Monthly Archives: May 2018

Genocidal Nutters, 2018 Edition

In the year of our many Lords, 2018, one would think the 20th century (at least) had taught us a few lessons regarding scapegoating entire groups of people, with the claim that “if they just disappeared off the face of this planet all major problems would be solved overnight”.

Unfortunately, that is still not the case. The post-tribal world remains an ideal few of us share (not nearly enough to count).

That can be expanded to any group targeted by scapegoating, even without the intention of deadly violence, but a whole array of other “solutions” requiring the dehumanisation of those forming it.

Before going into the main targets of hatred in the west today, a few things need to be pointed out.

  • Inherent traits (race, nationality, ethnicity, sex, sexual orientation) do not place anyone in a homogeneous group, attributing certain ideologies or behaviours to them by default. I would add inherited religion to the list, especially when forced on someone (living in a theocracy or a community where not adopting the label would be a safety risk).
  • Dehumanising others is never the answer (that is how the Holocaust happened, and every mass atrocity).
  • Nearly every group targeted by hatred includes innocent, vulnerable people (especially children), who become collateral victims of violence, without having caused the circumstances they find themselves in, even if the adults around them have participated in creating them. Making collateral victims is not acceptable (EVER), especially when the group advocating violence has got claims of superior moral values (which is usually the case).
  • Advocating violence (war, murder, unjust imprisonment, torture, inhumane deportation) turns proponents into sociopaths and leads to sociopathic societies, where any kind of treatment is accepted, provided it is applied to the “enemy”. Mental distancing from these issues, should they be happening away from public view, does not change that.
  • Finally, we are all susceptible to being drawn in by nefarious agendas and propaganda, as we all share the same nature. Unless we learn to see each other as individuals, treating others how we would like to be treated, the results of hateful propaganda will always be disastrous. Imagine being suddenly placed in a targeted category by a political class, whilst innocent of all accusations brought against you by default – you would like the same presumption of innocence, and humanity, shown to you.

“Jews are the problem”

Copyright: Neo-Nazis, some hard-line Muslims, some conspiracy theorists

I don’t suppose I need to go into many details, as this shit is literally everywhere, some claiming Jews have conspired for millennia to “take over the world” and “are now succeeding” since they are “controlling the media, the banks, the entertainment industry” etc.

Some are so obsessed that every societal problem, either real or perceived (such as the so-called white genocide) can be traced back to some “Jewish agenda”.

Israeli politics are often used as an argument, as if every Jew on this planet were an Israeli (or a Zionist) and every Israeli agreed to these policies (which is not the case). The mass protests, in Israel and outside of it, are completely ignored by this camp, who wants to paint every Jewish person as an adherent to some ancient plan of world domination.

“Muslims are the problem”

Copyright: Neo-Nazis, conservatives in general

I should mention that the cautious attitude Muslim apostates have, understandably, should not be mistaken for the above; many of these people have Muslim families and acquaintances they would not want to see unfairly targeted, especially with violence.

The two polarising attitudes in the west today are of either considering all Muslims dangerous by default, espoused by the right, or defending Islam as a whole, espoused by the left; both are equally stupid.

Claiming Islam as a dogma is innocuous is, of course, false, as shown by the polls revealing the prevalence of bigoted attitudes regarding women and sexual minorities among Muslims. The rest is all over the media as well – forced marriages, almost criminalising womanhood, advocating terrorism etc. Whereas the latter is undoubtedly connected to the violence western countries keep carrying out in the Middle East, constantly, the oppression of women, sexual minorities and apostates is a staple in Muslim communities. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away.

At the same time, it is irrational to claim any Muslim (there are 1.8 billion in the world) constitutes a threat to the safety of non-Muslims, or lives by radical tenets. Just as Christians do, many Muslims cherry-pick positive verses from their scriptures and live their lives accordingly. Even if many are bigoted in some ways, it does not make them a threat to others.

Imagine what the world would look like if every Christian today lived by the worst parts of the Bible. Human beings are not designed that way; dogmas are artificial and the good seeds of human nature (love, empathy, fairness) fight against them constantly. Muslims are no different than anyone subjected to the influence of a nefarious ideology.

