Weblog trivia

Unfortunately, most web users (and abusers) aren't familiar with nature. Recent geographical isolation does not necessarily equate with imbalance. Nor does it harken rectification. Please hear me out.

There are natural laws, and they don't necessarily coincide with human-based definitions. In fact, humans are quite out of step with what nature dictates. There is a wise saying, expectations merely provide a hook to hang your disappointment on.

According to the laws of nature, no species can reproduce let alone survive in an inhospitable environment. This is why we don't have penguins at the North Pole (or polar bears at its southern opposite).

Us humans just don't seem to get Mother Nature. She allows rabbits to infest Victoria, cane toads to do the same in Queensland, yet in their assumed "superior wisdom" fucktards declare that "this is unnatural". Well what the fuck then is your definition of natural? Something separate from nature? I dismiss at the outset any misanthropic philosophy. For those unfamiliar with the term, it means man-hating, as in hating all of mankind. Or manhurt. Either way it's pretty divisive and not conducive to finding a solution. It's pretty much a devoid atheistic approach, based on a pessimistic non-outcome of the failure of human civilisation. Not exactly in accordance with God's plan. But then if you're a damned atheist to begin with, it's highly unlikely that you're figuring in any kind of redemption.

Tadpoles don't survive at the poles because it's unnatural. They freeze in icy conditions. Meanwhile camels, oxen, boars and many other "introduced species" prolifically reproduce in the Australian wildlife like rabbits.

Btw, it's called "wildlife" for a reason. It means without human interference, letting nature take its course. Ponder that for a moment before you environmentalists go off half-cocked. It's nature, stupid.

Wankerpedia, quote: "Unfortunately, Laughing Kookaburras are also well established in south-west Western Australia, Tasmania and New Zealand after being artificially introduced, possibly because of its reputation for killing snakes."

https://www.natureaustralia.org.au/explore/australian-animals/are-kookaburras-laughing-or-screaming-/

We need to get beyond, yay transcend, the narrow definition of what is natural. Botano-fascists reckon that non-indigenous specie don't belong. I disagree. I say they just haven't taken up their place yet. Increasingly in the future there is going to be unprecedented globalisation. It is unavoidable. Specie will intermix, even interbreed, breaking all the rules. Did you know that the dingo was introduced into Australia as little as six thousand years ago? (based on fossil evidence - or more exactly, the complete lack of any dingo fossils/skeletons older than five thousand years). Some argue that there were two separate waves of aboriginal migration, 120,000 years ago and 40,000 y.a as well. The problem as I see it is with academics, intellectuals, professors, etc cosily nestling in their ivory towers in established universities while the rest of the world is changing around them. They are oblivious to it because it challenges their long-held dichotomous thinking, not allowing or entertaining anything outside their sphere of reference.

Such is the Eurocentric Darwinian White Supremacist/Caucasian materialistic concept of the world. Well I'll be a monkey's uncle! (by the way, apparently Jesus was an Arab) Take that, racists!