Takes place in the mountains of Northern India. The dog survived. Not quite sure how but it did. Amazing video. It’s incredible how close this leopard gets to the dog without the dog realizing it. These things are stealthy as Hell.
In a lot of cultures, no one particularly cares what postmenopausal women do. They are often allowed to drink and take drugs, while this may have been banned earlier for obvious reasons.
And perhaps the sexual prohibitions come off because once a woman can’t have kids anymore, who the Hell cares what she does sexually, right? Control of female sexuality is all wrapped up in paternity and childbearing. Briefly, you always know who your mother is. Not so with your Dad! Your Mom might be pointing the finger at the wrong guy. Men are loath for obvious reasons to invest time and money taking care of some other guy’s kid, so they really want to make sure the baby is theirs. Hence the strict controls over female sexuality in post-hunter-gatherer societies.
Incidentally, a man who is with a woman who has a child by another man is ~70 times more likely (!) to kill the kid than if the kid was his. Typical situation is man hooks up with woman who has a kid by another guy. Then he kills the kid. You’ve got to think there’s some caveman logic working there.
Male mountain lions and possibly grizzly bears will often kill any kittens a female lion or bear had with another male. The female goes along with this – just lets him murder her kids and then hooks up with him for sex and babies. I guess something similar may have happened in caveman days. You wonder why women love serial killers so much?
Furthermore, we evolved in brutal times. Many times in tribal warfare the conquering tribe would kill many if not all of the men and teenage boys of the other tribe. Then they would enslave all the women and children. So the women would all become sex slaves of some maniac who just murdered their husbands and son(s). Women apparently just went along, though you wonder how they could. Perhaps many women could not tolerate this and escaped or suicided out to avoid the situation. Here we come to our selection.
The women who remained and had kids were ones who could tolerate some maniac coming along, murdering her husband and her son(s), and then turning her into a sex slave for life. If you want to know why so many women are attracted to BD/SM dom/sub sex slavery and being owned by a “master,” this may be why. It’s a mystery to me and I think the whole thing is sick.
But some sort of masochism or even love of degradation seems to be inherent in the female sex drive. There are women who hate this sort of thing, but I can’t tell you how many women I’ve met who expected or demanded this sort of treatment. Of course I take requests, so it was no big deal. Not into hurting them physically though, and you’d be shocked to know how many of them request or demand even this. Spanking is fine (and you’d be shocked at how many women love this) but beyond that, yuck.
So the women who survived were ok with murdering sex slavers and the men who survived (remember, the defeated men got murdered) were not only serial murderers but were willing to murder women’s husbands and kids by other men (sort of like lions and bears) and sexually enslave her and enslave her kids. Not very nice guys. So we men are descended from sadistic, raping, murdering, enslaving, sexual psychopaths and women are descended from masochistic sex slaves who love murderers, rapists, slavers, sex slavers, and sexual psychopaths.
If you know much about that BD/SM scene, it is overflowing with male “doms’ who proudly describe themselves as sadists. Of course they are sexual sadists, but many men are a bit, no? But it’s beyond that. They’re just sadists period because once you get into the “dom owns her as a slave” thing, it’s 24-7, which almost all of this scene is. It’s almost all 24-7 dom/sub, master/slave nonsense.
Well, the number of men who leap at the possibility of being sadistic sexual maniacs with willing women is shocking, and it’s enough to turn you off to the male gender. I’ve been studying these relationships for some time. The males are, well…a lot are more pleasant than you think, but the women…they seem like battered women.
They almost all have terribly low self-esteem. In fact, these sadistic men deliberately seek out women with low self esteem as easy prey. If they’ve been raped or molested before, this makes them easy targets, as apparently this sets them up for further abuse because women tend to sexualize everything.
A dirty little secret. Women sexualize their abuse. Women who got molested often…yep, end up sexualizing the sexual abuse. They turn it into something that turns them on. Further, women who get raped…you guessed it. It’s not PC to say so, but a lot of women got aroused during the rape and orgasm is not uncommon. That doesn’t mean it’s right or she wanted it, but our bodies are reactive organisms.