People get into – and out of – cults all the time. Islam, Christianity and Judaism are no different. As long as religion keeps being propagated at this rate, it will keep happening. But a person is so much more than a label or a belief held at one point in time.

“Non-believers are the problem”

Copyright: religious fundamentalists of any persuasion, “cultural Christians”, conservatives in general

Christianity has a long tradition of painting non-believers as servants of Satan, who have no moral compass and will drag the world into an infernal dystopia, their paranoid fantasies ranging from secular governments forbidding spiritual beliefs to placing microchips in people’s heads to read or control their thoughts. Islam, of course, advocates for atheists to be killed.

Refusing religious tenets is associated with depravity, whatever that means outside of a religious context, as well as utilitarianism (seeing people as no more than animals and not valuing their lives). Whereas the latter is still a fact today, it always has been. Humans have a long history of dehumanising “the other” (other races, other nations, people of other faiths, the poor etc). These prejudices stem not from a genuine, individual thought process but from the collective.

They have nothing to do with the lack of belief in a god, in times where wars continue to be fought on religious grounds.

Of course not many religious people want to literally murder non-believers; most simply want them deposed of decision-making powers or converted. But the mass scapegoating is very real.

“Gays are the problem”

Copyright: Neo-Nazis, religious fundamentalists, conservatives in general

Many today, having fallen into the nets of the far right (or the right in general) are of the opinion that the west started degenerating during the cultural revolution of the 1960s.

And apparently, “it all started with the acceptance of gay rights”, and from there everything snowballed into a “disaster of mindless promiscuity”, sexual “perversion”, mainstreaming radical feminism etc. I keep reading stuff like this on social media – the fantasy some have of returning to a Biblical understanding of social life, with the “traditional family” at the centre of it.

Because before that everyone lived in a rose garden, presumably, with Jehovah floating over it. These people are deluded. All that is happening today in the open, in terms of sexuality, has always happened behind closed doors. Adultery was always an issue, as well as other factors leading to broken homes. Too blame all that on gay people living openly, knowing that homosexuality has always been a variation in nature, is just idiotic.

Sexual repression was the status quo for such a long time, and it didn’t work, unlike what these people claim – and mind you, many of them are angry young men who never experienced those times in the first place.

“Non-white races are the problem”

Copyright: Neo-Nazis ( aka white supremacists, white nationalists, ethno-nationalists, the Alt-Right, identitarians)

It has become a habit now to intellectualise racism – as opposed to skinheads congregating in slums, the most famous proponents of racism today are eloquent, dressed in elegant suits, sporting one degree or another and basing their ideas on “studies” (claiming to be objective when their drive is the same old supremacist mindset).

Very often, their followers didn’t start out as racists, but arrived there through a gradual process (starting as anti-left, anti-immigration, anti-PC etc). The last few years have seen an explosion of  public speakers who dragged their “freedom-loving” supporters down this path, cashing in on revived communal fears. Some, I have no doubt, have gone along with the flow for profit.

Again, nothing new under the sun – this gradual radicalisation, however, is something I find really perverse and repulsive.

The virus has expanded now to some having a visceral reaction when they see people of non-white races “over-represented” in the media, entertainment industry etc. Many have taken issue with the wedding of prince Harry to Megan Markle, incorporating a young couple’s marriage into their paranoid delusion of “an anti-white agenda or promoting racial diversity”. Others even take issue with adverts “designed to show white countries as multicultural”. It’s gone beyond the point of craziness.

“White people are the problem”

Copyright: the far left

One of the causes of resurgent racism was the media’s emphasising of the role white people have had over the centuries in colonising and oppressing others, which would presumably apply today and involve every white person, regardless of their background or personal circumstances.

Of course, pinning historical crimes on those who have not partaken in them is absurd – and when hearing that, some disenfranchised white people went into a state of rage, not realising this was a ploy towards division, from the top down.

Idiots such as Lena Dunham were trotting out rubbish about the need to breed white people out of existence, and many took this rhetoric seriously, coming up with the concept of “white genocide”, embraced as a just cause for a new crusade.

This phenomenon could not have been more damaging in terms of causing division, as the far right feeds off such rhetoric, presenting this as evidence of an actual worldwide “oppression” of white people (which overall is not happening, though they love to take the situation in South Africa and extrapolate it to a global scale).

