For The Love Of Dog

Bestiality means never having to say you’re sorry.

I embrace being a social pariah when I share my opinion on pet ownership. Not liking dogs has become the moral equivalent of baby seal clubbing. When I see the dog park being a main social attraction to meet others, I know we are at some strange phase in the collapse.  

A while back, my brother had a gig to help a back-issued, closet opiate-addicted boomer deliver boxes out of a beat-up FedEx truck. He ended up doing all the physicalities of the job. This meant getting chased down by Pitbulls while delivering boxed wine to some “almost divorced” leather-faced wench. He noticed a trend in dog food coupled with unmarked boxes when shook sounded like a rubber pinball inside. One day the faded boomer saw my brother’s look of confusion over the packages being shipped together. “Dog Food And Dildos; It’s What We Do!” Taken back with a heavy laugh, my brother asked, “you’re joking. Right?”. He repeated, “Dog Food And Dildos, It’s What We Do!”  

Studying the topic of human and canine relations, I was bombarded with nothing but the positive aspects of dog ownership ranging from sharing the same bed to vegan puppy treats. However, diving deeper into the topic and using my own personal observations, I realized pet ownership has become a full-blown middle-class decadence and a terminal symptom of a highly stressed and depressed populace. 

Pet ownership has skyrocketed last year thanks to the scamdemic, with some 68 million people living with pets. It was also estimated that U.S. pet owners were expected to spend about $99 billion, up from $95 billion in the previous year. The industry for animals now has its own ETF that tracks businesses catering to pets. Housing is geared to canines where we no longer see playgrounds for children but areas designated for dogs to defecate in. We have ice cream for dogs, organic foods, plastic surgery, hotels, even sites dedicated to finding the best city for pets. 

Some females regard themselves as mentally unstable, having an infatuation for an emotional support animal. This has turned into a new meal ticket for those in the mental health industry and a colossal burden on society. The push for minimalist lifestyles puts heavy emphasis on dog ownership, where we have the image of the stoic alpha male with his “best friend” by his side. Pet owners may find the human need for affection is met most easily through a relationship with a pet.

What still holds true in most impoverished lands is that dogs are pests that run around people’s property and eat garbage. They have no name, there’re mangy, not neutered and are mutts. You do NOT want these dogs near you. A dog is generally worthless in comparison to a cow or even chickens. In the United States, they were used for hunting and protecting private property like farms and where I grew up chop shops. So they serve a physical purpose, not an emotional one. We always loved and respected animals. After World War 2, having a dog was a sign of achieving a household goal. The trope of the stable nuclear family. Think of the stick figure family decal you see on the back of a soccer mom’s SUV. As the home disintegrated, the only thing left standing was the family pet. 

How did we get here? 

In Dave Sims tirade against feminism titled Tangent, he states: Clearly, this came about through the fault of fathers surrendering to the weakness they experience in dealing with their daughters. No lofty trajectory of the imagination is required to envision the centuries of pleading that must have gone into the winning of that first victory by a daughter over her father: inclement weather, undoubtedly, serving as the thin end of the wedge . . . 

“Please, Papa, it’s freezing outside.” 

. . . and, in the succeeding years, the rest of the civilizational barricades between man and beast falling like dominos. (Well, all right, just this once) KLUNK (Well, all right but he stays in the entryway) KLUNK (Well, all right, but keep him in the kitchen) KLUNK (Well, all right, but keep him on the hardwood) KLUNK (Well, all right, but he has to stay on the floor) KLUNK (Well, all right, but he has to stay at the foot of the bed) KLUNK (Well, all right, but he has to stay on top of the covers) KLUNK. Who can doubt that we’re only a generation or two away from  “Well, all right, but don’t give him the good china”? It’s not hard to see the question that that first capitulating father asked himself and which each successive father asked himself as each successive societal barricade fell: “Where’s the harm?”

The dog has supplanted both the spouse and the child to in developed country’s and is awkwardly mimicked in countries with a growing bourgeoisie. It’s astonishing how the human family can be replaced by incredibly unintelligent and short-lived animals without anyone giving it a second thought. There are many factors for this and some include lack of suitable partners, militant individualism, occupational stresses and the high cost to sustain a middle-class lifestyle. Even Boomers have embraced dog ownership because of an empty nest that was once filled with grandchildren. Has anyone else seen the bumper sticker saying “My grandchild has paws”? Or “Who rescued who? and my personal favorite “Dog is Love.” Recently I saw a 20 something-year-old thot wearing a shirt that said, “I’m only talking to my dog today”. Dogs have been shown to alleviate the perception of loneliness and depression and to improve perceived general health.

