Opinions on ALUZKY

Aluzky actually has an account on here. However he hasn't been seen since August 3rd, 2020. He appeared on the ZooVille Chat for a little while afterwards, but then completely dropped from existence. I really don't know what happened to him? I'm not sure if he got caught, or just went underground entirely. He's definitely a controversial figure in the zoo realm for some of his beliefs, that's for sure.

As for opinions, there's a lot stances that I disagreed with when I used to talk with him, and there were some stances that we agreed upon. One thing I do know is that he seemed to love his own dogs very much and seemed to take really good care of them.

As for videos, I've only seen a handful of them. I'm only interested in female dogs so a lot of his content didn't do much for me. But meh... he pretty much stopped making new videos entirely when the laws about bestiality changed in his home country.
 
Well, love his videos and also share some of his views that others may find controversial XD Though I don't have a complete list of those views and would surely find others I'd object to.
 
For example only valuing the opinion of the animal for having sex with him or her - in which view fence-hopping is ethically right. A view that I share because differing views - though more mainstream - are based on ownership which I ideally don't see as right but sadly as the only way an animal can practically exist in our world.
 
If I had to guess, he probably found a clique on Telegram or somewhere that he fits in with better. He came across as someone that would function best in small, tight-knit groups.
 
Yeah, he's got that dudebro attitude. He was on Twitter until recently, but it looks like he was suspended.
 
Aluzky actually has an account on here. However he hasn't been seen since August 3rd, 2020. He appeared on the ZooVille Chat for a little while afterwards, but then completely dropped from existence. I really don't know what happened to him? I'm not sure if he got caught, or just went underground entirely. He's definitely a controversial figure in the zoo realm for some of his beliefs, that's for sure.

As for opinions, there's a lot stances that I disagreed with when I used to talk with him, and there were some stances that we agreed upon. One thing I do know is that he seemed to love his own dogs very much and seemed to take really good care of them.

As for videos, I've only seen a handful of them. I'm only interested in female dogs so a lot of his content didn't do much for me. But meh... he pretty much stopped making new videos entirely when the laws about bestiality changed in his home country.
I have seen him around. For years he has popped into various places and usually doesn't hang around long. It's nothing new.
 
I remember him as always kind and eager to talk, yet almost impossible to have a fruitful discussion with. I don't know if stubborn is the right word here? He made some very good arguments, but he had difficulties understanding when others who disagreed with him made good arguments. This can be annoying, but I rather enjoyed his presence in forums anyway. I like some of his photos.

Oh, and I remember him being one of the rare men who have said that they would rather have a smaller penis. 😄
 
We used to have a guy with similar attitudes back in the IRC days. That might predate this guy, it was a while ago. He used a similar nick but I don't recall exactly what it was. We used to boot him fairly regularly. Aluzky by name was banned from a couple of old forums I used to visit.

EDIT 12 August 2023: I had Aluzky confused with someone else. Looking at some old IRC records and forum saves I ran across, it turns out that the person I had in mind used the nick Sibe (short for Siberian (Husky). The source of the confusion was that this person would sometimes use Alusky (with an S not a Z), along with other names, to evade bans. He was active about 1999-2003. I do apologise for the mistake.
 
Last edited:
I used to debate alongside Aluzky against endless hordes of antizoos in the comments of his YouTube channel for entertainment, until I got bored. He was actually the first person I had ever conversed with on the Internet. I am glad his videos debunking antizoo arguments are out on the web, but I understand that many people may not want him representing the community, but I am personally fine with him doing so, as outsiders likely would not punch a zoo that did not fencehop any less harder than one who did.
I have only had a few messages with him for some time, as his channel has become a gaming channel, displaced from defending zoos completely.

If you have been keeping up with the Bestia Amore Podcast, you would hear Wintergreen and Ellie's opinions on him. They talk at length about him during their latest episode, 8, and though they avoid saying his name, anybody who has been in the community for more than a minute knows exactly who they were talking about. What with quoting his IQ of 134, sending pictures of genitalia to minors to teach them, having sex with dogs he nannies, et cetera.

Personally, I am ok with Aluzky, but my opinion is probably irrationally modified or "nostalgia-blinded" by the fact that he was the first prozoo I had ever talked to online. He has an entire witchhunt around him on YouTube and Reddit. He even gave out his address, I think he lives on the island of Malta (correct me if I am wrong), and nobody who threatened him ever did crap, just like when Fausty revealed his address somewhere in Washington.
 