“Immigrants from poor countries are the problem”

Copyright: Neo-Nazis, conservatives in general

It is such a complex matter in every case – why people from certain countries decide to emigrate – and these plank-heads reduce it to “they come here to take our jobs and benefits and women”, lumping everyone into that mindset.

Some countries are in dire poverty, whilst others are torn by war – I have no doubt that should these skinheads find themselves in a similar position they would flee for their lives, just as anyone would, as a matter of survival, despite facing the difficulties of not being wanted elsewhere.

It’s very easy for those of us living in safety to pass judgement and talk about numbers, without considering the causes and the fact that each individual fights for survival, regardless of the barriers.

It should be common sense, even for those who are against immigration, that no one sits idly by to let themselves or their families die, without having exhausted every option, including going, temporarily or not, to countries where they are looked down on.

Of course there is a culture clash in some situations, and that needs to be handled; of course it is a very, very complex and difficult matter at times.

Dehumanising others is not the answer to anything.

“Poor people are the problem”

Copyright: conservatives in general

It’s a consensus among Daily Mail types that some people are inherently inferior due to the circumstances they were born into, their level of education and their assumed lack of prospects – and therefore “should not be allowed to breed”.

My old conspiracy-minded self infers some TV productions exploiting these people have had a role in constructing that mindset over the decades – take the Jerry Springer Show, the Jeremy Kyle Show, or anything of the sort, where people are invited to air the dysfunctional parts of their lives, made much worse by living in poverty.

Eugenics and snobbery are re-surging in popularity, at an alarming rate.

“Humans are the problem”

Copyright: the far left, environmentalist fanatics

There is also a faction so worried about overpopulation they advocate radical measures such as a Chinese-style limiting of the number of children per family, sterilising the “undesirables”, or even mandatory abortions.

It’s fair to say that these people are deranged authoritarians – and also that they are themselves growing in numbers.

I can’t even count the unrelated discussions on social media, swiftly turned into “it is unacceptable for more children to be born”. A recent one was based on a fertility expert managing to manipulate genetic material from three individuals, leading to the birth of a healthy baby – whilst the idea itself is controversial, the thread quickly exploded with the ire of these fanatics.

Being childless is seen by some not as a private choice but an absolute necessity nowadays, to the point of claiming “breeders need to be shamed”.

Anyone can agree that pollution is a problem, as well as using resources in a wasteful way, for the profit of those who have a monopoly on exploiting them.

Most people, on the other hand, should find it common sense to reject that particular solution, of forbidding those of child-bearing age to live the normal lives past generations have.

“Beta males/ liberals/ “normies” are the problem”

Copyright: Neo-Nazis, conservatives in general

Whereas no murderous violence is proposed against people who do not share “patriotic values” to the point of turning against any immigrant or hating religious minorities, “betas” and liberals in general are blamed for the “decay of the West”. Violence is, of course, not excluded, and occurs in isolated incidents (the left does initiate at times).

In the US for instance there are talks of civil war, since people have become so polarised between the left and right. Leftists are seen as “communists”, “authoritarians” who seek to deprive the rest of their fetishism for guns and freedom in general.

Again, oversimplification.

“Alpha males are the problem”

Copyright: Incels, the far left in general

With the mention that the far left does not advocate murdering “alpha males”; Incels, however, do.

This is a new phenomenon yet very dangerous, and is probably a backlash to the rest of the Men’s Right’s Movement (the Red Pill, PUA etc). Incels, as in “involuntarily celibate”, are a fairly new group, and while sharing the abysmal misogyny with the rest of the crowd, they also have a  pathological hatred of men who manage to secure relationships with attractive women. Such men are referred to as “Chads”, while their female partners are known as “Stacys”. Death to all Chads and Stacys is a frequent slogan on Incel forums.

A few have already crossed the line between murderous fantasies and murder sprees (mass shootings), which is extremely worrying.

“Women are the problem”

Copyright: Neo-Nazis, conservatives in general, the Men’s Rights Movement with all its subdivisions, Incels

Much is pinned on women’s impact on society – their right to vote, their “too compassionate” politics emphasising equality, tolerance and immigration. Some on the far right are convinced women are ruining the western world (among online celebrities, Stefan Molyneux and Black Pigeon Speaks are two examples – and increasingly, the far more popular Jordan Peterson).

