VHeadline commentarist Oscar Heck writes: Something has been bothering me for some time now. I have been reading two books, one by Nelson DeMille (Plum Island) and another by Ken Follet (Pillars of the Earth). Nelson DeMille is a brilliant man, comical and deep.
Ken Follet is something that I haven't figured out yet. He is either a ruthless man who continues to promulgate the ruthlessness and viciousness of western society while romanticizing it ... or he is a prophet trying to tell people about the true psychopathic roots of western civilization. I haven't decided yet ... I may have to call him and ask him why he wrote such a sickening book (which happens to be a best-seller).
Anyway, the question has clearly arisen in my mind recently ... although it had been lying latent for as long as I can remember ... about what the major difference between the Euro-descendents and most of the rest of the world is?
Looking back in history, and except for one specific clan, it is evident that the Euro and Euro-descendents have been the most vicious and the most cruel and ruthless of almost all clans ever to have inhabited the earth. This is clear to anyone who has extensively read history and who is aware of recent history and present politico-geographical events.
Anyway, the question has clearly arisen in my mind recently ... although it had been lying latent for as long as I can remember ... about what the major difference between the Euro-descendents and most of the rest of the world is?
Looking back in history, and except for one specific clan, it is evident that the Euro and Euro-descendents have been the most vicious and the most cruel and ruthless of almost all clans ever to have inhabited the earth. This is clear to anyone who has extensively read history and who is aware of recent history and present politico-geographical events.
- But what is the difference between them and we? Between the ruthless and the humanist?
I believe that Nelson DeMille hit it on the button. In his book, Plum Island, one of his characters says something to the effect that "murder" is the ultimate crime in any society.
I began to wonder about this and concluded that "murder" is apparently the ultimate crime, but only amongst Euro-descendents ... it is not the ultimate crime in most other societies throughout the world.
I have been to 34 countries and worked/lived in 12 ... and I can state with confidence that in most non-Euro-descendent communities or societies, rape is the worst of crimes, especially if it is perpetrated against a child or a defenseless person.
When I was growing up, I could never understand why the society in which I was unfortunately born into (Canada) would give a light sentence to a rapist whilst giving a heavy sentence to a gang member who murdered another gang member. It just didn't make any sense to me ... and I left home at a young age because of this, to see what the rest of the world was all about.
I could not for the life of me understand why these so-called civilized people saw things in that way. It was okay to stick the "savages" in reservations and take all their rights away, whilst it was okay for the priests to preach to them the "goon news." So I wanted to become a priest … maybe that would give me an insight.
Now that I am older and more experienced in the ways of life, I can see more clearly, I think. From my experience with Latin America, with the Crees, the Mohawks, the Bedouin, the Mujahedins, the Berbers and the Yupkas (sp.), the Blacks ... I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of the world population does indeed see rape and any other crime committed against women and children or defenseless people as the worst of crimes. Theft and murder are lesser crimes ... and that makes sense to me. For example, if someone were to rape my daughter, why should I be stopped from killing the perpetrator? Luckily, in most of the world outside the Euro and Euro-descendent' societies, if one rapes, one pays ... as it should be.
Something else I could never understand in the way the western media portrays human loss. For some twisted reason, say in war, the only real "casualties" are said to be the ones who died. That is completely irrational. The real "casualties" are in fact the maimed, the injured and the traumatized and/or raped women children who remain alive! The dead are dead, they no longer suffer ... but that is far from being the reality which CNN, FOX, the BBC, CBC, and most western media outlets portray.
In Ken Follet's book, The Pillars of the Earth, rape is common and almost acceptable ... and maiming is seem as normal ... but death is seen as the ultimate crime.
Now that I am older and more experienced in the ways of life, I can see more clearly, I think. From my experience with Latin America, with the Crees, the Mohawks, the Bedouin, the Mujahedins, the Berbers and the Yupkas (sp.), the Blacks ... I have come to the conclusion that the vast majority of the world population does indeed see rape and any other crime committed against women and children or defenseless people as the worst of crimes. Theft and murder are lesser crimes ... and that makes sense to me. For example, if someone were to rape my daughter, why should I be stopped from killing the perpetrator? Luckily, in most of the world outside the Euro and Euro-descendent' societies, if one rapes, one pays ... as it should be.
Something else I could never understand in the way the western media portrays human loss. For some twisted reason, say in war, the only real "casualties" are said to be the ones who died. That is completely irrational. The real "casualties" are in fact the maimed, the injured and the traumatized and/or raped women children who remain alive! The dead are dead, they no longer suffer ... but that is far from being the reality which CNN, FOX, the BBC, CBC, and most western media outlets portray.
In Ken Follet's book, The Pillars of the Earth, rape is common and almost acceptable ... and maiming is seem as normal ... but death is seen as the ultimate crime.
In Venezuela (as in most non-western parts of the world) ... if you even dare to touch a child, you will be lynched in public while the police watch ... as it should be. If you rape a woman, you are good as dead.
In most societies it is almost inconceivable to touch a child or rape a woman ... it is repulsive. Most societies, from my experience have the following moral priorities: God, child, woman, man, money.
The Euro and Euro-descendent societies have the following moral priorities: God, money, man, woman, child.
In the USA: Money, God, man, woman, child.
No wonder that "woman's liberation" only really exists in North America and Europe ... because women have traditionally been at the bottom of the list. No wonder so many woman are raped, no wonder so many children are raped. If you read Ken Follet's book, you will have confirmation of this ... basically, the physically or mentally strongest do whatever they want with the weakest, children and women included ... and that appears to me normal.
Maybe it is normal for the western world ... but is certainly isn't for most of the rest of the world, apart from a minority of local traitors and psychopaths who join hands with the west in its twisted and sick "moral values."
The rest of the world does not need nor want the west's sick "moral values" ... we don't need US-based television (which is making all societies sick, especially our youth) ... I want to be free to kill a rapist ... I want to be free to kill a child abuser ... I want to be free to beat the crap out of a woman-abuser.
Here in Venezuela, I am free to do so. That is normal. Murder is not the ultimate crime.
No wonder that "woman's liberation" only really exists in North America and Europe ... because women have traditionally been at the bottom of the list. No wonder so many woman are raped, no wonder so many children are raped. If you read Ken Follet's book, you will have confirmation of this ... basically, the physically or mentally strongest do whatever they want with the weakest, children and women included ... and that appears to me normal.
Maybe it is normal for the western world ... but is certainly isn't for most of the rest of the world, apart from a minority of local traitors and psychopaths who join hands with the west in its twisted and sick "moral values."
The rest of the world does not need nor want the west's sick "moral values" ... we don't need US-based television (which is making all societies sick, especially our youth) ... I want to be free to kill a rapist ... I want to be free to kill a child abuser ... I want to be free to beat the crap out of a woman-abuser.
Here in Venezuela, I am free to do so. That is normal. Murder is not the ultimate crime.
The USA is the ultimate perpetrator, instigator and perpetuator of the worst of crimes.
Oscar Heck
oscarheck111@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment