November 23rd, 2012

crazy - bears boxing

Child Endangerment - Part 1

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?...
eek - snarl / hiss

Part 1.5 = SPITE

Collapse )

Spite seems to be a central theme in the heart of many a fundamentalist.
The spigot can be turned off only by love. If one manages not to perish in the process.
Although, something may also said for complete sensory deprivation...

Whatever you do, don't enable a scorpion.
eek - bleh!

1.6 = dysfunction means to me

Let's see... I didn't even mention PASSIVE AGGRESSION in my last post about SPITE, but you can go to my nether people posts and find plenty there. You can also see my tags for that, and ... passive aggression... myy tags are never sufficient... I also didn't mention that spite can take many forms or expressions: It can emerge as kleptomania, gossip, infidelity, deliberately handicapping others, or even self-harm. It can take the form of snark - and that subject, actually more about cynicism, was supposed to be a post all its own, except I forgot it completely. For now. Another thing I never said about SPITE in the last post, but which may be said in other posts, is that SPITE usually involves a skewed sense of justice - perverted imaginings, paranoia, private revenge, cultish groupism, etc., but, mostly, the awkward artifices of fundamental abstractions or logics... For example, since everyone is responsible for his actions, then the person infected by a zombifying parasite deserves to be punished for some crime committed... Or, since someone is a witch, obviously, she needs to by burnt at the stake, etc. Superstitions mainly based on fissures in logic, in block mega-logics, caused by fear. But, also in the world, spite can be a function of selfish wants redefined into "needs," as discussed elsewhere. Finally, another thing I failed to mention is that we have double standards, vis-a-vis animals, but also vi-a-vis each other. This is a hypocrisy related to narcissism or errant learning. These can be negative, but can also be naively positive, as when we take a crocodile under our wing, thinking they must assent to our whims but we need not attend to their, say, desire to eat us. We fail to notice that a croc can eat our child, simply because we would never dare to eat a croc's child. But that's because we are weak, do not have big teeth or muscles, etc. Somehow, we assume that civilisation protects us from these ignored disparities when it doesn't. Or - at least we, when fools... Similarly, we make assumptions that political games or the credit of friendships - or GOD, etc. - will come to our rescue whenever we might decide to inflict some injust instance of spite or control, when in fact they won't. Reality may rush in, and we are done for. And, isn't that just the way with empires as well?

Anyway, the point of this little post is to quickly present an idea that occurred to me, on hearing that a certain Catholic, Madame Nu, apparently ordered the shooting of JFK, in retaliation for the similar killing of her husband. It just got me thinking about the hypothetical involvements, also or elsewise, of the Catholic mafia and/or the Catholic Pope, who hated the liberal JFK. Someone once said that the truth abut who killed JFK was decided to be kept secret, because it was just too UNBELIEVABLE and UNSETTLING to level upon the nation. (That's the sort of thing LBJ would say, although, maybe LBJ killed JFK, too. Everybody seems to have been killing JFK back then)... So, this got me thinking that, "THE CATHOLIC CHURCH KILLED JFK." Whether or not this is at all true or possible, it gave me this thought:

Most violence is domestic - between relatives. And, doesn't it seem, in one way or another, that virtually all violence and all wars are ultimately perpetrated within the bounds of some "FAMILY" RELATIONSHIP? E.g., JFK - Catholic, and so the CHURCH ended up killing him. (MAYBE. But it fits this model). Gangs fight amongst themselves. Bankster elites play off the poor against each other. Related mobsters vie for urban territory. Neighbours commence to passively aggress as soon as they assume relationship with you. A homeless guy yells insanely at you as soon as eye contact is made. Countries in European history warred against each other even though their leaders were all marrying, etc. The only time this seems not to apply is when there is genocide, sometimes caused by nothing but a virus, or else based on resources. Even wiping out Neandertals probably had some "family"-type squabble at its roots. The family of man. Of course, since we are all ultimately related in SOME way, this hypothesis is ALWAYS true. But I suspect it is more true than that.