The rejection of third wave feminism, whilst healthy at first, has led to a resurgence of the purest misogyny, with every right women have gained over centuries being questioned and its revocation being proposed.

I needn’t say these are the same people who rightfully refer to Islam as backward in terms of its view on women, at the same time as spouting this nonsense.

Whereas most of the hatemongers merely seek to control women’s lives, Incels have taken it to the next level – that of murderous rage.

 

This list is probably incomplete, as more and more people seek a communal scapegoat for the world’s problems. It seems that the availability of information is not leading to a more complex analysis, but rather, to oversimplification and radicalism.

 

 

Should Atheism And Exploring “The Supernatural” Be Mutually Exclusive?

The concept of an atheist who explores the possibility of phenomena classed as paranormal (a term for what may in fact be perfectly normal) often invites derision and swift dismissal.

For some reason, the interest in such matters is associated with religiosity (especially when the belief in an afterlife is involved, or merely considering this idea). Even though, per se, these phenomena would have nothing to do with the existence of a god or lack thereof.

Although atheism is often conflated with materialism, in its basic meaning, it represents no more than the lack of belief in a deity – which in itself does not limit an individual to seeing the world as purely material.

For a few years I thought agnosticism might be an umbrella term accommodating those who don’t believe in gods but are still interested in unexplained phenomena – but at the end of the day, since I don’t believe in gods and I vehemently reject organised religion, the term “atheist” should apply. So technically, I am one.

Yet I understand the logic of those who dismiss anything for which there is little or no empirical evidence, and if atheism as a movement is based on that, as opposed to simply rejecting deities and combating the influence of mainstream religions, there are those of us who don’t fit in there either (should we fit anywhere at all).

Following one’s intuition is more important than clinging to a label or group.

However, for those who see atheism and the above-mentioned as incompatible, here is my invitation to at least nuance this position.

  1. These phenomena have no moral implications.

Unlike religious people, those who are simply interested in precognition, telepathy or synchronicities don’t attribute a moral significance to them, in terms of them originating from “good” or “evil” sources.

Religions often interpret precognitive dreams or warnings as signs from a deity; alternatively, they link this interest to “delving into the occult”, which is another matter altogether (it involves intention, whereas seeking to understand what happens naturally and why it happens is completely neutral).

As a result, there is no artificial morality we derive from whatever we may come up with; none to hold and certainly none to propagandise as truth.

2. There is no focused attempt to convince others of their relevance.

Of course the exception consists of charlatans, who refer to themselves as mediums, fortune tellers, ghost hunters (posting fabricated recordings of ghost sightings on the internet) or whatever. For them it’s a trade.

But overall, those who study the phenomena do so in private, without an evangelical need to inform those around them of their observations.

Information on the paranormal, consisting of actual research or experiments, is found only by seeking it. Public speakers who analyse it do so before already interested audiences – as opposed to religious groups seeking to “spread the message” to anyone with a pulse.

3. Major religions often denounce ESP as satanic.

Almost by default, this interest is incompatible with religions seeing such phenomena as demonic manifestations – therefore it makes sense for us to renounce these religions when born into them, or not adopt them in the first place.

There is more of an incentive to be an atheist or agnostic than to subscribe to a dogma which is restrictive or engages, figuratively, in “witch hunting”.

4. This exploration (when carried out sincerely) is victim-less.

That is a stark contrast with religions, as their countless victims fill the pages of history and newspaper archives. To this day religious leaders encourage people to not vaccinate their children, not seek medical help, disassociate from loved ones, at times commit violence, vote for unhinged individuals etc.

Obviously, I’m not referring to gurus claiming to have certain abilities in order to garner worship and money, or to charlatans achieving pop star status, or tho smaller crooks operating at street corners.

Charlatans exist in every sector of society and that does not discredit the subject they claim expertise in.

5. Shysters are readily tested and denounced (unlike in religious communities).

It’s well-known that religious figures committing egregious acts are protected by the hierarchies they form part of (the Catholic Church is perhaps the best example). The same applies to to faith healers, who live like Arab princes from the donations of poor and desperate people. Their potential exposure as frauds is thought to reflect poorly on the religious communities and turn believers away; that is why when problems arise, they are quickly swept under the rug.

