September 20, 2018

Selective Blindness, Changing Perceptions and the Growing Cultural Divide

Today I laughed. I actually laughed or at least grinned several times. Why? Mostly because I do not willingly exist in what most would consider this “normal” world – normal being whatever each individual and group of individuals has determined to be correct and thus normal. Because of my sometimes “out-of-planet” experiences, witnessing the normal, but to me, abnormal, events of the day must cause laughter. Without it, I’m not sure the results.

Most entertaining is when intellectuals(?) wander down roads of philosophical bliss, pointing out the obvious, created by the obvious, for the obvious, but pause in confusion, not understanding such creations, or better yet, intimating that the answer must lie in some unexplored human psyche beyond mortal comprehension. Yikes!

At the root of this laughter, sometimes contrasted with anger and disgust, was a long, sometimes rambling essay of what, in part, was the transformation of human attitudes and perspectives about life in general and living with predators more specifically. The author writes:

We have become tame in Europe, and that is a good thing. Europeans are on the whole no longer wild or savage, as we certainly were a thousand, five hundred, or for that matter sixty-seven years ago. The potential for savagery and bloodthirstiness remains within us, as shown with such dreadful clarity during the war in the former Yugoslavia in 1991?1999. But we are for the most part tame and prefer that state-sanctioned bloodletting on a large scale happen outside the borders of the European Union. And that is, all things considered, a good thing. No one in their right mind would want to go back to the fear and insecurity of anticipated attacks by Vikings, bigoted religious fanatics, or the soldiers of the Axis Powers. The same can be said about our relationship to animals. Most aspects of the living conditions of pets and farm animals are regulated by law in the EU. For wild animals, there are special habitat directives.

My initial reaction to reading this was to ask, what world does this person live in? But then, I realized it wasn’t what world he lived in but my own existence shuns the false world he displays. While what he writes certainly may reflect his perceptions of things, I believe it only substantiates the success of the work of those who control this world and all that is in it. There must be considered the absurdity or insanity that, “state-sanctioned bloodletting” is acceptable beyond the bounds of the newly perceived “tameness.” Talk about living a life of blinded ignorance. To accept the premise of, “No one in their right mind would want to go back to the fear and insecurity of anticipated attacks by Vikings, bigoted religious fanatics, or the soldiers of the Axis Powers,” is to accept a lie and live it. More people would live in fear if they realized that all of this still exists today but is well-hidden. Media control and manipulation, outright lies and deceit, propaganda and control prohibits us from seeing the terrible things that are going on all around us.

The author admits, and accurately so, that this same attitude of blissful blindness and the denial of existing savagery, carries over into how people want to distinguish themselves and their coexistence with animals, both wild and domestic.

To this the writer states:

But something has been lost in the advance of civilization. In pace with the introduction of the refrigerator, hot running water, bathrooms with subfloor heating, and cable TV, our relationship to things wild has changed, especially our attitudes towards the predators among us. The bear, the wolf, the wolverine, the lynx: all have been transformed in our minds into symbolic, anthropomorphized abstractions. It is human nature to do so, and in a way, one could argue that this has been the case for much longer than since the end of World War II. Nevertheless, the already simplified traits have become more starkly black and white in modern, highly urbanized societies.

From the perspective of one suffering from “out-of-planet” syndrome, a serious argument could and should be made about whether or not civilization has advanced or regressed. There is no arguing the claim that “attitudes toward predators,” has changed, certainly, that man has established most animals as “symbolic, anthropomorphized abstractions” to a point where animals are given equal or superior rights to man and are always discussed with terms using human identification.

We know that out of World Wars I and II, the rapid growth of understanding the human mind and how to control and manipulate it, was exploited, for all the wrong reasons. How did it become possible that our minds see things in a completely different way than how our parents taught us and their parents taught them?

But is this really human nature to see animals from this perverse perspective? I don’t think so. It is learned or probably, in this case, planned programming of our minds in order that changes forced onto people for sinister reasons by perverts with more to gain and without one care for the welfare of any animal…or even you for that matter.