When you open up yourself to others, there is a possibility of dissonance. They may disagree with you; they may behave in ways that contradict the image you constructed of them in your expectations of them. Humans are autonomous, independent; they are abrasive at times and offensive. To date others is to take a risk to be vulnerable to have a weakness. To be refuted and not sustain a bruised ego. This can be summed up to intimacy. We cannot have intimacy anymore since there is a constant struggle on who is dominating who in the relationship and not seeing the other as a companion but as a competitor (domicile tournament theory). Do people want to make concessions or compromise anymore? Having a dog doesn’t have any of these drawbacks. No disagreements, won’t criticize you and are loyal. Dogs love us unconditionally, where humans do not.

Women imprint their biological urges onto their pets (usually dogs), where their dogs are a surrogate to motherhood on some physiological level with delusional affection. They create the person they admire and project it onto the animal. People gain validation from having power over controlling a dependent and needy creature. They will purchase dogs that they know very little about as far as their breed type goes, and for many breeds, they would not survive weeks without their owners. At times, women will raise a dog under the notion it will protect them since they have no dominant male in the house to scare away things they find threatening, like a guy who’s interested in dating them (I’ll know if you’re the one if my Pitbull likes you). Women with miniature dogs give off the perception of ostentatious grandeur and haughtiness where average men would often find them to be high maintenance. Unbeknownst to the general population, these dogs were bred to keep fleas off women during the Victorian era. 

As for young childless couples, the unspoken bond of having a pet over a child is simple. It’s easier to separate without a child than with one as the child strong arms parents into cooperating. Maybe not too far into the future, there will be alimony, dog custody and paramour rules of engagement.

Recently both Iran and North Korea have pulled in the reins on dog ownership, with Tehran Police Chief citing “vulgar Western culture “as a reason and Dear Leader Kim Jong-Un had ordered the ban because he believes it represents a “tainted trend by bourgeois ideology”. The question I ask is, why did these 2 nations do this?

Given what’s at hand in the west with the Transgender Industrial Complex and the sexualization of children, I have an idea where this is going.

Dave Sims went on to state: “In our society, whether we are consciously aware of it or not, if we have a name for “it,” then we tolerate “it,” whatever “it” is: at the margins of society and behind closed doors.”  Since most of the population sees having sex with an animal as not normal, therefore, is not normal. But what if the majority says is okay, much like we the majority okayed taxpayer-funded sex reassignment surgery?

Bestiality is a form of utilitarianism, a sadomasochism form of maximizing pleasure-seeking, better known as zoosadismMostly western women will be the ones engaging in it since they are currently the least moored to any form of moral authority, they lack shame, remorse, have little to no belief in a higher Deity and loosely identify as “spiritual”, whatever that means. We are also actively ignoring women’s unscrupulous behavior. Men on the other hand,will just be gay since there is no shortage of gay men these days and is encouraged. In the DSM-V, zoophilia is classified under the general category of “Other Specified Paraphilic Disorder.” The term is left vague, with no specification in the diagnostic criteria regarding the purpose, circumstances, or sexual acts of zoophilic behavior.

Google has recently changed its algorithm allowing bestiality pornography to pop up. Previously, it was obscure scientific literature discussing the topic in a negative manner. There are internet forums dedicated to sharing stories and exchanging advice; there are organized bestiality events and animal sex .

Then there is, of course, the social phenomena called Furries which is bordering on bestiality. A dehumanizing form of depersonalization with the demographics being White and below the age of 30. There is even a subgroup called babyfur that is interested in “age play.”

With such heavy emphases that man is an animal, thanks to Darwinism and the scientific clergy, we genuinely start considering ourselves as animals. The most absurd part about bestiality is the question of the animal’s consent and not for the fact of how grotesque the act is.

This all stems from the lack of pair bonding at the most malleable ages where you would find the person you cared and liked and stuck with that individual for better or worse. Yet when men have no sexual outlet and women are distracted by everything and anything during their prime years, this is what you get, a sexually deviant society.

These are sickening realities to contemplate, yet they are honest and with no stopgaps in place, I see more degeneracy coming as we broach the clownesque new world order where every day is the feast of fools. The absolute lack of maturity of sex and communication has given rise to where if aliens were to land in the United States, they would think canines rule over human beings. It will be a sight to see if the system collapses where fur mommas will roam during the chaos stage.

It’s no secret you cannot take away what has been given. For us to even attempt to restore a modicum of common sense, self-control, and discipline regarding people’s affinity for animals is an utter pipe dream. 

Dogs are a man’s best friend and a girl’s friend-with-benefits. 

Cheers to the Dystopia.