The same does not happen with those claiming publicly to have ESP, claiming to speak to the dead etc. They are scrutinised and held to account; there is no concerted effort to protect them from being challenged.

 

Considering these issues, I think it’s not very fair to associate this interest with religiosity, although according to most atheists, both stem from the lack of healthy scepticism. I guess minds just don’t belong in a box.

Jordan Peterson Followers: Worrying Aspects

To begin with, Jordan Peterson’s initiative of standing up to the over-sensitive culture of invented pronouns, safe spaces & Co seemed benign, coupled with a less acidic attitude than that of typical conservatives.

There are indeed reasons for rejecting this trend. Today alone it has emerged that a US teen has been targeted online by thousands for the crime of wearing a traditional Chinese dress to her prom (the last time I checked the Twitter discussion alone counted over 10.000 people). In other words, for the crime of cultural appropriation. The fact that a crowd of internet warriors finds it appropriate to bully an 18-year-old over fashion choices, resulting in her sudden exposure in international publications, is rather alarming.

However, the direction Jordan Peterson is taking his followers in is not of a healthy reactionary stand in limited circumstances (such as opposing the above-mentioned).

His message often appears verbose and convoluted, leading to a lack of clarity, unless one is attentive enough to pick up on his main ideas. And those ideas, when reduced to their core, are far from deep – instead, they are an appeal to reintroducing archaic principles derived from the Bible.

Admitting the excesses of the far left today should not need to involve romanticising times of mindless dogmatism, not to mention dry judgement of anyone who didn’t conform to rigid societal expectations.

Christian traditionalism is constrictive, not to mention in contradiction with how we have come to understand the individual, developing human rights to an unprecedented level. Rejecting the excesses of feminism should not involve pining for times when women were restricted and undervalued in so many ways. Rejecting the coldness and alienation often caused by the promotion of promiscuity need not involve a return to puritanism, which is religious in nature and toxic.

Peterson’s ideas do not provide a balance – the alternative he envisions is regressive, and as many have noticed, “nothing new under the sun”.

His followers are mostly male, and many, according to statistics, are involved in either the MRM, conservative movements or both. In a predominantly left-leaning academic milieu, they have suddenly found a guru.

Below are some aspects which render his following less than healthy.

  • Articles rebutting his points of view are swarmed by devotees;
  • There seem to be many who agree with Peterson on everything, which is worrying in and of itself (they have stopped questioning him and now take his directives as rules for their existence);
  • He portrays himself as a life coach, if not guru, without using the terms; he seeks to influence people well beyond elaborating on certain ideologies (he recently wrote a book of 12 rules for anyone’s existence, which as a concept is dogmatic);
  • Followers are know to use jargon derived from his teachings in dialogues (they reply to contrarians with a simple “clean your room” or “don’t you have a room to clean?”, based on one of his 12 rules, which is unnatural and oddly cult-like.

The reductionist and regressive nature of some of his ideas stands out and cannot be ignored.

Among these is the fact that presumably, a woman doesn’t respect a male partner who “wouldn’t physically fight her under any circumstance”. This caters to the mass of angry men who enjoy watching the “men fight back” videos on YouTube (a perverse genre dedicated to getting off on men striking women). It caters to the MRM in general – and although violence against men by women is under-reported, it is not legal nor encouraged.

The mere fact of linking respect to physical dominance is repugnant nowadays, and coupled with his Christian faith, echoes olden days of sad remembrance, as well as the tenets of Islam, which include a man’s divine right to physically discipline his wife. Although Peterson does not argue for matters to go that far, he does argue that a man’s propensity for violence makes him more lovable to the woman who would be at the receiving end of it. Volatility and superior physical strength are realities, of course – however, basing respect between partners on them as prerequisites is disturbing.

Another disturbing issue is basing the way men relate to women on a puritanical view, which is no different than the one found in the Bible or the Qur’an – women entice men automatically and not only should men treat them as such – they should consider themselves the object of the male gaze, perpetually, irrespective of the environment they are in.

