Cathartic [not]

Reference was made in a previous post to the awful things the media are running to upset and nauseate us but at least they take our minds off other worries for the nonce. They might be said to be cathartic, except …

There are two things I saw last evening which cannot be unseen but first a quote from a reader at N.O. on the gay cake matter.

“Do you think this is the way to make us love buggery?” I had written.

Dfordoom replied:

It’s not intended to do that. They’ve gone way beyond that. The intention is to humiliate us. To force us to do things that are repugnant to us and to force us to pretend to believe in things that we know are wrong and absurd.

What they’re doing is demonstrating their power over us and reminding us that they won the culture wars. They want to make sure we know that there is nothing they cannot force us to do.

They are certainly trying to force us, not only to confront but also to accept as normal. However, certain things still nauseate the average person who’s been brought up right and the spinoff is that if they can’t get us to take something as normalized, then upsetting us is just as useful, to keep us demoralized.

All of us are worried about something, more often than not financial or even if that’s sorted, plus family is sorted, there is still always the general concern to keep that insane world at bay.

I’ve taken steps in my case by shutting out media likely to upset but you can’t entirely escape.You can reduce your media input to near zero but then you’re uninformed, also a desirable outcome for them or in NLP – a ‘well-formed outcome’.

An example is in Doctor Who. On Youtube, there is a series of ‘funniest moments’ for the 10th, then 11th doctors and so it goes. Obviously, a Whovian will look at those youtubes, not overlaid with excessive music. Who gives permission for that to be distributed?

And yes, there are funny moments galore then suddenly, in the middle of it, they cut in something nauseating, like that kiss with that poohjabber of some infamy who also did it at the Commonwealth Games ceremony at Edinburgh. Not even Milo does these things publicly, he wisely keeps it for the bedroom.

By the time I scrambled to shut it off on the iPad, it was too loud. Even though I threw the iPad on the bedding, the smacking sound of that disgusting kiss, with the enhanced sound effect put in by the BBC, could not be unheard.

And though I’m not running the clip here, you have still read about it in this post and that will upset many this Wednesday, particularly the older readers who can’t cope with such things as well.

Even those who do not get upset by having to watch such things have been been sickened into accepting all that as perfectly normal – that is part of the campaign in the culture wars to make us accept the unacceptable.

All right, you can rightly say I could choose not to have watched, that I was well aware that disgusting stuff was in Christopher Ecclestone’s spell as the Doctor. So who is to blame? Davies of course and then Moffatt was just as bad. There was none of this sort of thing in the classic series.

Yes, I knew that was in there and yes, I was worried not to have to watch it but the youtube said ‘funniest moments’. How on earth was that a ‘funny’ moment, except figuratively, using ‘funny’ in a different way?

Here’s the other one:

Someone is distributing pictures nestled into advertising space – and they appear at Guidos, every day, at every magazine type site and also at any blog with ads – of close ups of pimples or boils bursting or else some other disgusting medical thing.

Why? Why would anyone wish to place those across the whole visual media? It’s not selling anything, yet selling ads always surround it and its always positioned near articles or between articles and this Disqus abomination which ruins comments and centralizes data on people from across the blogs.

I know this latter because I left a comment at Breitbart, then at the Spectator on the same topic, and it refused me, saying I had already said that. WTF? Talk about GCHQ file on each of us.

Now I’d suppose many readers would not be as nauseated as I about having to see such things but what does that say about how they’ve become inured to put up with or even like such things? Is that healthy for the mind? And that is far worse than many of us being confronted with ‘that which can now not be unseen’ and having the general mood for the next day undercut.

Seems to me that that’s what it’s all about – to either nauseate the public on a daily basis or else to inure them over time, so that they become sick in the head.

Readers will know I’m not talking censorship here. On Twitter, for example, they often advertise that if you click here, you will see this or that. I’m fine with that, it lets me opt out. This thing with the pimples or Harkness, whatever his name is, has removed my chance of not seeing to zero. In other words, it has sprung those things on me, with no options in or out.

Have you heard of any campaign to stop these ads for example? I’ve not heard of one. And were there a campaign, the sickos doing it up there would dispassionately note – oh look – 258,954 people, by our statistical extrapolation, are upset but 3,296,458 have tacitly accepted it. Good, our campaign is bearing fruit.

These people should be punished for what they’re doing to people but 1. will any of us ever get off our backsides and combine over it and 2. how to identify the actual culprits, when so many are complicit.

And look at the final position, the net effect. It drives people like me right away from things once enjoyed, e.g. Doctor Who and when going to Guido, say, I must now be super-wary the whole time that such a nauseating spectacle is not placed in the sidebar.

Thereby putting me on edge any time I go near media. Therefore I stop going. Which the culture war winners want.