Friday, March 22, 2013

Surrey swarming victim speaks out



The Vancouver Sun released a video of Annie Hurwich, who was 16 years old when she was beaten and robbed by a swarm of girls she met online who told her they were going to a party. Annie is speaking out about it because some of her attackers are still online harassing her.

A screen clip from the video is very disturbing. One girl going by Jamie Dunne on facebook told the others her favorite memory was seeing Annie run as fast as she can with blood pouring down her face. At first glance the girl who said it looked pretty. Yet that kind of insecurity reveals an ugliness that goes right to the bone. This is the gang mentality. Insecure bullies preying on others.

9 comments:

  1. There is a reason for this, and all the other "behaviour" that is the cause of the vast majority of posts on your blog.

    It is subjective relativism.

    Modern society does not want to recognise the existence and reality of Truth. They reject the notion of objective truth.

    All ancient societies recognised the reality of truth as the starting point for philosophy - the guiding principle for ethics, of which the object of life was to be the most ethical person you could be.

    Since the "renaissance" relativism has become the guiding ideology. It is Neitzschian. It finds it basis in deCartes' false ideology of "I think, therefore I am".

    Initially one may find that an harmless statement that is only stating that we have brains and it is because we have brains that we are alive. However, that is utterly false. Non-organic matter exists and it does not have a brain. Neither does much of organic matter.

    What it really means is that something exists because you think it exists.

    So, if you think a watch is really a pepperoni pizza, then that is really what it is - for you. Of course, any rational person realises that is simply ridiculous. However, that extreme example of relativism demonstrates exactly what it is.

    This is where the whole "there is no black and white, only shades of grey" false thinking comes from.

    The reality of the fact is that the more you actually know and understand about something, the less ambiguous it becomes (the less grey). So "shades of grey" are really only ignorance.

    If someone ever uses the excuse of "shades of grey" you need to ask what is that person is selling?

    No where in society today are people told or encouraged to take time to discern the truth of a matter. Only in hard sciences and even then it is a common fallacy that it cannot be used outside of these sciences and even then under only specific conditions because "the human experience cannot be judged by others as one's personal experience and situation are unique only to them and you really can not know what is individual to them".

    Schools do not teach this - nor can they - for the teachers teaching in them are products of a society which has rejected the existence of Truth.

    Parents do not teach this - because they do not know how. Yet, the average person (whose voice counts for nothing unless it conforms to the dictatorship of relativism) knows that there really is a non-subjective Truth.

    Until society itself undergoes a fundamental shift in its ideology not a thing will change.

    Stories like we read in this blog (and I thank you for taking the time to post these and help inform people) are only the tip of the iceberg. Things will get worse as society spirals downward out of control.

    However, this can only continue for so long before it becomes so degenerate that it collapses.

    History bears constant witness to this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That’s a pretty profound insight. “Modern society does not want to recognize the existence and reality of Truth. [They are] products of a society which has rejected the existence of Truth. It is subjective relativism.”

      Having banged my head against the wall for many years, I’d have to agree. People in general don’t like to acknowledge the existence of truth or the place of morals either. Yet most would agree murder and theft is wrong and those values are based on morals.

      For me, the fact that the Hells Angels sell drugs has become clear. It is what I would declare to be truth. All the rage and denial will not change that fact. Like in science, water freezes at zero degrees Celsius and boils at 100 degrees Celsius. As you say, science has truth but society doesn’t like to recognize that outside of the specific examples. Not looking at the bigger picture which would involve personal responsibility and accountability. Me thinks relativism is being used by many to rationalize behavior deep down they know is wrong but refuse to admit.

      Delete
  2. Great commentary, "shades of gray" vs. black and white. I actually find both models to be valid, it being a matter of which one to apply to a given question/circumstance. I think most people have an instinctive sense of which one is appropriate, but most people is not who we are talking about here. The kinds of deeds under discussion here definitely are B&W stuff. Dealing with it needs to be B&W stuff as well.