And after women have been raped, I hate to say it, but many of them sexualize the rape and start wanting very rapey-type sex. And they incorporate the rape into their masturbation repertoire. That’s not PC either but I’ve seen it happen so many times that I know it’s true. It’s weird, but women are weird. And there is nothing weirder than female sexuality. It’s a mystery wrapped in an enigma.
If you study these SM/BD relationships, it looks exactly like an abusive relationship. Precisely. Down to the letter. So BD/SM is simply an abusive relationship. However, it is a consensual one.
So a lot of men are apparently more than willing to get into a relationship where they can abuse the woman like Hell and not only get away with it but have her enjoy it. And a lot of women apparently really enjoy the battered woman role. The former statement may not be controversial but the latter is surely not PC. Nevertheless, it looks like it might be true. Not that woman abusers are good men. And not that battered women who don’t like it don’t deserve our sympathy. But as is common, things are more complex than they seem.
Furthermore, I know people who study these relationships and they say that all women who come out of these relationships are damaged. And the damage looks exactly like…yep. What a battered woman or a woman in an abusive relationship looks like. So this crap isn’t as innocent as everyone thinks.
That was a very bad decision.
Remember, in order to not get killed by the lion chasing me, I don’t have to outrun the lion. I just have to outrun you. A good analogy for allo sorts of “arms races” between humans or groups of humans.
An eccentric hippie mountain lion descended from the Oakland Hills to the Gourmet Ghetto District of Berkeley, California, looking for some bong hits, tie dye lion shits and mostly a bite to eat. Human killjoys saw her in the human populated area, tracked her to a yard, and shot the bitch dead.
Unfortunately, these lions need to be killed, but, honestly, they really are no danger. A cornered lion like that won’t attack a human unless you charge at it when it’s cornered. All it will do is run away. There could have been 500 humans roaming around watching the lion, cheering for it or cheering the humans (May the best team win!), and no humans one would have been hurt by the lion.
I know a lot about mountain lions, but I’ve never seen one. My friends and relatives have. In the Sierra foothills, they live around you all the time, yet you never see one. It’s amazing since it’s such a huge animal. A mountain lion is not a natural man-killer, and it’s not all that smart. It’s a creature of instinct. It attacks:
- Little kids, like toddlers, in wild areas.
- Adults who are running or jogging in wild areas.
- Adults who are riding mountain bikes in wild areas.
Lions are not that smart. It’s not a whole lot smarter than your housecat, and housecats are pretty stupid. Mostly, they are creatures of instinct like Kitty. In general, a lion will not attack you because it is not programmed to.
Toddlers are attacked because they are the size of much of its small prey.
Adult humans running or riding bikes in the wild are attacked, because when you run or ride in the wilderness, you look like a deer! A deer running away, to be specific. It sees you running or riding, thinks, “Running deer!” and attacks.
Lions are not deep thinkers. Look, see, act. As long as you are not a kid or running or riding in the woods, you’re ok.
Just to be safe, I used to carry a huge stick with me when hiking. If you get charged by a lion, just attack the fucker with the stick. If it holds its ground, scream at it and charge it, waving your arms and yelling. If you have the stick, swing at it with a stick. Super Pussy is still a pussy at heart. When attacked by humans, it runs away, like all pussies do when attacked by badass humans.
Repost from the old site.
I’ve been having some conversations lately with some of my smart friends about felines and canids, and here is some what we think we have worked out.
First of all, a cat is supposedly as smart as a 1½ year old human. As a human, albeit a human who is also a cat-lover, I find such a comparison insulting. I just spent some time with my 1½ year old niece. No way on Earth is my cat as stupid as that kid was.
I’m spending some time as a caretaker for my 86 year old father who lives 33 miles away. My folks have two cats and recently acquired another one. This one is a Siamese named Cleo. When I met this cat, very quickly, I thought it was one of the smartest cats I have ever known. I don’t know why, but someone said that Siamese are an intelligent breed.
