> Jungle law is an underpinning for a type of social and political
> philosophy, it seems.  Here, on this NewsGroup and I suspect radio and TV
> shows, it serves as a rational for many things but most typically that of
> either racial or cultural animosity. So I am going to say a few things
> about it.
>
> I will be setting up a "Straw Man". However any position that seems out
> of bounds with what is believed I hope will be pointed out by others.
>
> What It Is:
>
> "Law Of The Jungle" is a recognition of 'real life'. How humans really
> are. It is a 'brutal truth' in nature and as such all of human nature.
>
> The base tenets to Jungle Law are: Kill or be killed. Dominate or be
> dominated.  The contention is between some 'natural group' and another
> 'natural group'. The Natural Group usually is drawn along racial lines
> but it also can be drawn along lines of ethnicity or nationality or both
> or all.
>
> Weakness, according to this Law, is any human virtue or property
> that does not operate from these natural Jungle tenets. Whatever human
> value violates Jungle Law, even though laudable, can only mean doom for
> the group. Anyone in the group who does not believe this to be so are
> stupid, ignorant, naive or they are part of the enemy group.
>
> Finally, "Law Of The Jungle" is a burden that must be taken up. Even
> though the superior group is above this law in virtue and cultural or
> racial sophistication, the group MUST still 'sadly' abide by it because
> the other groups, being inferior, know no other law or will not operate
> under any other. Survival, it seems, does not depend on 'higher' values
> but upon the lowest.
>
> That then, in short, is the "Law Of The Jungle".
>
> What It REALLY Is:
>
> To address this, the metaphor has to be abolished.
>
> A jungle is a type of environment. Only certain types of things can live
> there and many of them are very hazardous to all human beings.
>
> A jungle 'has' no law. Law is a human product. In the jungle certain
> behaviors of things, like animals, seem consistent to an observer which
> then are called 'laws' which they are not. They are behaviors that seem
> consistent to a observer who classifies them, that is all.
>
> No animal kills in order not to be killed. Animal kill in order to eat
> and, rarely, to mate. 'Higher' order animals like mammals kill rarely
> given their total time alive. It may make for good nature footage but the
> fact is killing takes a huge amount of energy. Most animals will scavenge
> before they will kill if they can. When they do kill they will go after
> the weakest and easiest thing they can find usually.
>
> No species of mammal 'dominates' another. Ants do but not mammals. The
> lion does not 'dominate' the wildebeest. Dominance, as it is called,
> takes place inside of the group not between groups. A animal group will
> try to 'dominate' a resource, not another group but even then the
> interest leaves as the need is filled.
>
> In short, animals fed, quenched and well fucked do not attack each other.
> If there is a human lesson to be learned from the jungle, this might be
> it.
>
> "The Law Of The Jungle" is yet another metaphor gone bad. It holds no
> reasonable universal or natural justification for the killing or
> domination of another group. It is pure contrivance and moral cowardice.
>
> I will leave it here for now.