I agree with jenkemaster, I'm glad he exposed my views: This is a turn off for me. I agree with others also, specially the fact that internet postings are good to fuel the rage about controversial topics, and as I said I think this shock tactic can be good, the problem is, I only take it as a wake up call, but I would never support this. Neither would jenkemaster I think.
And it is bad for everyone, I once read a posting from a well read guy from brazil who likes to give opinion on politics, about a black on white crime that happened in america. He said white americans today are trash anyway and should be raped and beaten by blacks. I mean, what's the point? Did I think it was cool to read that? Yes. Did I find it hilarious? Very much, as I often find those anus blog postings. The human sacrifice one is extremely funny! But when applied to reality I can't see any way, unless in a situation of terrible chaos and warfare. There is a website I like who reviwed the movie "unthinkable" saying it was another brain-washing movies for people to worship america, and to think america can do anything to prepare for the abuses coming in a crisis or something. The reader gets the clear impression that the author is siding with the terrorist, that is, he would think it was a good idea to put nuclear bombs in america. I enjoy the writings on that website and I don't live in america. Why should I care if someone nuked there? That's what this kind of text does.
Of course life and thinking for the people of those times (who made those sacrifices) were different, different morals, etc. The fact is that today people are giving too much emphasis on individual suffering, but if that happened I guess it was a try to cover up for unecessary cruelty in the first place. Few people would agree to even sterelize a whole family, let alone murder one.
Now, if there was a small community, and you knew all the people in the family, and in my opinion only the fact that there is an organic, sacred, small and ordered community can ease a little the terrible acts, because the "collective uncounscious", let's call it that, is more united and simple (but I'm in no way saying that "ancient times were better and mystical and everyone had ego death", but some aspects of decency of ancient times lacking right now cannot cease to be noticed). If you have a small community like I said, and it is more integral with nature, more quiet and without media abuse etc., I do believe suffering like deaths or natural disasters are better handled than in big cities where a lot of people do not know each other and are blinded by television. Maybe I oversimplify, but I felt like putting it this way.
I think this text is relevant to this:
"One of the errors, the mistakes, here is pride: the arrogance of feeling, of assuming, that we as a mere individual can make a difference if we act in a certain way, if we engage in a practical way in matters which are beyond our immediate vicinity and beyond our own personal, individual, lives. That is, if we interfere in some matter which is not directly personal, immediate and rooted in the locality where we dwell and have our being."
"I am still rather pessimistic about the future of both our human species, and the fate of Nature: of the life with which we share this planet. In fact, rather more pessimistic than I was.
Why? Because of the allegory of pride and presumption, which has led to and which leads to non-personal, an abstract, interference in the lives, the affairs, of others. The intentions behind such non-personal interference are irrelevant, for the effect is always, always, suffering, destruction and death: for other human beings; for the other life with which we share this planet; for this planet itself.
Thus, according to this old way of being, there is always, always, some “enemy” who has to be fought but who has not dishonoured us in a personal matter, or nor affected us in a dishonourable and personal and immediate way, and which enemy is or becomes demonized and depersonalized. There are always, always, “sacrifices” – involving suffering, destruction and death – which have to be made in name of some abstraction, such as some “nation”, or some ideal (such as democracy and/or “freedom”). There is always, always, a striving for some impersonal abstract “progress” – or some fashionable “change” – which always involves us distancing ourselves from immediacy with Nature, which always is hubris-like and involves a loss of empathy, and which almost always seems to undermine the numinous. There is always, always a following of our own desires, our own perceived needs, our greed, often regardless of the consequences to other human beings, to the other life with which we share this planet which is currently our home.
I am pessimistic because while the causes of suffering are known and understood, while we feel or know the fragility of life, of Nature, while we feel or know our greed, stupidity, arrogance and pride, we keep making the same errors, the same mistakes; keep striving after the same failed ideals and abstractions; keeping stupidly believing that “this time, it will be different…” Thus do we continue to slaughter and maim individuals in impersonal war after impersonal war. Thus do we find some justification – or invent some lies – to invade and occupy another land, or to use brutal force to impose “our” vision, our ideals, our way, upon others, believing we are right. Thus do we give eloquent speeches or write fiery tracts and articles and propaganda to convince and persuade others, appealing to their emotions, or their base instincts – or, slyly in a manipulative way, appealing to their “better nature”. "
So, what has the above text said to me? It says focus on locality. Of course you can give opinion's about world issues, but if you're too confident with that you'll end up looking bad because you are not aware of certain conditions the locals know. And the average person, who has a friend who has criminal relatives, or has one himself, or has a retarded relative, is going to be scared away because he knows this post is calling on his loved ones to be killed. And when I look at my neighborhood, and near localities, I would never want massacres there, only sterelized people. Then the person wonders: "If I support this, that probably means I'm supporting for those people I like to be wiped out." I'm not saying that will happen, but by principle, the person would be supporting that. If the option sterelization is brought up, I think everybody would prefer it than killing.
But I have to say I appreciate the honesty, and the way those postings serve to change the mentality of the one who reads... I just don't know if for the best or for the worst.