When you put two words together into a phrase like “Love and Marriage” or “Horse and Carriage” you kind of expect them to actually somehow be associated.
I guess this is why those who wished to demonise sex first coined the phrase “Sex and Violence”. They knew that everybody would agree that ‘Violence’ was a bad thing as a given, and so when they wanted to promote their irrational prudish or religious fear of sex (What’s that all about?), they persistently coined the phrase “Sex and Violence”. By association sex became ‘accepted’ as a bad thing, and the phrase became part of life. Very clever campaign that! Forever it seems we’ve had these weirdos telling us that “Sex and Violence” on TV is bad, immoral, outrageous, or a stream of other negative words.
‘Sex’ on TV isn’t bad, of course. ‘Sex’, more correctly, should be associated with ‘love’. “Love and Sex” makes more sense. ‘Sex’ without ‘Love’ as an event is perfectly fine, ‘Love’ without ‘Sex’ is fine too. But the two together are pretty nice and far more common than “Sex and Violence” being together (not that there’s anything wrong with consensual ‘sex with violence’ anyway).
However, having brainwashed us by lumping ‘Sex’ with ‘Violence’ together, we have it at the back of our minds that ‘Sex’ is fundamentally a bad thing, and so we nod in agreement that there’s too much “Sex and Violence” on TV.
Actually, there isn’t a lot of ‘sex’ on TV. But, yes, there is a lot of ‘violence’. Whether shown in graphic detail or implied, most of the TV we watch is based around ‘violence’. Whole streams of programmes centre on a killing – the ultimate act of violence, aggression and disharmony – and then attempting to solve the mystery of whodunnit. Virtually no programmes centre on sexual intercourse – the ultimate act of love, peace and harmony.
So, by careful association the religious loonies have made ‘Sex’ the same as ‘Violence’. Clever.
Now, I’ve noticed another phrase which has grown in use in order to fool us:
“Science and Environment“.
These two things, exactly like ‘Sex’ and ‘Violence’, are not the same in any way.
‘Science’ is of course a logical examination of ‘stuff’ around us so that we can get to understand how it works or how it got here. ‘Science’ is never closed but is ‘living’ and based on having a constantly open mind to re-analyse and add new data as we realise it’s there and are able to keep modifying our conclusions or correcting or even reinforcing our understanding of ‘stuff’.
‘Environment’, or I guess that should be ‘Environmentalism’, is a new religion, a ‘faith’, with odd and obscure conclusions that are not usually based on facts or the analysis of facts or approaching the available data logically and with an open mind. ‘Environmentalism’ is not a ‘Science’, and usually not ‘scientific’.
As the old religions quite rightly disappear (we can now safely predict an ‘end date’ for Christianity) there is still a need to cling on to some form of superstition and mumbo-jumbo. We appear to be hard-wired as a species to do that (I’m sure there’s a perfectly logical scientific explanation for this too!), and one of the ‘new age’ religions centres on the ‘environment’ along with some form of pathological irrational pre-conception that we are powerful enough to somehow damage it.
The belief that we are powerful enough to make a radical (and bad) difference just by existing is one of the strong irrational fears large numbers of humans still have. It’s as irrational as any of the ‘faiths’, but has probably moved on a bit from our more primitive and naive belief that we could influence the sun by talking to it, make it rain by dancing, or stop a volcano erupting via some form of Jedi mind-tricks or by taking some random action like stabbing to death a new-born baby or a virgin girl at a sacrificial altar.
We feel we must be able to influence, we must be significant, and for so many, we must be bad just by existing. For them, our very existence is bad for the environment. This new age ‘enviro-faith’ had a field day after we invented nuclear bombs. Yep, we would destroy the world. Except of course, we didn’t.
This lack of global destruction by bad humanity using nuclear bombs disappointed those of the new age ‘enviro-faith’, and so they concentrated on a new thing to blame their species for. What a brilliant find for them was the mantra of ‘Global Warming’. Once again they could run around flinging their arms up into the air wailing, “We’re all doomed. The end is neigh.” For them it felt good.
This ‘enviro-faith’ then built on itself, creating multi-billion dollar industries of fear, even re-writing ‘science books’ so that children would be infected with the new ‘enviro-faith’ from a very early age.
Yep, irrational ‘Environmentalism’ legitimised itself as a ‘science’ much in the same way that ‘Intelligent Design’ was a devious but clever Chrisitian attempt to get ‘Creationism’ taught as a factual science in American classrooms. The phrase “Science and Environment” was born.
Whilst there indeed are scientific approaches to understanding the environment, very rarely are these used to become the basis of understanding by those who have closed minds about how bad humanity is and how we are killing the planet. They want this to be true, so they ignore any scientific examination that says it’s not true.
Indeed, as I’ve highlighted before, and will no doubt do again, just as a pretend psychic will throw dozens of names into the air until one resonates and makes a victim believe they have contact with a dead relative who had one of those names, when one coldly examines the facts we discover that so many random and completely contradictory things are ‘blamed’ on our affect on our planet. It’s bizarre! We are to blame for it getting warmer, or we are to blame for it getting cooler, or we are to blame for it not changing, but definitely we are to blame. Indeed, we are to blame for so many things it would be hilarious but for the fact that large numbers of our species are stupid enough to just ‘accept’ that we are. We are like the sad old lady who ‘accepts’ that her dead husband is talking to her via a psychic.
As ‘Violence’ is not really associated with ‘Sex’, and ‘Environment’ is not really associated with ‘Science’, maybe it’s time to force public bodies like the institutionalised Guardian reading left-leaning ‘enviro-faith’ promoting BBC to separate the two on its website.
‘Science’ and ‘Environment’ have no right to be grouped together as part of the propaganda battle to attempt to spread this new faith.
England's England 