The guardians of the Marxist Coup see Cesar Millan as counter revolutionary
When one tells fellow countrymen, as this author does, that they have suffered a Marxist Revolution, because most of them do not have the wherewithal to even notice, then one should be able to point to the evidence that is abundantly strewn around us like air crash wreckage. For instance, there is the driving out of common sense and its replacement by systems of bureaucratically hindered official governmental reaction and responsibility for every private crisis, large or small; there is the central religion of Equality, supported by Political Correctness – which is actually a Lilliputian act of tying down and restricting the influence of the common sensual majority.
There is evidence of the Marxist Revolution in all sorts of things, if one is awake to it. This is because the Revolution was mounted and is being sustained through the corporate-media which shapes attitudes and perceptions with tireless propaganda. Please notice how as TV screens get bigger so as to cover entire walls of the tiny apartments that Britons are accepting must be their lot so as to knuckle under as a sustainable unit, with the print sector of the corporate-media transitioning to internet so as to be viewable from an armchair, the Television has transmuted into Orwell’s Telescreens.
Last week, these monstrosities were brainwashing Britons against Cesar Millan, a formidable dog trainer from California, and since he was originally an illegal immigrant into the US, food for thought regarding what proper immigration controls should look like (a discussion for another time).
Millan uses methods that offend people who like to think of dogs as little human beings. Cesar Millan enters the dog’s world, which is not that hard to do, actually, because of the shared culture between the two species. Cesar Millan makes the dog see him, or any other human being central to its life, as the chief dog in the pack. Without this leadership, the dog begins to dominate its human hosts and attains a psychological state where it becomes unchecked in its obsessions, and basically does what it likes.
It’s usually when people (mostly all of them victims lobotomized by the Revolution – that is to say, people who have become imbued with Marxist ideology of self-defeatism) have gotten to their wits end with their troublesome animal that Cesar Millan gets called in. Cesar Millan uses force, and that’s what gets him into trouble. But what critics are incapable of understanding is that Millan uses force because dogs are not human beings and can only understand their role in the human pack by being treated as a dog. Therefore, Cesar Millan uses a prod of his fingers, which he shapes to form a representative dog’s biting mouth; the dog will see it as a normal reprimand dished out by a pack leader. He has also been seen using his shins and other parts of his legs to resist dogs that are particularly aggressive and in the mood to bite. At other times, he has been known to turn the dog over on its back, and hold it by the throat so as to force submission. Then there is the application of a mild electric shock which is implemented through a collar in the same spirit as a farmer puts up an electric fence – it serves as a reminder to keep away, and in the dog’s case, from a fixation that could build to aggressive behavior. Millan asks dog owners to consult a vet before using one.
None of this, despite what Alan Titchmarsh accused Millan of on his ITV chat show, is cruelty; Cesar Millan does not punch or kick dogs, as the gardening expert would like his audience to believe. Despite this, Titchmarsh went on to liken Milan’s relationship with dogs to a fight between two human pugilists; naturally this is all calculated to generate horror at the mental image of a man beating up a tiny defenceless dog. It’s nonsense of course, but it is ambrosia to the Marxist generation brought up to comprehend emotional response as being the central tool by which they rationalize the world they live in. The trick that triggers the psychological reaction, as it has been for quite a while now, is to anthropomorphize the animal; something that is increasingly easy to do thanks to years of indoctrination in the theory of evolution, and the new ability to think of human beings as mere animals with no more rights than creatures that can’t even conceive of toilet paper.
As it happens, Cesar Millan uses physical interaction as a last resort, and instead relies on projecting energy – by which he means imposing on the dog psychically through one’s own confidence as the pack leader. As wholesome as this is, the sort of dog training that is endorsed by the RSPCA is diametrically opposed to Millan’s approach (which makes that charity incredibly dubious); it is the sort as practised by another TV dog trainer, Victoria Stilwell.
