Within the study of the subject of Philosophy, there is an exercise in the expansion of the mind whereby individuals are required to argue “for” a point of view they personally abhor – or “against” a point of view they personally support. Indeed, for a fully mature mind and rounded personality, this ability to place oneself in the shoes of another is viewed as an essential attribute. If an individual is entering the Legal Profession – then this ability to argue from principle – rather than from personal orientation is a prerequisite to being “Called to the Bar”. In today’s world, particularly with the spread and mainstreaming of US anti-intellectualism, the ability to argue from principle is retained by only a very few of the academic elite, and only then acting fully in accordance with the (bourgeois) status quo (in other words, this “freedom of thought” is NOT permitted to question the fatal capitalist system or the limitations of liberal democracy).
A prime example of an academic who does operate freedom of thought is Grover Furr. Like myself, he has examined and seen through the lies and distortions which the West uses to interpret the history of the Soviet Union and the purpose of the ideology of Socialism. This corrective has important implications for Cuba, Vietnam, China, North Korea, and Laos, as well as all those left-leaning regimes throughout the world (many operating in Central and South America). Developing a three-dimensional state of mind only comes about by the purposeful adopting of “thought exercises” (a type of role-playing) which allows the thought processes to expand into directions they would not necessarily extend into. In a very real sense, this is arguing for argument’s sake. Examples of this might include arguing for the ideology of Adolf Hitler, or make a case for the Zionist invasion, occupation and settlement of the entirety of Palestine. What is argued for must be “shocking” to those who have no choice but to conform and constructively act.
Of course, fads come and go via the internet in a whirlwind manner, but a Tiktok meme involves women filming themselves explaining “why” they would prefer to be in the woods with a bear – rather than the average man. Now, this is obviously an absurdity, and it sounds to me as if this is a “thought experiment” transferred from the isolated classroom to the public domain (usually, something Philosophers never do, due to the unrealistic and insulting nature of these exercises for broader society). This is why the training of the mind often occurs in isolation – away from ordinary society. The arguments may seem insulting and absurd (as they undoubtedly are) but the human mind must be exposed to this process if the thinking capacity is to be correspondingly enhanced. Hitler (and his ideology) can only be truly opposed if it is fully understood. Otherwise, how are we to comprehend the “danger” such an ideology represents?
I have included above, a very good film clip from the (2015) film entitled “Revenant” which dramatises the true story an attack by a female bear upon a European man (Hugh Glass) who was walking through the deep forest of South Dakota (Central North America) during August-September 1823. This man is armed with a musket – a cumbersome weapon that is difficult to reload once fired. This weapon does save the life of this individual – but only after the man has been substantially mauled by the bear – who is protecting her nearby cub (the original story states there were two cubs). The bear, which I assume was not hungry (and had just eaten), seems to be “playing” with the man as at one point she wanders over to the base of a nearby tree to look at her cub – before she reverts back to her “playing” with her food without bringing her cub over to learn how to eat a fresh kill. I suspect if she was hungry – the man would have been incapacitated or killed very quickly – and her cub immediately brought over to learn how to eat raw meat. A young Russian woman (Olga Moskalyova) during 2001 – managed to telephone her mother three-times whilst she was slowly eaten alive by a female bear and her cub. Her father’s dead body lay nearby (the female bear had quickly broken his neck) – but instead the bear had focused upon his daughter (19 years old).
There are many stories such as this in all areas where wild bears still exist – including areas within China where Giant Panda Bears roam. At mating time, Panda’s can move surprisingly quickly and become incredibly violent! Wild bears cannot be reasoned with – even if it is admitted that occasionally a hand-reared bear (regardless of eventual size) can be a charming and heart-warming companion. Even so, even tame bears can be dangerous when playing – due to their size and strength – even if the damage is unintended. When a human is treated as a fellow bear by a tame bear – the human body is not evolutionarily equipped to deal with such force and strength. Therefore, death and injury to the human often results. One man had his carotid artery cut by a bear’s claw – as the bear attempted to “play” with him. The man bled to death in minutes. Given the deadly reality of what wild and tame bears can do, it would seem obvious that women who participate in the “Bear vs Man” meme cannot be talking literally – but are participating in a public “thought experiment”.
The human species has evolutionarily survived because it is ruthless and predatory. A bear may be stronger – and would certainly win a one-on-one battle with a human – but a human possesses a mind that can remember the past, comprehend the present, and plan for the future. The bear, of course, can only react to the present moment through various reflex arcs – at least in its most wildest sense. A tame bear may well learn to develop more conducive reflex arcs that meet the needs of the captive lifestyle (why kill and eat the humans that keep bringing you food and routinely wash and brush you?). Men and women, as humans, are just a devious as each other, and possess a mind that can adapt and overcome virtually all environmental obstacles – including the natural advantages possessed by a bear. This human ability is required as a bear is physically stronger – and is not hindered by any human notions of moral responsibility. As humans are “animals” – human behaviour can revert back to animalistic modes of expression. If a psychotic man behaves “like a bear” (in the senses that he may rape, torture and kill women and girls) – then many women would have you believe that they would “prefer to be with a bear”. The eternal question is “why” this should be the case? It seems to be that a violent and deadly bear “would NOT be sexual” – as it rips the body of the woman apart. And that appears to be the only point of this meme. A woman would rather be “killed” by a bear – than be “raped” and “survive” a sexual attack committed by a human-male. There is a cascade of moral imperatives that arise from this position.
SANGHA KOMMUNE (SSR) 