by Guy Somerset
There are many anachronisms in post-modern Western societies. No matter how obvious is the racial composition of a rampaging mob it will always be described as consisting of "youths." Irrespective of the obvious detriments of free and easy sexual relations it is still habitually described as "empowering" for teenage girls to sleep with as many men as possible. Despite dictating terms to (and when that fails, undermining) democracies worldwide America is broadly renowned as the "land of the free."
However, perhaps, not until this pivotal moment in history has the future of mankind so genuinely been dependent upon simple rationality overcoming hyper-emotional platitudes in determining whether this formerly high expression of culture shall endure.
As most already are aware, an Ebola crisis is gradually encompassing the globe. It has been engendered by irresponsible authorities who have all but welcomed its diseased incubators with open arms.
The United States, located on a continent which until now had never known the malady, eagerly flew home not one but five infected parties. The government of Spain did likewise, again to a continent which was formerly free of the scourge. Recently the Mayor of London assured citizens this sickness with a 50% mortality rate will reach England but that it is absolutely nothing to be concerned over.
And while isolated cases do not an epidemic make, careless stupidity ensures it will presently become one.
The most chilling, and damning, aspect of the situation thus far are hysterical reactions by the affected inhabitants. No, not to the fact that in both America and Western Europe there is a virtual open door through which any terrorist, invader or Typhoid Mary may endanger millions. No, not regarding the incredibly short-sighted government policies which have provided billions of dollars for wars and revolutions ranging from Serbia to Ukraine to basically the entire Middle East while denying funds for even the most rudimentary border defenses. No, not even concerning the demonstrably false reassurances health authorities have given that the infection is entirely under control.
Rather than any of these things which might fundamentally forestall coming horrors, many people of the Western world spanning roughly the Rhine to the Pacific have become outraged that any of "Man's Best Friends" might be euthanized in the effort to avoid a global pandemic.
The first instance of this nearly satirical level of Westernized insanity occurred in Madrid. As soon as it was announced "Excalibur," owned by an infected nurse, was to be put to death animal-rights segments of the public exploded in rage; it apparently mattering not to them that dogs can be carriers of the virus. Facebook pages were launched, genuflections were made and marches were held. To their credit, responsible officials in Spain did not allow such irrational overtures to deter them in their obvious duty to protect a public which was perhaps too callow to be entirely worthy of such protection.
However, the second incident, this time in America, is far more ominous. There officials have allowed themselves to be swayed by boisterous protesters who passionately believe one cur is more important than all of industrial civilization. Tears have been shed, voices have been raised, and logic has been silenced. Consequently, representatives have announced they will quarantine the animal. No one appears to realize that the funds to so might better be applied to policing airports, guarding the border or training local nurses for a likely increase in patients.
Yet, bluntly put, in the interest of the greater good of the species (ours rather than the various mongrel breeds) not only should any domesticated beast even remotely suspected of carrying this disease be immediately destroyed; but any apocalyptic human who impedes that action should be imprisoned for imperiling the greater good.
At this juncture one might provide the mandatory Western apologias; those tireless and tiresome anecdotes apparently necessitated by any assertive statement. To wit: I have had dogs all my life, taken in strays, fed the unwanted, generously donated to shelters, etc., ad homonym. Moreover, in my case all of these claims would be true. Alas comes a point at which one is baffled by the requirement to proffer such dross.
Whether a person has loved canines forever or hated them with a passion from the day he was born; is it actually necessary to argue the truism that to risk killing 50% of the earth's population is direr than euthanizing a handful of pets? It is conceded that putting down one or two animals may indeed be an overreaction. But given the possibility of infection causing a universal catastrophe isn't an abundance of caution justified under these circumstances? What sort of deranged character contends the contrary?
Evidently, several hundred thousand intellectually limited souls at the least. For that is how many have signed internet and other petitions to gamble the existence of 4 billion humans on the well-being of a few mutts
That there is even a question, let alone a hesitation, boggles the mind.
Still this is the state of the Western world today and the level of its addled mentality. Even though it should not require repeating - dogs are not people and the survival of humans supersedes that of dogs. To the degree this is a quandary is the degree to which some countries, however fearsome, they may appear militarily or economically, actually stand upon the brink of their own destruction.
Much ridicule is made these days of China as a "giant made of clay," or the "junior varsity squad" squabbling in Iraq, and even the "oil kleptocracies" of Central and Eastern Europe. However all we need do to recognize which are the truly moribund societies is to see which of these lack the will to act in a crisis as well as the simple common sense to apprehend that they teeter on the precipice of an extreme disaster.
Thus approaches the epoch when the Western world is devoured by its dogs.