Stilwell practices Positive Reinforcement, which boils down to giving a dog a reward for good behavior. From the point of view of Millan’s methodology, this is in fact cruelty by encouraging obsession; the reader may have recognized practitioners of this approach walking their dogs by the way they hold a candy reward by the dog’s nose as if to even motivate it to move forward. The aim of a dog rehabilitator, as Millan would hold, is to remove obsession from the dog’s life. Balance is the objective, and it reaches an optimum when the dog feels itself led by a dominant personality. A well balanced dog is one that knows that its own quietude is enough to win approval from the pack leader. Any other approach that does not promote the leader/follower relationship is abuse, pure and simple. And while there is some anecdotal evidence to suggest that Stilwell’s methods fail miserably (please make an online search with the keywords “Stilwell” and “put to sleep”), this author is convinced that her methods are completely flawed after witnessing an episode in which she recommended that, to avoid a dog becoming possessive, and therefore aggressive, while feeding, a family should evacuate entirely the room in the house in which the dog was located while it ate. The result of this lunacy could only be a reinforcement of the dog’s rogue pack leadership.
The fact that Cesar Millan’s approach is punishment-based as opposed to reward-based training is the reason why there is a concerted campaign against him. The stakes are high in the battle because Positive Reinforcement is the method used in the British Marxist state school system and the British Marxist penal system. In Edukation, Positive Reinforcement is particularly sinister because of how it produces children who are thought to be naturally disobedient and can’t be controlled. This is the perception that the Establishment wants adults to have concerning their relationship with their children because then a void is produced which is filled with corrupting material; the adult is meant to understand that there are no means to keep their child from being exposed to it. Consequently, parents are made to believe that to say no to a child is to be cruel. The Establishment wants lawlessness and chaos so it can step in and produce its own sinister brand of order.
The trouble with Cesar Millan, however, is that he presents an alternative mentality and the truly positive approach. Furthermore, the secret message of Millan, if one wishes to interpret it, is this: just as dog owners can control their pets, so can parents control their children; the key is, as Millan demonstrates, setting boundaries, not treating the subject as equal to the leader, projecting dominance and dishing out punishment when required.
In other words, the key is Paternalism, and it is not an accident that Marxism decries Paternalism because this is an idea that is an obstacle in the way of those who would use the ideology to criminally and under-handedly maintain their own unnatural superiority. It is not an accident that the British Marxist Government endorses and encourages fatherlessness. It is not an accident that Paternalism is anathema to the education system which looks to winkle out teachers who are genuinely authoritative and project dominance.
It’s because Cesar Millan has a dangerous message of truth that Alan Titchmarsh set to work blackening the dog trainer’s name (Titchmarsh has now demonstrated that the cause for his unfathomable rise into broadcasting and writing, despite little discernable talent, must be a Faustian deal to be a minion of the Marxist Establishment). It’s why “a wave of protests was unleashed even before the Alan Titchmarsh Show went out on ITV”, as the Daily Mail reported when it, the flagship propaganda outlet of the British Marxist Government, inevitably publicised the effort to denigrate Millan (as did the other paper with high sales figures, the Sun). Because Millan represents such a challenge to the orthodoxy, it is why 1,000 people joined a Twitter campaign, and 1,600 people “followed” a Facebook page set up by protesters demanding Millan’s appearance on TV to be cancelled. Even if this somewhat unsuccesful hate campaign wasn’t organised by a PR company, as the author suspects it was, by order from on high (don’t forget, the Home Office banned the US self-defence teacher, Tim Larkin, who presents a similar challenge and is currently showing that Tory pronouncements about anti-burglar violence are not genuine) it is a clear statement of the intolerance that is engendered in orthodox group-think promoted by the Establishment.
The good news is that many people have tried Cesar Millan’s methods and found that they have worked (look at the testimony in the comments section under the Daily Mail article for an indication); many more have read his books and seen his TV show and marveled at the common sense of his method. If the reader doesn’t have a dog, the method can be applied to other animals and the author prevented seagulls from nesting and becoming a problem in the proximity of his dwelling because he claimed and projected dominance over a site that they otherwise would have used (cue the cries of cruelty to sea birds). Sure, there are bound to be people who have tried to employ his method and have failed; but that Cesar Millan’s method might sometimes fail is not even the prickly point used to attack him with by his detractors. They attack him because his approach does have success, and his approach is diametrically opposed to their intrinsically abusive system.
Ultimately, what all this about is claiming one’s adult dominance (primarily male) over one’s domain and bringing about order. That’s why the Establishment is frightened to death of it. And because the Establishment is threatened, people should think of Cesar Millan and other advocates of innate human independent ability, common sense and natural order as a blow to the unnatural Establishment – and support them.