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Doctor" Smythe: "Since the "renaissance" relativism has become the guiding ideology. It is Neitzschian. It finds it basis in deCartes' false ideology of "I think, therefore I am". "

    That's a mite confusing for someone looking @ history. If relativism has been around since the Renaissance, how could it "find a basis" in Descartes' work, during the "Age of Reason" starting 1650-1700...? He wasn't alive for that renaissance, no...? Neitzsche is from the 19th Century, I think.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, it can be confusing. That is exactly why so many people do not look at it - there really is so much ideology behind the dominant ideologies of today. Yet, upon examination it really shows they are essentially one and the same.

      I am positing that it is because of this idolatry of and to subjective relativism that we are in the predicament we are in today. I also state that things will get worse.

      When people have no basis in ethics and morals they think they can do whatever they want. As long as it provides them with immediate gratification of the base desires, they do not consider the longevity of their actions.

      Case in point, why should a gangstar care if he sells X amount of drugs and makes X amount of money? He wants the money and society reinforces the concept that one needs money and money will make one happy - a mass consumerist society (which we happen to reside in). This consumerist society is truly global, not merely the Western world. Look at "communist" states like Vietnam and China today to see just how "opposed" they are to capitalism. (another argument I could make is that capitalism and communism are really just the twin heads of the same coin - if they were diametrically opposed you could not "go so far to the left you end up at the extreme right" or vice versa unless the two "opposing" ends were connected somehow - not to mention how can such communist countries as Vietnam and especially China embrace and function within the corporatist world? How could the Soviet Union have adopted capitalism so easy (yes, there was and is some disparity, but how different is it from what the West experiences daily? [this blog highlights that fact] Or even from prior to the "fall of the iron curtain"?)

      As for the gangstar, why shouldn't he sell drugs? They grew up under the fallout from the mantra of the 60's - "I gotta be me, I gotta be free".

      Of course, they have no knowledge of freedom - nor of licence. Freedom is the ability to choose from among good while licence is permissiveness. We do not live in a Western society that cherishes "freedom" - we live in a sick society that demands licence.

      It is through subjective relativism that this exists. If there was acknowledgement of black and white ethics and morals - the objective truth - then these evils (and they are evil) would not be tolerated. However, they are. It is because of subjective relativism, for how can you tell someone what is really right and wrong when it is all up to individual experience anyway? How can someone really tell someone they cannot do something when there is no recognition of an objective truth?

      Until there is a fundamental shift in ideology of society itself - these things will continue to spiral out of control.

      There was a time, not very long ago, when it was the professor and the teacher who were the more morally upright persons teaching the students. Today, sadly, it is more often than not the student who has the more moral and ethical standpoint.

      I seriously wonder how much longer things can continue this way.

      Delete
  4. Me thinks he’s saying relativism is Neitzschian. He said since the renaissance relativism has become the guiding ideology. Descartes wasn’t until the end of that renaissance and Neitzschian wasn’t until after it. However, he’s established an interesting concept about how relativism has developed since the renaissance which included Descartes and Neitzschian.

    I haven’t heard reference to Descartes since high school. It was used by an arrogant English teacher who was trying to destroy young kid’s faith in deity. It appears that Nietzsche questioned the value and objectivity of truth which is pretty much what Doctor Smythe said. Which ironically enough developed into the ideals of Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx which led to you know what.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, that is essentially the gist of it.

      Delete
  5. Agent K....cops have been busted for beating wives, family me members, for dealing drugs and many other things. Stop being so ignorant and aiming all your hate at the Hells Angels

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'm not sure how that applies to this thread but all my hate? This isn't a case of displaced aggression here. If a police officer has beaten his wife then he should be charged and tried accordingly. Most passionately despise that kind of behavior. That’s why the VPD gave that guy the boots in that domestic dispute case. As for selling drugs the only one I know of is that young cop that was selling pot in Vancouver. I agree that selling drugs is bad but that is the primary business of the Hells Angels.

    Not only that but they use violence to take over the drug trade and torture addicts for drug debts. The case in Quebec revealed that they all voted in favor of creating a fund from a portion of their drug profits to murder rival drug dealers. Locally, the murders of Dain Philips, Britney Irving, Geoff Meisner and Janice Shore are all tied to the Hells Angels. As well as the decapitation of Bob Roth in Edmonton for a drug debt. Rationalizing any of that is disgusting.

    ReplyDelete