The other night, one of other cats, Callie, got the night-crazies and took off running across the house for no reason. Cleo saw this and immediately chased her for equally no good reason. I immediately began to reassess my opinion of her as the smartest cat I’ve ever known. I asked around about this.
Turns out that in general, if a cat sees another cat take off running for any reason, the observer cat will often give chase. Why? Possibly instinct. They seem to be programmed to chase after any non-predatory moving object.
Many prey animals, like the rabbits who live around here, practice freezing as a form of predator avoidance. On the principle that predators generally hunt by following rapid movement rather than attacking stationary objects. The rabbits around here will freeze and let you walk right up next to them before they take off running.
There have been some mountain lion attacks here in the West recently. Attacks have, in general, been on little kids or on adults either jogging or riding bicycles.
Reason? A little kid is about the size of many of the mountain lions more slow-moving prey objects. An adult human really is not, except if it is running or riding a bicycle fast, in which case apparently it is about the size and speed of a deer, one of the lion’s favorite prey animals.
As long as you are strolling along in the woods, the cougar usually won’t bother you. But start jogging, and you turn into a human deer and you might just get nailed.
Observations of wild cats have shown that wild domestic cats make few sounds except when fighting or mating. Why do cats meow? Probably because we make sounds, and their meows are their way of trying to speak human language back at us.
Cats are generally solitary, and the cat adaptive style is to hide. If you notice, your cat at home likes to hide in really weird and hard to find places. Often a place where it can see out but you can’t see in. They will do this whether they are threatened by other cats or by dogs or not.
The reason cats hide? Probably instinct. The cat style is to hide and only come out at night. Wild felines such as bobcats and mountain lions hide much of the time and are mostly nocturnal.
This is also why cats bury their shit. They are probably not naturally fastidious, but instead, I suspect that they do this to cover up their trails from predators. This is also why they roll around in the dirt. They are covering themselves with dirt to hide their scent from predators.
On the other hand, the dog has a different adaptive style. Does a dog ever hide? What for? A dog is always walking around, right out in the open, afraid of nothing. With wild dogs it’s pretty similar. Coyotes and wolves are active all hours of the day and tend to roam around in plain sight. Foxes do hide, but they are pretty small, and they also spend time hunting in broad daylight (I’ve watched them).
Cats are generally solitary (although lions are an exception), and dogs are pack animals. Cats hide because they are solitary, and dogs walk around in plain sight because they are instinctively pack animals with little to hide. Wolves, jackals and hyenas travel in packs. If something wants to kill a hyena (and a lion might), it would have to deal with a whole pack of howling hyenas that would come to the defense of the hunted one.
Hunting in packs is also a strength. A pack of hyenas could possibly even kill a lion, and I suspect that they do sometimes.
Since dogs are pack animals and find strength in numbers, they don’t give a damn about burying their shit or rolling around in the dirt. There is no need to cover one’s tracks when one has strength in numbers.
One of my friends insisted that canids and felines are closely related, and that both go back to some ancestral canid-feline duoform. Raccoons and bears are related to dogs, but they supposedly split off from proto-dog after the split from proto-dogcat. I don’t know enough to comment on this, as I’ve never heard of dogs and cats going back to a feline-canid ancestor.
I am looking for translators to translate this post into Spanish and German. Email me if you are interested.
This is a Korean translation of the Man Gets Eaten By Lion in Africa post. The translator is 넝근넝근. He does fantastic work.
대부분의 사람들은 이 비디오가 가짜라고 주장한다, 사실 그 주장은 사실이다.
이 비디오가 1970년대 중반 아프리카 사파리에서 촬영된 유명한 비디오이며 저 관광객은 런던에서 온것 처럼 보인다. 또 이 비디오가 법정의 증거로서 보험회사가 저 남자의 생명보험을 거부할 증거로 이 비디오자료를 사용하곤 했으며 보험회사는 저 남자가 “자기 무덤 판 꼴” 이라며 보험료 지불을 거부하겠다라고 주장한 증거자료가 바로 이 비디오라는 이야기이다.
