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.
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.