17 Comments Add yours

  1. Harry Flashman says:

    Have you ever had a dog? Come on man. They were the first domesticated animal tens of thousands of years ago, and because people are weirdos and/or have no sense of belonging today doesn’t mean dogs are a significant problem or distraction. Nibbas be looking for any excuse to blame shit. We are in decline and dogs don’t have shit to do with it. Go read a Jack London book and thank me later. Peace.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. xxcurri says:

    Dogs are a white thing and have been for thousand of years, maybe you need to get your DNA checked. The phenomena you’re concerned about are a byproduct of feminism and maybe also the usual Anglo-American-Judaic social insanities. Something more serious to worry about is the recent explosion in the number of F to M trannies.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Lamprey Milt says:

      I would disagree. The amount of people owning dogs because they dont get along with others is far more alarming then the media induced hysteria of Ladyboys. Ladyboys are a biproduct of a country that has lacked an external threat for an extended period of time. Thailand comes to mind because their neighbors who have a quarter or less of a tranny population have been literally BLASTED back to the stone age. Being attacked kinda gives you a bit of a backbone to summerize.
      I will also raise a point that neither blacks or hispanics have a disgusting affinity for Dogs. Ask any Black person about dogs: Quote: “Its an animal”. “Here is a big ass bowl of water and a big ass bowl of Food and I’ll see your ass later”.
      The average black woman does not project onto animals…they just get preggers and you and your women foot the bill and have dogs which is hilarious.
      DNA? Go beat off with your fellow cuckbund buddies. Atta Goy!

      Liked by 4 people

  3. Alfonz Cavalier says:

    Good article and sums up what I think a lot of us have been thinking for some time about western women and their obsession with dogs. As so often, the simplest explanation is often the best: dogs are a cheaper, easier, more Instagrammable and apparently more environmentally friendly proxy for having children. My own fiancee loves dogs (not in that way thank God) but openly admits that it’s just a manifestation of her drive to have children – too many women are too mentally unstable or brainwashed to admit that to themselves, so unhealthy fixation can develop even into genuine perversion.

    That aside, I think you’re a bit too harsh on dog ownership itself. It’s a really ancient institution and western man has a long history of close affection for companion/ guard/ hunting animals – look at stories like Beth Gelert in Welsh folklore, or medieval/ Roman depictions of dogs. You are right that modern, suburban, feminised lifestyles have made the role of the dog within the nuclear family somewhat distorted, but I don’t think it’s right to suggest that our closeness to dogs is a completely modern thing. Being clear that you are the master and not allowing your dog to lose all its aggression when you train it is actually a good way to hone healthy masculine characteristics – mastery over nature and natural leadership.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. 7.62x25 Tokerev says:

      He author os definitely too harsh on dog owners in general. He also seemingly disregards the importance of dogs in western civilization since the very first organized groups start popping up across the Danube. We know the ancient world put a heavy emphasis on the importance of dogs for pragmatic purposes like hunting, guarding, and in rare cases wardogs. However one could easily look to the Roman Empire for clues on what the ancient world thought of dogs and that is that they really did value the championship and unconditional love dog gave their owners. So much so that throughout the lands that Rome had conquered there are expensive murals of family dogs and even entire graveyards decided to their pets. One world be hard pressed to convince anyone that the average Roman male was weak, so what was their affinity for dogs? I believe in my own opinion that the Romans valued dogs and pet chapanionshop not because the world around they were weak but because the world around them was cruel. Simply put in a world were the sanctity of life is treated in such a wonton manner, and where ones existence could end at the drop of a hat, the canines proclivity to unconditional love and loyalty was and is for many the only assurance of real love and respect.

      Relative to today, a mans life can easily be threatened and destroyed just as easily. We don’t have barbarians slaughting their way through the Roman countryside, we don’t them that existential threat anymore because now it’s much easier for those of same miserable people to ruin someone’s life just by making false claims against them on Twitter. The truth is, women have turned away from men and you see the dog more in men not because he is replacing the woman with the dog but because the ancient bond between a man and his dog now more noticeable with the woman gone.
      In today’s depraved lifestyle of women, man finds better championship and unconditional love with dogs rather than the two faced loyalty and the conditional love of women. What would you choose if you were a young man and alone in the this world?
      Now I’m certainly not insinuating that the dog is any replace for a women, quite the opposite, men need to be strong with women. The picture I’m trying to show is isn’t that men are weak so they choose dogs but in a depraved society men choose dogs because society is so depraved that men choose dogs because they are one of the true forms of companionship next to brotherhood with a close group of friends.

      I don’t believe that reigning in the rampant and depraved behavior of women will change dog ownership in men but it will be less noticeable when balanced by a nuclear family.

