Yesterday I added a post to my section on site called: “daily”, titled: “Fox And Adonai“.
The post talked about some neat event, and I added some of my thoughts on the overall, correlated to the thematic.
I later thought how the overall made for a good post given the context, and decided to further expand on it, on here, as it is in perfect correlation of all covered on site.
I talked about the “reality check” of flawed thinking, and the presumptions of “different”.
Furthering on the topic, the confusion of “correct” and “wrong”, in the ladder of thinking of social, across to even the emotional and spiritual.
I talked about “destruction”, hence the title.
To quote some of the point being made:
“The illusions of kindness, of mindful, of pure, tend to be exaggerated in submission perceptions by perpetrators, and harm passed as otherwise too.
Balance doesn’t mean I become what I loath, nor does my anger in fair reaction and pursue of destroying that which harms me, logically, particularly in unbalanced, undeserved, and continuous situations too, equates to being wrong or less.”
Expanding onto the concept then, it can be observed beyond the bounds of for the sakes of assimilation labels that exist across the ladders.
I have said it in my writings over the years, labels are meaningless, particularly in the context of blanket statements, and grouping complex ideas/ situations.
Add, very easy to misconstruct a whole, for the idealization of what the “title”/ label” embodies as a meaning, and it is more often than not the case.
From the most mundane of things, to the more complex and meaningful, and everything else across.
So, if you have a group of “law abiding individuals”, and a group of “not abiding”, and either have the explanation of a situation as “unfair”/ “wrong”, who is or how is said circumstance then judged?
Opinions like derriéres are abundant.
Does not make it a valid thought to consider, nor an useful idea.
Persuasion can play a role at any point of anything, big or small, but like inhibitions and or mind altering states, it is limited to exactly that, a moment of alter thinking, that is not surely considering the fullness of reality, as it is anyway in a lot of situations.
Persuasion is the ability to captive the mind of others with an idea, not the ability to master thinking and open such comprehension necessarily.
You hear about cults, extremist groups and even definitions like “Stockholm Syndrome”, which I have covered about here on section: “Blog“. That is literally one perfect example of persuasion in action.
Does the mind behind such equate to great genius/ profound thinking? The direct broad answer is truly not, the more generally accepted is “not necessarily”.
Do the minds effected by such ideologies are considered unintelligent? That depends. At what level is the line between not knowing/ seeing the “full picture”, and what is crossing it.
Back to the example of what is often seen as “good” and “bad”.
In likeness of labels used in the example here, you’ve read about laws and law abiding that looking back, makes perfect sense of going against, that in said then present time, many could not. Likewise that even in said circumstances, not all that claim to rise against such are in the automatic sense of opposite, although it might be presented as such.
Given the duality of thinking being an often philosophy/ psychology favoured as any situation is presented, most minds observe in a two options sense of thinking; yes/ no, true/ false, good/ bad, and so on.
When two strong alternatives are presented in a situation, then it is often the mindset of then trying to “group”/ “label”, and then fall in the pit of limited thinking because of it.
Certain situations of human history are good examples to draw onto, that are clear sight of how labels are devoid of full comprehension, and like in the post that inspired this one mentioned, all aspects matter; no partial thinking ever becomes a full master mind, in either corner of ideologies → RE: “good” or “bad”.
Not such thing as “necessary evil”, or necessary submissiveness labelled “extreme good”, benefit.
Self defence, criminal convictions of certain assured wrong enacters like serial killers, rapists that openly admit to their wrongs, basically no doubt or injustice plausible, uprising against mass harm by leadership, society views/ rules of law, become a necessity from time to time.
Labelling any of it “a necessary evil” would be wrong then, and saying because it is “anti-law”, or does not jive with “perceptions of positive”, it is then not a good, would lead to less than pleasant situations among society. It already has in time.
The giving into abuse is labelled as “Stockholm Syndrome”, the abiding by damage of people/ things as wrong, because it is exactly that, harmful.
It is not called an “extreme good”, because of the nature of said enacters of aid to what helps multiply damaging situations, escape accountability, etc.
Logic is that. Trying to get around it with persuasions, does not change logic; heard of the term “alcohol goggles“?, same perspective.
Is the pursue against crime by law wrong? Are the death penalty/ sentences for life, evil? Is a self defense act against someone trying to assault, a lesser act? Are judges, police, military, and like members of any organization evil, for aiming to protect the vulnerable? Are citizens of a nation wrong for standing against their own genocide, criminals? Are officers/ institutions of law investigating others of same branches for corruption “the bad guy”, because they refuse the harm brought by others that carry an equal responsibility/ guilty by association? Are anti law groups/ individuals simply “the underdog”/ “victims” because of how they label/ carry themselves around their activities, and use circumstances/ half truths, and viceversa?
Are people in any label or no label, using partial truths, circumstances, and so on doing “good” because: “insert reasoning”?
Anyone is entitle to opinions, that doesn’t change the reality of a full picture, as much as distractions and deflections are nothing more than persuasion tools to devoid of value ideologies.
∅A∅☀️
02.11.2026
Leave a Reply