We used to have a guy with similar attitudes back in the IRC days. That might predate this guy, it was a while ago. He used a similar nick but I don't recall exactly what it was. We used to boot him fairly regularly. Aluzky by name was banned from a couple of old forums I used to visit.
What is IRC?
 
Internet relay chat - an old chat protocol you used with dedicated programs instead of with the browser - though it's usable by browser by now
 
I used to debate alongside Aluzky against endless hordes of antizoos in the comments of his YouTube channel for entertainment, until I got bored. He was actually the first person I had ever conversed with on the Internet. I am glad his videos debunking antizoo arguments are out on the web, but I understand that many people may not want him representing the community, but I am personally fine with him doing so, as outsiders likely would not punch a zoo that did not fencehop any less harder than one who did.
I have only had a few messages with him for some time, as his channel has become a gaming channel, displaced from defending zoos completely.

If you have been keeping up with the Bestia Amore Podcast, you would hear Wintergreen and Ellie's opinions on him. They talk at length about him during their latest episode, 8, and though they avoid saying his name, anybody who has been in the community for more than a minute knows exactly who they were talking about. What with quoting his IQ of 134, sending pictures of genitalia to minors to teach them, having sex with dogs he nannies, et cetera.

Personally, I am ok with Aluzky, but my opinion is probably irrationally modified or "nostalgia-blinded" by the fact that he was the first prozoo I had ever talked to online. He has an entire witchhunt around him on YouTube and Reddit. He even gave out his address, I think he lives on the island of Malta (correct me if I am wrong), and nobody who threatened him ever did crap, just like when Fausty revealed his address somewhere in Washington.
I first encountered Aluzky through his YouTube channel 10 years ago. His videos educating the public about zoophilia were ones I admired. But his posts on Twitter, to me, seemed to represent a guy who was self-involved, emotionally unintelligent, and lacking nuance.

It's so coincidental you say you're "nostalgia-blinded" by him, I felt the same way. He was the first zoo I ever observed on YouTube. The Axe commercial, I think, was a humorous and bold criticism of anti-zoos and the public's ignorance about zoophilia back in the golden age of the 1990's. The extent of Aluzky's negative attention at the hands of anti-zoos is peculiar in comparison to how anonymous most zoos are. I would never reveal my address on the Internet, populated by cybercriminals and the like. Fausty revealed his own address? That's a tragedy waiting to happen.

Some zoos have had their lives destroyed because of the malevolent impersonality of individuals and government institutions. Back in the pre-Internet era of the 1980's, one person in particular had their life and marriage almost vanquished due to a reported "accident". But analyzing the sequence of events, it may become evident that they were intentionally targeted by the very government they swore to uphold. I highly respect the power of the federal branch, but when they trample on a citizen's civil liberties, it raises the kind of questions that keep you up at night.
 
Last edited:
I first encountered Aluzky through his YouTube channel 10 years ago. His videos educating the public about zoophilia were ones I admired. But his posts on Twitter, to me, seemed to represent a guy who was self-involved, emotionally unintelligent, and lacking nuance.

It's so coincidental you say you're "nostalgia-blinded" by him, I felt the same way. He was the first zoo I ever observed on YouTube. The Axe commercial, I think, was a humorous and bold criticism of anti-zoos and the public's ignorance about zoophilia back in the golden age of the 1990's. The extent of Aluzky's negative attention at the hands of anti-zoos is peculiar in comparison to how anonymous most zoos are. I would never reveal my address on the Internet, populated by cybercriminals and the like. Fausty revealed his own address? That's a tragedy waiting to happen.

Some zoos have had their lives destroyed because of the malevolent impersonality of individuals and government institutions. Back in the pre-Internet era of the 1980's, one person in particular had their life and marriage almost vanquished due to a reported "accident". But analyzing the sequence of events, it may become evident that they were intentionally targeted by the very government they swore to uphold. I highly respect the power of the federal branch, but when they trample on a citizen's civil liberties, it raises the kind of questions that keep you up at night.
If you don't know yet - Fausty has passed away by now.
 
For example only valuing the opinion of the animal for having sex with him or her - in which view fence-hopping is ethically right. A view that I share because differing views - though more mainstream - are based on ownership which I ideally don't see as right but sadly as the only way an animal can practically exist in our world.
Tiny correction. I'm against crimes. Fence hopping involves CRIMINAL trespassing on some ones property, that is a crime, thus, I don't support fence hopping at all and I have never done fence hopping even that I could have easily done it dozens of times. I don't do crimes, I don't support doing crimes. That is the code of ethics that I live by.

