?

Log in

No account? Create an account
juillet 2019   01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31
crazy - bears boxing

Child Endangerment - Part 1

Posted on 2012.11.23 at 09:05
A true fundamentalist may be someone who is willing to either abort or keep a child for essentially political reasons. Such reasons may be perceived needs to control and manipulate a mate or family, or to gain status or resources in a local or wider society. Politics is often an arena of fears, or, more generally, dreads. Those who play in politics deal in abstractions, or "fundamentals", which ultimately polarise into black vs. white, i.e., left vs right. In this somewhat superstitious arena of dreads, wherein convincing others to support certain abstractions becomes the name of the game, some desperate players feel they are on the edge of extinction - and a reptilian need to survive more or less commands their thoughts, their methods, etc., and additionally prohibits them from ever perceiving ways out from under the yoke of their generalities. They might, e.g., generalise from select anecdotes in order to universally blame opponents, who themselves respond in the same way, and all you've got is a reptilian contest of right vs left, talking past and over each other. Note also how habitually judgmental fundamentalist liberals will project that judgmentalism onto right-wingers whom they haven't even met, seeing them as impossible to communicate with. Meanwhile, fundamentalist right-wingers so craving control, with a zero-sum outlook, will project that zero-sum pathology onto liberals, seeing them as always acting in a fashion consistent with imperial Social Darwinism. The latter may be far from the truth, when the Christian concept of collectivism or communism becomes perverted into some massive, "liberal scheme to turn the world into the USSR". The problem is that fundamentalists on either side REACT, AND PRESUME, IN KIND. So, yeah, the far-righties are right about the idealist, atheist commies often. And the far-lefties are often right about the judgmental racist evangelicals - both needing each other to define and embolden each other... To SCARE each other, and continue the reptilian dance of fear and abstractions. Of course, the great mass of the political MIDDLE is a soup or rainbow of various degrees or combinations of these negative outlooks and fears, and also may have the ability to resolve them finer and more productively, with other, more positive trends. Of course, the MIDDLE can be bought away, deluded, by credit and money and the powers that be, in which case it becomes a FAUX MIDDLE, falling heavy on both far-right and far-left, sometimes bringing both sides together when issues of TRUE, not abstract, survival becomes salient to both sides. Until then, far-right looks upon the hill of the middle, and projects more left-wing evils there, whereas the far-left looks upon the same, essentially, and projects far more right-wing evils than actually exist - serving to befuddle the great mass of normal or low-information mid-landers, who are not in a reptilian state, and mainly are wearing rose-coloured glasses for the time being. But the true contest is between those controlling the power and money of the society, who can easily control all three groups, (i.e., those who are much less in control of power and money, or credit), such powers-that-be as the banksters, CEOs, mega-corps cartels, certain families and clubs, etc. Oppositely: Not being in control of POWER, is the same thing as being OUT OF CONTROL. And, while the faux middle may be lost in a dream of rose-coloured helplessness, ("sheeple"), the fundamentalist right and left do indeed feel out of control in a more real sense. Individually, they may often be depressed, anxious, suicidal, sociopathic, etc. Thus the great need for the abstractions afforded by fundamentalist groupism. But I am not yet speaking of true survivalists of either side, who could work cooperatively with each other - I am speaking of the fundamentalists, right and left. And, as I said, they would use a child's life as a pawn in their political games, which are, within their autonomic nervous systems, (sometimes as a result of toxic food or pollutants or past trauma, PTSD), taken to be not games but, "matters of life and death." Woe, in times of uncertainty, when their reptilian voices may rise to rile a great number in the ambiguous or deluded middle. But, woe, when from this urging come new ways of solving societies political or economic problems, or of defending the rights of the middle against encroachments from the powerful. Some may see these missions altruistically, and so gladly give up or steal a child or two. Meanwhile, pedophile rings proliferate in the confused faux middle, as all of this is essentially a crisis over the possible future(s) of the society, and what more likely pawns in all this than the children, or able-bodies men and women, or the freest of thinkers, or small businesses, or grass-roots conspiracies, and so forth...

Next: the gender and genetic dynamics behind this(?) And: What about the TRUE "survivalists" - would they also endanger a child for their greater reptilian end of ACTUAL individual survival? Also: what is the essence of NAZI-like mass authoritarian cruelty? Also: did the Pilgrims really make any Progress?...

Comments:


bobby1933
bobby1933 at 2012-11-23 15:32 (UTC) (Lien)
Yes! But i think of the Crocodile (?) that became a "friend" of the man who rescued him. and to that man's small child.

Edited at 2012-11-23 15:33 (UTC)
where hypotheses come to die
madman101 at 2012-11-23 20:11 (UTC) (Lien)
I'm not familiar with this, but think I know what you mean. I am reminded of the parable of the scorpion and the frog. So, I'd like to say more in a little post. Also, Part 2 of this, (if it gets written), may show how these ideas are all qualifiable or relative, somewhat. Thanks.
Evil Tracey
eviltracey at 2012-11-23 19:49 (UTC) (Lien)
I generally find that fundamentalists tend to value their ideology over people. Always.
where hypotheses come to die
madman101 at 2012-11-23 20:15 (UTC) (Lien)
seems so. except for chance mistakes or individual differences. not to be contrarian, i wonder, though, about the fundamentalist who's philosophy is to always value people over ideology - maybe that's what i am, who knows.
Previous Entry  Next Entry