In a brief interview, he linked sexual harassment to the way women dress and even to make-up, suggesting perhaps it should not be allowed in a work environment. That stops short of asking for a dress code so that women wouldn’t be allowed to “keep enticing” men through their mere existence in their proximity. He also suggests men and women might not be suitable for working together.

Magdalene Laundries come to mind.

These are issues the west is thought to have overcome decades ago. It has long been a consensus that the role a person can play in society should not be restricted by inherent traits, such as sex or race or sexual orientation. It has also become a consensus that “othering” people based on these traits (treating them differently)  should belong in history books.

Apparently, that is still not clear to some people, among them Jordan Peterson.

To reiterate, rejecting the exaggerations of modern feminists should not involve reversing time to embrace puritanical, paranoid views, as well as the need for men to “keep women in check”.

I needn’t mention that the main reason Christianity is rebutted so often is not the belief in an imaginary God, when isolated from other aspects – but the desire to regulate people’s lives down to minute choices. Jordan Peterson seems to share that desire for micromanagement, down to debating what women should not be allowed to wear around men.

Reflecting on human nature is one thing – seeking to instil the need for a certain way of life into every individual is another. For an adept of free thought and free expression, he seems to cling to authoritarian Bible precepts far too often.

Of course, one can be considered a guru and worshipped as superior outside of their own will, as blind following is a subjective experience based on mental fragility.

The problem with Peterson is that he truly embraces the role of a know-it-all who has the answers to every common dilemma one might have. And that is impossible – we are all limited, shaped by a plethora of factors which result in a unique understanding of the world, through what we internalise throughout our lives.

What he does can be described as overreaching.

Thinking he’s got valuable advice and observations – fair enough. Anyone develops a set of principles based on their life experience, whit the caveat of admitting they are, at the end of the day, subjective and limited.

An exercise in social engineering, however, especially when preached to others as the ultimate truth, involves a delusion of grandeur, as nasty as that sounds. Authoritarian types aim for that – developing a platform on one issue and subsequently preaching on many others,  however unrelated, with enough confidence of having figured out a fail-proof, one-size fits all way to solve the world’s problems or help others navigate though life, regardless of individual circumstances.

It’s fair enough, when one specialises in a certain area and has got a reasonable claim of expertise, to have that much influence.

People like Peterson, however, quickly expand and are suddenly “entitled” to issue prescriptions on a variety of complex matters, to have said prescriptions internalised by followers as truths.

A Postmodern Revival Of The Macabre

There are so many contrasts in the civilised world today. One of them is based on exacerbated sensitivity on one side, compared to desensitisation on the other, where it didn’t use to be before (human dignity and respecting the dead).

In Germany, recently, there was a petition to save a dog from euthanasia, after it mauled its owners to death. The same country is home to a human abattoir, detailed below. Whilst trigger warnings and safe spaces are commonplace, some on the far left advocate eco-fascism, down to arguing for population control, through sterilisation, abortion and social pressure to remain childless.

Empathy for animals has definitely increased, with the likes of PETA equating fishing to murder. Where Homo sapiens sapiens is concerned, some of today’s peace-loving idealists show little consideration.

Human taxidermy side shows

Decades ago, films like Soylent Green were enough to send shivers down people’s spines. The mere idea was unconscionable – human beings used as mere produce and recycled for commercial value. Poltergeist, with its gory skinless face and skeletons emerging out of their graves, was a horror film – meaning said effects produced fear and revulsion, though admittedly enjoyable as parts of a good story.

Nowadays however, millions flock to gawk at the Body Worlds exhibition of plastinated real cadavers (one of many) put on display for profit after being processed akin to abattoir carcasses (a “factory” in China, for a different display known as Bodies…The Exhibition, was briefly filmed by a reporter). And although the evidence is overwhelming that most of the bodies came from executed Chinese prisoners, including Falun Gong practitioners (“prisoners of conscience”), to this day the public finds this gruesome travelling show “amazing”.

After the technique was developed in 1977 by German doctor Gunther von Hagens, the success of the “innovative” display spawned an entire industry based on the remains of the dead. Whilst many are rightfully horrified by the treatment of cats and dogs in China, which are routinely skinned or cooked alive, hardly anyone bats an eyelid when watching footage of a plastination facility, treating  the dead like factory products.