What I not against is owner hopping. But not being against it doesn't mean that I would advice others to do owner hopping. If some one want to do owner hopping, that is their choice. Owner hopping is doing intimate things with animals that are not owned by you, wichout the owner permission, while not doing anything criminal like trespassing or stealing the animal or doing animal cruelty. Owner hopping is not a crime, but it can be considered by some as being rude or immoral.

In fact, many zoos have done owner hopping and don't even realize it. If they did it with the family dog and never asked their parents for permission, that is owner hopping.

I personally believe that the animal consent is what matter, if the animal wants a belly rub or a genital rub, why do I need consent from the owner to do what the animal wants? Think about a human analogy, if you want to do it with a 18+ year old girl and she wants to do it with you, do you need to ask her parents for consent to do it with her? Or do you ask her directly? And what if an owner says "yes, you can do it with my dog" but the dog says "NO, I don't want any" does that mean the zoophile can just rape the dog because he has the owner permission? To me, it is clear that animal consent is what matter the most, they have priority over the human owner opinion. And opinion that most likely will be based on ignorance, bigotry and hate.

PS: I'm against owner hopping if you are knowingly doing it with an animal who is owned by a zoophile. The only valid reason to not asking for permission to a non-zoo owner is because of the social stigma and the reaction you may get from just asking such question. But with a zoophile, there is no excuse to avoid getting permission.

And maybe one day when zoophilia/zoosexuality becomes just as acceptable as homophilia/homosexuality, that day we won't need to fear non-zoos reactions or the law and we can be free to ask owners for permission without fear of being discriminated or worst. That day is the day owner hopping will become very uncommon.
 
Curious to know what some of those views are. I've only known Aluzky through some of his videos.

In simple terms, I'm against crimes and I support non-criminal acts. And I support facts adamantly.

Think about the most disgusting immoral thing you can imagine, but if that thing is not criminal. I will support it.

Thing is, I try to be logically consistent. I don't cherry pick what to support and what not support based on subjectivity or emotions. And because of this, people who use subjective morality, volatile emotions or bigotry or religion to live their lives, they end up conflicting with my views.

For example I support abortion. Just that will get me a few zoophiles to hate me. But those zoophiles are going to use religion, morality or emotions as a justification to be against me. They won't have a single objective rational reason on their side.

One can not please everyone, and I don't live to please everyone, if they don't like how I think, it is not my problem. Those who love me love me, those who hate me hate me. I won't become a hipocrite and cherry pick what to suport or be against just to not anger the moralistic, emotionally unstable, religious, bigoted, zoophiles or non-zoophiles.

Hope that answers your question.
 
Tiny correction. I'm against crimes. Fence hopping involves CRIMINAL trespassing on some ones property, that is a crime, thus, I don't support fence hopping at all and I have never done fence hopping even that I could have easily done it dozens of times. I don't do crimes, I don't support doing crimes. That is the code of ethics that I live by.
eeeee..... You DO realize what the legal status of bestiality around the world is, right? ...right?

Owner hopping is doing intimate things with animals that are not owned by you, wichout the owner permission, while not doing anything criminal like trespassing or stealing the animal or doing animal cruelty.
As far as I know, fencehopping is having sex with an animal without owner's permission, assuming there is any. That's it.

Think about the most disgusting immoral thing you can imagine, but if that thing is not criminal. I will support it.
That's just plain wrong. Holocaust was perfectly legal when it happened, nazis ensured that.
 
We used to have a guy with similar attitudes back in the IRC days. That might predate this guy, it was a while ago. He used a similar nick but I don't recall exactly what it was. We used to boot him fairly regularly. Aluzky by name was banned from a couple of old forums I used to visit.
As far as I know, I have never been banned from any zoophile forums where I have made account. On beastforums I think I was on very good therms with the owner and the mods, they even gave me free unlimited premium account on gaybeast (without me asking) Maybe they like my porn or my line of though? I don't know.

I may have been banned in non-zoo forums or chat groups, but that is to be expected when you defend human+animal relationships in a room full of bigots/zoophobes.

