Islam prohibits the keeping of pet dogs. They are considered unclean and it is thought as immoral to make money from the sale of a dog as to make money from the sale of a prostitute.

It is well known that immigrants from non-western countries have a far higher birth rate than the women of the west. In 2004, America had passed the threshold of there being more dogs per household than children. (www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/03/05/crufts.dogs/index.html)

Most of these animals are owned by Americans of European descent who, for whatever reason, prefer to own a dog than to rear their own child. As a sign of a degenerate society, this really takes some beating!

No wonder that the Muslims scoff about westerners being "a race of dogs". A flat mate I lived with, from Hong Kong, once told me of her amusement at the strange way that western women fawn over their dogs. "They even sleep with them", she smirked at me. Perhaps those who allow their dog in the bed may be shocked to realize how perverse their behavior can appear to those from less animal-friendly cultures. Dog ownership in China used to be forbidden under Chairman Mao, but has become increasingly common. Probably encouraged to help the population growth slow down (although the population there is still growing). A lot of the animals end up as a warming winter soup, mind you. (www.aapn.org/fooddogs.html)

Dog ownership is both a symptom of the critically falling birthrate in the west, and also an aggravating cause of it. Dogs are taking the place of babies for these women. The dogs arguably have more rights than children do.

"While the UK birth rate has been falling over the past decade, nearly half the population now owns a pet." - see above link. And we know which demographic this statistic refers to.

You take your baby for a walk around a park, nature reserve, etc, being careful to avoid the vast amounts of canine deposits, and along bounds a Rottweiler, straight up to the push-chair. "Oh, don't worry, he loves children!" comes the predictable exclamation from the owner, while the dog attempts to lick the child's face with a tongue that has last had contact with its own anus. But you are not expected to mind that!

"Do you mean, he loves them for dinner?"

But, should you try to prevent such a meeting of dog and child by swift use of a boot (which is never a good idea anyway with a particularly dangerous breed), the owner is outraged beyond belief! They would fight to the death for his or her mutt's right to threaten the health of your child. The dogs' tongue, like the shit that the kid is so likely to end up landing in at some point, or spread around the house, may contain the toxocara worms that can and do eventually cause blindness. An estimated 10,000 people a year are infected in the US. And, of course, children are also likely to get bitten, or worse.

There is a kind of largely unspoken resentment developing between the barren, careerist dog owners, and the parents of children. The childless careerists complain that such things as income tax rebates, education, etc are paid for out of their taxes, and resent those who are raising the future generation of tax payers. They want it made harder to afford children, not that cost should ever be a barrier when the whole future of one's native population is in doubt. The poorest people throughout history have always managed to have several children - so it is more a question of how can you afford NOT to have kids when it has never been easier than it is now. Quality certainly does matter more than quantity but, realistically, the lowest quality people have historically always more than replaced their numbers, and so any attempts to increase the birth rate are inevitably aimed at the more intelligent segment.

Consider the cost of dog ownership. Several breeds cost more to feed than a child, while also demanding at least as much time of their owner, needing to be taken out for regular walks and also their medical care. They limit where their owner can go, because they can't be left alone at home and are not allowed to accompany the owner everywhere. They are in many respects a pointless nuisance, that can never amount to anything to be proud of. Just because they are not homosapiens doesn't mean they don't add to the population. They use up resources, and they make the house stink. So, those who naively feel they should remain childless out of concern for the overpopulation of non-European peoples, should be reminded that their pet does count as an addition to that.

Dog owners are not bothered about their double standards. How would they feel about a mother letting her toddler take a dump on the footpath at the park? What if a 5 year old, mentally defective child was permitted by the parent to run up to the dog owner, run around them, drooling, hyperventilating and mud-covered, jumping up at them, tripping them and pulling at their clothes? The parent should be concerned that the other person might well lash out at their kid, and keep them out of the way.

The alienation people feel from life in modern society has much to do with this pet-focused mentality. People ignore each other on the street and avoid eye contact. There are many lonely people, another effect of coming from a small family, with perhaps no siblings or cousins. And a dog gives such willing friendship and soppy, adoring love, that misfits and victims of these all too common sad circumstances feel they need them. The situation becomes a vicious circle, getting ever worse. Sometimes everyone must make a sacrifice in order to have a well-run society. We should take a leaf out of the Koran. No dogs, except for working dogs are acceptable. Dogs are not our babies.

by Victoria McMagnus

March 4, 2007