The eerie gentleman responsible for all this considers himself an artist when carving bodies in order to show their insides to the finest detail, down to veins.

Parts are cut out and displayed. Partially and fully developed babies are placed in a case, to demonstrate their growth process. At least two pregnant women, with their abdomens cut open, were observed (and that was years ago). Heads severed through the middle can be seen, as well as filleted bodies, cut into a variety of paper-thin slices, from head to toes. Besides the exhibition, he owns a shop selling these parts and slices, all categorised and priced according to their importance.

It’s beyond me how most people don’t find that sinister in the first place. Every single “exhibit” was somebody’s son or daughter, brother or sister, mother or father.

Officially, the bodies initially used by von Hagens and now by his Chinese competitor are said to be “unclaimed”, a statement proven false through the fact that in China, 30 days must pass until a body can be declared as such – plastination, meanwhile, must take place within 48 hours of someone’s death. Ample documentation exists regarding the procurement and processing of prisoners’ bodies.

Desensitisation seems so easy when these bodies are skinned, dismembered and – perhaps another factor – look foreign. Logically, anyone who would refuse to have their loved ones dismembered and hung from ceilings, for profit, should reconsider going.

In the US, when it was discovered a few years ago that a funeral director was stacking bodies on his property without burying them due to administrative difficulties, people were shocked by the lack of respect shown to the dead. At the same time, some are more than happy with others’ relatives being chopped into parts  by plastinators or displayed in sexual positions, to mimic intercourse.

They even have children on display. Surely they have not consented. If an adult consented for them, it doesn’t make it right. And who would do this, so the bodies could end up in a plastination facility less than 48 hours after death? Whose first thought would be, if their child died, to donate the body for such a purpose? It’s unreal.

Religious people don’t often get things right – in this case, however, they nailed it. Respecting the dead, valuing life is what makes us different from other animal species. And it’s sad that most of the opposition has come from them so far, and opposition overall has died down in recent years (few pieces have been written on the subject over the last decade).

Setting up such an enterprise in Germany of all places, given the history with human trophies from executed prisoners, seems bizarre. Gunther von Hagens, who now operates there, once bragged he would be processing thousands of bodies a year. These ones would be volunteers, apparently. It makes a difference when compared to the other side shows of this nature – yet watching him hold body slices and naming the price for each is still surreal.Taking this side show to Israel was equally bizarre, if not more – though luckily it was banned there, as well as in France and the Czech Republic.

Software used in forensic facial reconstruction can even recreate portraits from skulls; I wonder why no one has taken the trouble, in the decades of these bodies being paraded as circus attractions, to carry out this process. In China, families are still looking for those who disappeared, particularly Falun Gong practitioners, who could be thrown in prison without a trial and killed without accountability. There is no indication that this has ever been attempted. Hopefully someone who owns and knows how to operate such software will do so in the future.

“Have an abortion to save Mother Earth”

Again I find myself agreeing with religious people on this one – certain environmentalists have become sinister, in their advocacy for population reduction.

Part of the far left, which spawned radical feminism and the ever-offended culture, is somehow not disturbed by the thought of states imposing reproduction limits on their citizens, in order to clamp down on overpopulation.

Never mind that all human life would be sustainable if there weren’t so much needless waste for profit. Never mind that. They see humans as a whole as some kind of vermin.

Again, the world of contrasts.The right to choose versus the mandate of making oneself sterile or have abortions. From the same camp, roughly. From brief discussions on social media with some who appeared to be far left, eugenics seems to be quite popular, the proof being in the quasi-worship of Margaret Sanger.

 

Something very strange is going on.

On the one hand, you have people claiming non-existent rights or privileges, left right and centre, based on subjectivity and emotions. Which appears to place an emphasis on individuals – on their right to live and express themselves any way they please. One could see it as a result of other difficulties being overcome in relatively prosperous societies (such as genuine human rights abuses occurring elsewhere).

On the other hand, humans are increasingly viewed as units to be micromanaged (even culled), and in the first case scenario, soulless slabs of meat. And not by elites, as that has always been the case – but by each other.

These perspectives coexist in the postmodern understanding of the human condition. Something doesn’t make sense here.