Monkeys in Kenya attacking farms and making sexually explicit gestures toward women farmers…

(Undercover Black Man strikes back at Robert B. See below.)

This is a weird story. (Check out Robert B.’s analogy between Kenyan farms and the American inner city.)

- end of initial entry -

Mark J. writes:

The weirdest part of the story is this: “The town has been warned by the Kenya Wildlife Service not to harm or kill any of the monkeys, as it is a criminal offence.” Human beings having their food stolen by monkeys? In a sane world this problem would be solved by one guy with one rifle in about twenty minutes. Shoot two or three of the monkeys and the rest would leave. Instead, the human beings are reduced to helpless victimization by a bunch of monkeys. Gosh, the scarecrows didn’t work, so I guess there’s nothing else they can do. Nothing else left in the liberal arsenal.

I suppose the reason the monkeys are so aggressive and anti-social is that they were raised in deprivation and poverty. If only we would try harder to understand their pain, and maybe implement some after-school programs for them.

This remind me of Great Britain and the stories about people cowering in their homes in fear of burglars because they are prohibited from doing anything to protect themselves.

LA replies:

You’re right, but why would Kenya be so liberal?

Mark J. writes:

I don’t know enough about African bureaucracies to understand why Kenyan officials do what they do, but my guess would be that they make a lot of money from eco-tourists and want to maintain a reputation as being protective of wildlife. And that matters more than what some villagers want or don’t want.

LA replies:

Good guess. I wouldn’t have thought of that.

Ben W. writes:

Regarding “Monkeys in Kenya attacking farms and making sexually explicit gestures,” this reminds me of the posting concerning the man-eating tigers of India. Colonial British male soldiers took care of the problem. According to Genesis nature is meant to come under the dominion of man, not vice versa.

According to the article, the monkeys fear men but mock women. Yesterday I was rereading some of Ann Coulter’s books and I noticed a curious habit she has. At one point she says that the woman comes out in a man when a liberal’s brains fail (“How to Talk to a Liberal”). In another instance (“Godless”) she observes that Darwinism has had the biggest impact in a science (biology) that is the least scientific and that this science of all scientific disciplines has the most women as biologists.

BTW if Darwinism is right, why do these Kenyan women object to sexual gestures from the monkeys—is there anything “obscene” in Darwinian evolution? Nature upon nature.

I think as we lose the concept of the dominion of man over nature, and the authority of man over woman, nature will mock us. As will Ann Coulter …

Richard B. writes:

The villagers are getting no help from the government whose job it is to protect them and their homeland’s security. There are a few other options. Feed the monkeys. Appease them and give them what they want, then they’ll leave you alone. Burn your crops, so there will be nothing left to attract them. Elevate them to “monkey god” status, and suffer them on religious grounds. Build a large fence around a section of land reserved for monkeys. Keeping them in is easier than keeping them out. Or, realize that monkeys have just as much right, maybe even more right to live there than you do, so tolerate them or move somewhere else. Otherwise, shoot them and eat them.

Robert B. writes:

“… why would Kenya be so liberal?”

Because they are paid by Western “do-gooders” to enact laws which reflect the leftist view of everything—i.e., humans have no more of a right to live than those monkeys do—in fact, some would say the monkeys have more of a right than the humans do.

Robert B. continues:

On further thought, this whole thing sounds a lot like life in the American ghetto. Males absent from what should be their role as protectors, women caring for the home, children and the “crop” (welfare check)—the source of revenue. And of course, the monkeys themselves, who appear to act like American rappers (and their “wannabe” emulators) with their gesturing at their genitals and with their genitals.

All in all, we can see African culture at its base.

Somehow David Mills, the “Undercover Black Man,” figured out Robert B.s name and e-mail address and wrote to him:

Mr. B.:

Isn’t it funny that Lawrence Auster takes such grievous offense at the suggestion he harbors an animus towards black people … but he’ll publish two letters on his website (including one from you) comparing black people to monkeys?

UBM

Robert B. wrote back:

Heh, no, I see no problem with it—Africa is what it is. Africans in America are what they are—the proof that it is your culture and not ours that “did it to you” is the simple fact that your people are now replicating such behavior in Europe as well.

Bill Cosby agrees, as you well know, and, though he apologizes for it, so does Jesse “Hiemy town” Jackson. You do remember that “infamous” quote of his, do you not—” … feels threatened when walking down a city street at night when he hears footsteps only to be relieved when he sees the men are white”?

I have, from the very beginning, viewed the Black fashion trend of letting their rears hang out of their pants as akin to baboons with their brightly colored rears sticking out as well. The practice of grabbing one’s genitals is equally barbaric and is, as you can see from the article, akin to monkeys. Denying the obvious is a liberal trait, not an intelligent one.

Face it, David Mills, fewer and fewer people are willing to look the other way in this day and age. Lack of accountability is psychologically dysfunctional and those of you—the professional apologists, are just as dysfunctional as those you seek to protect.

LA writes:

By the way, not that I’m inviting any personal replies by UBM, but when did I ever “take grievous offense” at the suggestion that I harbor an animus toward black people? The first time UBM wrote to me, in Spring 2006, and accused me of harboring an animus against blacks and of practicing a double standard in favor of Jews and against blacks, I took his complaint seriously and replied at length. When he ignored everything I had said and just kept repeating himself, I finally cut him off, which was when he apparently conceived his plan to blacken my name with Horowitz. . Similarly, when David Horowitz expelled me from FrontPage from my “racist and offensive positions,” I never said he had no right to exclude me for my views if he found them unacceptable to him, I protested his appallingly dishonest and dishonorable behavior toward me, which certainly deserved to be publicized. I have always been completely up front about the fact that my views are outside the mainstream and that some people are going to find them and me unacceptable. I take that as a given.

Similarly, when I wrote about now Conservative Swede, who up to that point had been very friendly, frank, and supportive correspondent, suddenly turned against me and began making hostile comments to and about me, Swede replied that I was “whining” and “unmanly.”

My sense is that in today’s Internet culture, dominated by immature young and youngish men, there is the notion that if you even describe neutrally an attack on yourself, that constitutes “taking grievous offense,” “whining,” etc. It’s a strange attitude that attacks a person for pointing out that he’s been attacked, and that smears a person for pointing out that he’s been smeared.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 25, 2007 08:35 AM | Send