"Love overcomes hatred."
"Love is all you need."
And the most annoying of all:
"Live, laugh, love!" (This, it seems, is now something like the war cry of the degenerates.) When you hear people talk, you would think that we live in the most loving society that ever lived. But it is clear that people today are no longer loving - and certainly not lovelier - than they ever were.
Also, if you listen carefully to all the fanatics out of (their kind of)love, it will be clear that when the establishment and its educational-political-media apparatus talk about "love," they want us to understand them in two very specific ways.
And the most annoying of all:
"Live, laugh, love!" (This, it seems, is now something like the war cry of the degenerates.) When you hear people talk, you would think that we live in the most loving society that ever lived. But it is clear that people today are no longer loving - and certainly not lovelier - than they ever were.
Also, if you listen carefully to all the fanatics out of (their kind of)love, it will be clear that when the establishment and its educational-political-media apparatus talk about "love," they want us to understand them in two very specific ways.
First, we must love everyone equally.
Somehow we are expected to give the same level of concern to other people's children in countries whose names we can not pronounce and whose boundaries we can not identify on a map as we would with our own families. It is also almost always disguised. The establishment clearly thinks some people are kinder than others. Yet the idea of universal love is sufficiently attractive to the amorphous sensibilities of modern people, which has become the establishment's argument when it must morally manipulate the public - and (democratic)politics now seems to consist primarily of moral manipulation.
Somehow we are expected to give the same level of concern to other people's children in countries whose names we can not pronounce and whose boundaries we can not identify on a map as we would with our own families. It is also almost always disguised. The establishment clearly thinks some people are kinder than others. Yet the idea of universal love is sufficiently attractive to the amorphous sensibilities of modern people, which has become the establishment's argument when it must morally manipulate the public - and (democratic)politics now seems to consist primarily of moral manipulation.
Second, our society overestimates (just the)sexual love(?), especially sexual love(?) of the most promiscuous variety. In truth, there is little "making love" and much more "uncommitted sex". Monogamous marriages may be a strange relic of the past, but the establishment has never come across a fetish or deviant sexual practice that is not tempting. There are advocacy groups organized for Adult Babies, Scaphylics, and people who engage in cartoon character costumes. I'm hardly a Puritan, and I do not care if people like podolatry or leather clothing, but why are these things treated as if they had redeeming social value? Part of this is the fact that in a capitalist society, marginal sexual identities have become commodified, just like everything else. Even the simple old-fashioned heterosexual can now be ordered as pizza in dating applications like Tinder. As with any other consumer product, the approach seems to be from quantity to quality. Why try to cultivate meaningful relationships or start a family when you can download instant sexual gratification from the Internet? Yet the commodification of sexuality does not explain everything. The establishment has an interest in promoting a fully sexualized conception of love(?), just as it has an interest in promoting a "universal love" that seeks to embrace all humanity.
So what do these two conceptions of "love" have in common? The answer is that none of them requires commitment. To imagine that you love all people everywhere, without distinction, and to have sex with random strangers, without ever compromising your heart with any of them, means never having to choose sides. That's because choosing sides is dangerous.
And true love is dangerous. When you really love someone, the implication is that you are willing to fight for him.
And true love is dangerous. When you really love someone, the implication is that you are willing to fight for him.
Likewise, nuclear families and extended families can support each other and support one another in ways that no government can compete with, and may even turn into dynasties that can challenge state power. Cognitive scientist Steven Pinker once opined that the family is the most insurgent institution in human history precisely because it will always favor its own members rather than the claims of unrelated citizens. That is why the government is such a shameless promoter of single mothers, child "protection" agencies and feminist initiatives to destroy patriarchy. That is also why a phenomenon like "slut-shaming" is now considered a terrible political crime. These ideas are reflected in the two greatest twentieth-century novels: Aldous Huxley's Brave New World and 1984 by George Orwell.
In Huxley's implicitly totalitarian World State, families were abolished. Children are designed and created in institutions such as the "London Incubation and Conditioning Center". Indiscriminate sex is encouraged, but monogamous relationships and even words like "mother" and "father" are considered taboo.
In the explicitly totalitarian society imagined by Orwell, the Party is fully aware of the dangers of meaningful human connections outside the state orbit. "We are already breaking the habits of thought that survived before the Revolution. We cut the bonds between child and father; between man and man; and between man and woman. No one dares to trust a wife or a child or a friend for long. But in the future there will be no wives or friends. "In the final act of the book, Winston Smith is captured and tortured by Big Brother. But Winston's interrogator does not consider him broken enough (submissive) - and ready for reinstatement in the Party - until he betrays Julia, the woman he loves.
In the explicitly totalitarian society imagined by Orwell, the Party is fully aware of the dangers of meaningful human connections outside the state orbit. "We are already breaking the habits of thought that survived before the Revolution. We cut the bonds between child and father; between man and man; and between man and woman. No one dares to trust a wife or a child or a friend for long. But in the future there will be no wives or friends. "In the final act of the book, Winston Smith is captured and tortured by Big Brother. But Winston's interrogator does not consider him broken enough (submissive) - and ready for reinstatement in the Party - until he betrays Julia, the woman he loves.
To love all mankind is practically the same as loving nobody. True love gains meaning when it chooses its object to the exclusion of others.
True love, in other words, is about loyalty. It is a powerful antidote to the spirit of ironic detachment, uprooting and solitary and insidious emptiness, which are the hallmarks of the modern progressive condition."
True love, in other words, is about loyalty. It is a powerful antidote to the spirit of ironic detachment, uprooting and solitary and insidious emptiness, which are the hallmarks of the modern progressive condition."
-Operation Werewolf
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário
Não são aceites comentários que usem a mentira como contra-argumentação.
Aceito qualquer debate, desde que se fale verdade.
Isto não é um blog democrata, nem nenhuma juventude partidária democrata onde se treina desde cedo o uso da mentira como retórica política para enganar os Portugueses.
Aqui reina a verdade, não a mentira.