      Like

  4. endy says:

    The dog has replaced a family for some, and its especially an issue with women, who largely brought it on themselves. But overall having (certain kinds) of dogs can be overall healthy. And I find it hard to trust anyone who doesn’t like dogs entirely, but I understand the point of your arugment.

    My main issue with your article is the suggestion that you should “treat your wife as a companion” when that’s exactly the liberal argument for relationships, and the reason we are where we are today. The issue is, of course, eventually someone has to be in charge. These days its usually the woman, who emotionally bullies infantilized men into submission. There is a reason the Bible tells us the man is the head of the woman, because it works, and is healthy.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. endy says:

    The dog has replaced a family for some, and its especially an issue with women, who largely brought it on themselves. But overall having (certain kinds) of dogs can be overall healthy. And I find it hard to trust anyone who doesn’t like dogs entirely, but I understand the point of your argument.

    My main issue with your article is the suggestion that you should “treat your wife as a companion” when that’s exactly the liberal argument for relationships, and the reason we are where we are today. The issue is, of course, eventually someone has to be in charge. These days its usually the woman, who emotionally bullies infantilized men into submission. There is a reason the Bible tells us the man is the head of the woman, because it works, and is healthy.

    Like

  6. WS says:

    Lmao. Quite an article.

    My brother’s girlfriend broke up with him. Why? On one occasion he asked her to change her shirt because dog hair was all over it. On another occasion he tried to kiss her and it smelled like dog, and he tried to politely ask her to wash her face. He found himself unwilling to go to her place because dog hair was everywhere. The dog, of course, slept in her bed.

    The thing was a Saint Bernard.

    I love dogs just as much as anyone, but god almighty, there are a lot of lines that are crossed that ought not to be

    Liked by 2 people

  7. NC says:

    New definition: SEMITICEDIOPHILES:

    Like

  8. Anton Rootbeer says:

    This, right here, is writing. You beautifully presented an important, underappreciated phenomenon and then, to wrap it all up, you said, in so many words “white girls f*ck dogs”, a message the right needs to hear. However, you did so in a way that I can link to respectable people. Bravo.

    Like

  9. Charles G Laird says:

    A dog may be man’s best friend but a boy and his dog are inseparable.

    Like

  10. Disemelevatorized says:

    I can’t believe you ignored the cat lady trope. But maybe that’s too cliche.

    Like

  11. miforest says:

    this is sad beyond belief. I can relate to you though , I am infamous in my social circle for believing animals are animals . I harang parents when their 20 something daughter gets a dog ” well , no son in law for you” . Gere in suburbia it is absolutely epidemic . I bet a third of the cars I see with 20-30’s women in them have a paw or two on the back. It is tragic for them beyond words.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. GDR says:

    Dogs exist to work, and that’s it.

    Anything else is pretty weird IMO.

    Also lol at American Sun’s first dogpill article.

    Like

  13. Kaite says:

    Seriously? THAT’S the conclusion you come to when a(presumably)single woman prefers the company of her dog to a man? That’s like dismissing a woman who breaks up with you as gay. Poor guy. Bruises your masculinity, does it?
    Let’s take a look back at the cultural changes over the past, say, 50 years. Sexual revolution. Men no longer have to marry a woman to get sex; women get(have)to enter the workforce. Getting married and having kids In a traditional family structure is passe. Women who DO get married find that they have to do everything their mothers did…PLUS work a job. Culture dictates that men are “too masculine”…meanwhile, “femininity” is passe. Equals. Women are expected to be more masculine, men less so. Propaganda states having children is passe…just have fun…and work…it’s all about YOU! Roles are fuzzied. Men in the traditional role of provider, protector, strong male influence for children…just about gone. Women are independent, strong, win their own bread, choose not to reproduce. The only role left for the man is that of Lover. Sadly, it seems that some women find that role is equally(or better)filled by a piece of plastic.
    So, rather than examine how we got here, you want to villainize DOGS? Well, logically, they fill the role of companionship and protector. Always happy to see you, enjoy your company, fiercely loyal, great listeners, fun travel companions…with few needs of their own. They will get you outside and active with a a walk or game of fetch, they will protect you from evil(ever notice in the crime shows…there is never a DOG protecting or alerting the victims?) Yes, in a world that has become so unrecognizable in such a relatively short time, it makes sense.
    And no, it isn’t sexual. That is just weird.

    Like

  14. Mr. Anonymous says:

    Masterfully written, as always, Lamprey. This should really get under the flab of doggy-lovin’ thots everywhere. Cheers!

    Like

  15. spiriteater says:

    lmao @ the people here in the comment section who want to pretend the point of this piece is “dogs are bad” because they too are unhealthily emotionally attached to their dumb pet.

    Like

Leave a Reply to Disemelevatorized Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s