사실, 이 비디오와 저 이야기는 사실이 아니다. 저 사고가 70년대 후반 앙골라의 Wallasee National Park에서 일어났다고 한다. 저런 장소는 앙골라다 아프리카 어디에도 없다.
“공격의 희생자”는 Pit Dernitz로 이 비디오에 관한 IMDB에 이름이 나와있다. 그는 유명한 사자 조련사이다.
이 영상은 Ultime Grida Dalla Savana라는 이런 비슷한 종류의 영상물이 포함된 이탈리아 몬도 영화의 한장면이다.
결국 이 영상은 어떤 법정 어디에도 등장하지 않았다.
I am looking for translators to translate this post into Spanish and German. Email me if you are interested.
Many, many people insist that this video must be fake, and actually, it is.
The story is that this is a very famous video that was taken in the mid-1970’s in Africa on a safari. The tourist was apparently from London.
It was entered as evidence in a court case. The insurance company used this tape evidence in court to deny the life insurance claim for the guy. They argued that the man engaged in “gross stupidity” and therefore they were not on the line for payout.
In truth, this video is fake. It is said to have occurred in Wallasee National Park in Angola in the mid-70’s. There is no such place in Angola or anywhere in Africa.
The “attack victim” is named Pit Dernitz, and he has his own IMDB entry for this video. He is a very famous lion trainer.
This clip was taken from an Italian Mondo film called Ultime Grida Dalla Savana, which contains many similar clips.
This film was never entered into any court case.
As several posts on Occidental Dissent make clear, libertarianism (and its mainstream congener, neoliberalism) is utterly incompatible with the preservation of any non-human and non-domesticated or non-utilitarian life forms. Libertarians like to throw up weird scenarios whereby preserving wildlife, wild spaces and wild places would somehow be more economically viable than exterminating them, exploiting them, and devastating them.
The problem is that this never works out in praxis. Even when we environmentalists produce reports showing that preserving forests and meadows is worth way more than chopping them down or ruining them with cattle, 100% of libertarians always line up with exploiters. I’ve been reading them forever. Libertarian environmentalist is an oxymoron.
Since neoliberalism is just libertarianism, neoliberalism also can never support environmentalism. Market-driven environmental policies must be some kind of a cruel joke. They can never work. In strict economically rational terms, it is either never or almost never economically rational to save species, habitats or places. Destruction and extermination is where the money is, and in neoliberal theory, maximum return is the only variable we are allowed to consider.
Libertardarians now argue that humans (I guess maybe those of White European stock) now care enough about environmentalism that we can zero out government, privatize everything, and everything will still be hunky dory for the bighorns, the spotted owls and timber wolves. Yeah right.
In the first place, this would only work with White people, because only Whites can be environmentalists at the moment, and only more advanced Whites in North America and Europe need apply even here. That’s because Whites in Latin America and Russia have proven to be utterly capable of taking care of the environment. Native Americans and Siberians can probably preserve things too, but they don’t run any states.
Let’s test out the libertarian theory on most liberal-minded of the more progressive Whites on Earth, the ultra-liberals in California (though not a White state anymore, nevertheless, California is one of the most pro-environmental states in the nation).
The argument that humans now care enough about species to preserve them is proven wrong here in the West. Even here in ultra-liberal California, the glorious salmon are nearly extinct. The striped bass fishery in the Delta and Bay has also been ruined. The vast herds of Tule Elk that roamed all over the valleys and coastal areas of our state have been decimated and only exist on miniscule preserves that look like petting zoos. Fishers and spotted owls are being driven extinct by the timber industry as we speak.
A lot of CA endangered species are not real celebrities, but salmon would seem to have quite a bit of worth. Yet the salmon fishery in CA and up and down the West has been decimated. And even the ultra-liberal CA senators like Dianne Feinstein insist that we have not creamed the salmon enough, and need to take them out once and for all now. Feinstein’s mostly doing this for one of her rich Jewish buddies, Stewart Resnick of Beverly Hills. So much for liberal US Jews!
