20 times more money into a region than big game hunting.  It makes more sense from a capitalist standpoint to set up and maintain large game preserves that are vigorously defended by the owners.  The same could be said for hunting preserves.  Let them compete freely and may the best model win!  Could be that they both win. 

In Zimbabwe, We Don't Cry for

Richard Wiig's picture

In Zimbabwe, We Don't Cry for Lions:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08...

Life is sacred seems very

Richard Wiig's picture

Life is sacred seems very sacrificial and religious in sentiment to me, Kyrel. It is something you feel, which is not enough. I also think you misrepresent hunters in using the word slaughter. The purpose of hunting isn't to go out and slaughter, which implies an aim to cause pain to an animal, like a psychopath might gouge out the eyes of a kitten for a sick, twisted, sadistic pleasure. The purpose is to practice, and enjoy, the skill and art of hunting (regardless of whether the quarry is taken for food, a fur coat, or a trophy for the wall). A hunter, unless he is a sick twisted individual, always tries to kill the animal as quickly and cleanly as possible. To say that man should only hunt for food but not for the pleasure of hunting, reminds me of the religious notion that sex should only be for procreation but not for pleasure.

It used to be that big game hunters were portrayed as brave and courageous, but that has been replaced with the idea that man must give way to nature, and big game hunters (and it won't be too far away before that becomes all hunters in general) are now evil, nasty, greedy people. That isn't enlightened progress. It's another sign of the advance of tyranny.

Noble

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Richard -- Life is sacred. Especially big and intelligent life. To take pleasure from -- or even glory in -- a non-food related animal slaughter strikes me as uncivilized. Even non-human life should be respected and honored. At some point, hunting with machine guns, flame throwers, mortars, and tanks doesn't seem sporting or moral. Even lesser guns and equipment.

That's a very broad

Richard Wiig's picture

That's a very broad statement, Kyrel. First, I think it is wrong to include wild animals in with "weak and defenseless". Wild animals are anything but. They are strong and have no mercy for the other animals that they live on.

Second. What constitutes noble treatment? What constitutes abuse? Does lion hunting constitute abuse in your eyes?

Ascent

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

The better human society treats the weak and defenseless -- such as children, the retarded, the crippled, pets, farm animals, wild animals, etc. -- the more civilized we are as a species. This noble treatment ultimately strengthens individual rights.

I don't know how you'd

Richard Wiig's picture

I don't know how you'd quantify that, Kyrel? I can't say if I agree with you or not, because I don't know. What I have noticed is the animal rights movement becoming more mainstream. Pretty much as the Environmentalist movement has done. I don't see any good in that.

Animals

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

Richard -- Yes, Nature can be enormously cruel. But humans treat animals with less mindless abuse and cruelty every year -- to our credit.

Well said, Linz, apart from

Richard Wiig's picture

Well said, Linz, apart from the honorary rights bit.

Hunting lions is not cruel, Kyrel. Nature itself is cruel. I see animals dying horrible deaths in nature all the time. Hunters, as a rule, dispatch the animals pretty quickly compared to nature. Hunting also brings much needed money into the economy creating an economic incentive to ensure that Lions are not killed off. Animal rights rising is not an ascent of anything.

Yes, But

Kyrel Zantonavitch's picture

The over-reaction to the death of this killer lion is extraordinary, and reveals considerable philosophical and moral incompetence and depravity here on planet Earth in 2015. Still, however awkwardly and ineptly, it's part of the current intellectual and cultural ascent of man. War, crime, tyranny, animal-cruelty, etc. are all dying out. Objectivist cultism too. Human and even animal rights are rising.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.