I'm not that old, never used IRC. I wonder what that person name was, maybe we could be friends if we have similar views and code of ethics. My name is the name of a hybrid between husky and Alaskan malamute. Such hybrid is named Alusky. But my name is with a Z for zoophile. Back when I created my name, a google search for Aluzky would give 1 result from a Chinese page where some one misspelled the word. In the present, googling my name gives over 20,000 results if you count picutures, video and text. Hmmm i think I'm getting off topic, what I wanted to say is that husky sounding names are popular. Is not rare to see similar looking names and since I became infamous/famous, some fans or haters have copied my name and creates account in different places. I would not be surprised if a fan or hater using my name where to get banned, making you think it was me when it was not me. Specially haters who clone my name just to try to make me and zoophiles look bad by saying a bunch of lies and horrible things.
 
But his posts on Twitter, to me, seemed to represent a guy who was self-involved, emotionally unintelligent, and lacking nuance.
Well said. I don't think you are wrong. That being said. None of those traits are a hinder to defend zoophilia and human+animal relationships. While some will want to appeal to emotion to convince the zoophobes, I rather appeal to facts. Facts are cold, emotionless and objective, they end up saying the truth, they prove who is right and who is wrong. I have my way to debate, others are free to use a more emotionally rident approach to educate the zoophobes. I welcome anyone else who tries to do zoo-activism.
 
You DO realize what the legal status of bestiality around the world is, right? ...right?


Do you understand the difference between something being illegal and something being criminal?

Something criminal is an action that creates a victim. Something illegal is something that is punished by the land with a law. Not everything that is illegal is criminal and not everything that is criminal is illegal.

Zoosexual sex and homosexual sex may be illegal in many countries, but they are not defined as criminal acts, they are defined as victimless acts. Making homosexual or zoosexual sex illegal, is defined as an unjust law that basic violates human rights.

This guys says it better than me: “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” – Martin Luther King, Jr.

Anti zoosexual or anti homosexual sex laws are unjust laws. I have no problems with people breaking unjust laws. I support breaking unjust laws.

"As far as I know, fencehopping is having sex with an animal without owner's permission, assuming there is any. That's it." ←As the name states, fencehopping involves going to some one else property, HOPPING the FENCE that demark their property and committing criminal trespassing into their property and then doing intimate stuff with their animals. Without the trespassing there is no fencehopping. Without the trespassing it would only be ownerhopping.

Fencehopping is a criminal act, ownerhopping is just an immoral act. One is many times worse than the other.


"That's just plain wrong. Holocaust was perfectly legal when it happened, nazis ensured that."
←Legal but not a victimless act. Thus it was criminal. Like I said, some times crimes can be legal. Again, you are not understanding the difference between something illegal and something criminal. I'm against crimes, if those crimes are illegal or legal, it is irrelevant, I'm against all crimes regardless of legal status. And I support all victimless acts, be legal or illegal, I will support them regardles of legal status. I was pretty clear with my words. You are totally misunderstanding them... this is the problem I have that gains me many haters... they just don't understand the arguments that I make... they too ignorant or stupid or emotional unstable to think and react in a rational way, or they just don't care to understand my arguments because of my zoosexual status.
 
Aluzky actually has an account on here.........but then completely dropped from existence. I really don't know what happened to him? I'm not sure if he got caught, or just went underground entirely.

I come and go. Some times I feel like being "social" and some times I just want to disconnect from other humans. I can get distracted playing a videogame or doing something in real life. I'm also introverted, so I don't need social contact every day, I can live without it for decades. If anything, social contact is stressful. This is why I disappear from time to time and later appear again months or years later. I'm just living and enjoying my life normally away from social sites.

What is funny is, every time I come back I hear the bigots saying: He got crested, he is dead. And I just reply to them "Nope, I'm alive and free." and they go back to be angry and disappointed, spiting vile.
Not so funny, it can make some zoophiles or friends worry about my disappearing, thinking the worst.
 
Do you understand the difference between something being illegal and something being criminal?
We seem to speak a completely different language


No dictionary I can find says anything about the victim requirement.

Without the trespassing there is no fencehopping.


Fence-hopping does not need to involve actually hopping over a fence or even trespassing – if you have sex with someone’s animal while pet-sitting, that is still considered fence-hopping.

Fencehopping is a criminal act

Under your definitions, there has to be a victim. Yet, you do realize that the animal can be fine or even want it. So it's as bad as trespassing itself, which does not create victims.

they too ignorant or stupid or emotional unstable to think and react in a rational way, or they just don't care to understand my arguments because of my zoosexual status.

Now you are jumping into conclusions. How can I understand your terminology while every source I can find gives a different definition and you haven't provided yours?
 
Back
Top