The notion that humans (Anywhere!) now value wildlife enough to be trusted with preserving them in a libertarian society is seriously wrong, and we can prove it right here in California.
In the 3rd World, humans are so bestial, venal, animalistic and backwards that they indeed are well on the way to extrerminating everything non-human, non-domesticated and non-utilitarian in sight.
An excellent argument in favor of White superiority (which I agree with) is, as I noted above, that Whites are really the only humans on Earth (who run states) that care about non-human life enough to preserve it.* Virtually every other race and ethnic group of man will gladly exterminate every single non-domesticated species and non-utilitarian species in its land at the drop of a hat.
Preserving species is something only Whites can do. And it’s something that only White governments can do, the White private sector haven proven endlessly to have failed at this endeavor.
*I honestly wish that non-European states were capable of not exterminating everything in sight, but I doubt it. The Middle East is an environmental catastrophe. The only environmentally decent place is Israel, but that’s populated by White people. The only environmentally progressive place in Latin America is Costa Rica, but once again, that’s a White country. It seems that all Arabs and mestizos can do is destroy.
Asians seem like a nightmare in environmental terms. They aren’t even capable of tender feelings towards cats and dogs, which they massacre for sport and food, so how can they possibly be trusted with non-domesticated things. The Japanese have been some of the worst scofflaws in international fishing and their bestial exploits in whaling have earned them the scorn of the planet.
True, in some ways, Koreans and Japanese seem to want to preserve what’s left on their lands, but environmentally, those places are pretty much human-nuked anyway, mostly by overpopulation. A preservationist impulse isn’t worth much if there is nothing left to preserve.
The hunter-gatherers of Southeast Asia never had the caretaker mindset of American Indians, instead opting for the more primitive mindset of “kill everything that moves.” The extinction process in SE Asia is very advanced and the state does very little to stop it. Environmental consciousness is extremely low.
Probably Vietnam is one of the more standout states. China is just now starting to develop an environmental ethic, but it doesn’t seem to be very advanced, and in a lot of ways, environmentally, China looks like America 1890.
I’m amazed that anything non-human and non-bovine is still walking around in India, where the extinction process is quite advanced, the state is extremely weak, and poachers are everywhere.
Russians have always been some of the most backwards and barbaric of the Whites, and environmentally, that’s still the case. Since the collapse of the USSR things have really fallen badly apart. Market hunters and poachers stalk the land. In Siberia, the poacher harvest of salmon is the same size as the legal harvest. The Amur Leopard and the Siberian Tiger are hanging on by their bare claws, and I expect them to go extinct soon.
Africa has to be one of the worst places on Earth to be a species of wildlife. Africans are primitive people, and primitives tend to kill anything that moves, usually for food. The only reason that there were still huge wildlife populations 50 years ago is due to White colonists, who forbade the Africans from wiping out the animals. With decolonization, Africans quickly set work slaughtering anything that moved.
That they had not done so in centuries past was due only to the crudity of their weapons. You can’t kill many animals with a spear. In 1965, Africans with firearms were a threat the animal population of the continent. The large megafauna were only saved when the former White colonists were called back in by concerned Africans to save the animals.
Many of the large animal populations still exist, but poachers and bush meat hunters take a devastating toll. I don’t see anything positive in the future. Africans don’t seem to be capable of not exterminating animals.
One argument is that non-Whites do these things because they are poor.
Equatorial Guinea now has a PCI of $21,000/year. Anyone seen any nice environmental initiatives coming out of there? Has the wealth of the Japanese prevented them from killing whales? Has Korean wealth prevented them from waging mass pogroms against dogs and cats? Has the relative wealth of Brazil and Argentina prevented environmental devastation in these places? The Gulf Arab countries are extremely wealthy, but my understanding is that they are environmental wrecks.
So much for the “they do it because they are poor” line.