The author touches on one of the reasons for the changes in attitude when he writes:

Out in the country, that argument does not hold full sway, at least not in the areas where the predators are actually found. Country people’s empirical knowledge runs deeper and is often — though not always — more complex and objective than city people’s. The problem with European attitudes towards “our” predators, however, is that most Europeans live in cities and not in the countryside.

And the plan, as it appears to me, is to work toward changing the dynamics of human population densities so that urban dwellers surpass in numbers those of the rural world. For certainly their exists differing attitudes and perspectives between the two cultures. It would make perfect sense that if someone or group of someones was interested in control they would work using whatever means possible to grow the numbers of whichever side was ideologically prepared to sacrifice themselves for the cause. This may sound a bit extreme, but is it in reality? When you consider the words, the attitudes, the hate and the anger being perpetuated throughout, often targeted or presented as urban against suburban, somebody must have an important task to undertake.

We are but duped pawns!

Share

No Need to Publish Letters About Publishing Photos of Dead Deer

proctologist

Warning! The photo to the left can be viewed as offensive and an influence to your moral compass. To continue reading, first, grow up.

This morning my inbox contained a link to a Letter to the Editor published in a Maine newspaper from someone that I believe is a faculty member at Thomas College. The letter was aimed at chastising the editorial staff of the paper for printing photographs of dead deer in their newspaper, stating that they, “find it very disturbing to open the paper and find pictures of slaughtered animals and don’t understand why those of us who have moral objections to hunting need to be involuntarily exposed to these pictures.”

One cannot argue that this person, at least states, that they find photographs of dead deer – and I would presume the same for all dead animals – bothersome and has difficulty viewing them. At same time, argument can reasonably be made that this person, if they are a college professor at a Maine college, lives in a state where deer hunting has, for many decades, been a rite of passage for residents and publishing photos of  “dead deer” in local newspapers is part of that rite of passage. We are in a constant state of war. The newspapers always contain images of war and the collateral damage of war. I wonder if this same person has the same moral objections to viewing dead bodies of men and women?

The bigger picture is what is most disturbing. We now live in a society in which the mindset is one of entitlement, combined with censorship (political correctness), and the selfish desire to force all others to one’s own way of thinking. This comes because respect and an understanding and appreciation of the interests of other people, has gone missing – more than likely by design.

We can also see an extreme case of this in the aftermath of another national “selection” for a new president. I recall when Barack Obama was “selected” as president, the false left was happy while the false right lamented the thought of this person being president of the United States for 4 or 8 years. With the tide changing, the false right is happy and the false left is struggling to get over it and in some cases resorting to violence to protest what appears to be something they know little about. But I’ll save that discussion for another day.

Back to the dead deer photos. If a newspaper caved to the whims of every unstable individual, who thinks of themselves as the author of all things “moral” and stopped publishing photos they believed to be of the interest of the majority of their readers, the paper would be void of all photos, for surely with little effort, an irrational weak person can find any photo disturbing and would have moral objections to what they represent while claiming involuntary subjection to viewing the pictures. How silly and childish!

I Corinthians 13:11 reads, When I was a child, I spake as a child: I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.Once it was thought, without much  discussion, that a person who held a position as a staff member of a college, had grown up and put away childish things. Evidently not.

Perhaps the author’s real intent was to offer disparagement toward the event of hunting and those that participate in it. A grown up would simply state such a position and offer rational discourse in support of their position, rather than bang their heads on the table, in a display of childish behavior, demanding the newspaper take away pictures and protect her from being “subjected” to what she considers the immoralities of others. Unfortunately, that grown-up behavior seems to be in short supply as any sane person can realize by simply opening their eyes.

I don’t read newspapers any longer because, as a grown man, I understand that its content is propaganda and full of things that are offensive and certainly what I would classify as immoral. Should I choose to open one up, I fully expect to find as I describe. The same adult behavior would prevent me from banging my head demanding my way at the expense of all others. I can only alter my own behavior as has always been the same way of existing in a state of sanity.

I doubt that the newspapers are going to alter what they publish because one reader has been offended…or has a related mission to end hunting. Such actions prove that insanity runs rampant throughout our perverted society.

Share

If ISLAM is “Hellish Nightmare” Who is Responsible?

IslamNightmare

Share