G&T Articles

G&T 3:

Article one: “We are all Nazis when it comes to animal rights” (I’m a hippie Vegetarian, so apologies if I communicate some sort of bias in this task, for I know that this is primarily an analysis task of academia.)

This text communicates that the modern standard of historical empathy is hypocritical to the masses as, they themselves indulge in behaviourism that is contrary to that which is they hold dear, that being the absolute rejection of the inferior-genetic ideologies that our ancestors held.  And this is analogous to the holocaust of Jewish peoples and undesirables of the state in many countries especially Germany and Russia during the 20th century.  This is apparent as they used such quotes.

“Years later I visited a slaughterhouse in the US and there again I saw piles of hearts and hooves … and I got to thinking about the highly efficient and dispassionate process used in both cases, that the perpetrators felt no guilt … that my fellow Jews were transported in cattle cars.”

But what this text boils down to, is that we as a species hold prejudice towards animals because they are deemed inferior to humans. However we hold hypocritical stances to such ideas when, in fact the severely mentally handicapped and Infants have the same processing power of animals in primitive states.

And the text also shows us a more nuanced view of the argument against eating meat, instead of using Human profligacy and cruelty it instead places a more philosophical view on the matter. And how the physche of a meat eater seems to be inclined to have underground prejudice but good intentions. And that the logic that our Ape minds produce is often flawed, in a constant debate between nature and nurture, good vs evil and logic and reason vs Ignorance and hypocrisy.  And all up this article expresses that even when suffering is inflicted on our species, we cannot recognise the cognitive dissonance permeating in our everyday thoughts and day to day events.

And we see that this article uses quite a neutral expression to try and not to be confronting to the audience rather, let the audience think critically rather than be insulted or off put from the text.  And both the outsiders and this article uses a quite formal, documentary verbatim style use of language. Where it is to not play off ones prejudice of language nor to incite strong feelings rather to incite a skill that often needs to be practices, that being critical thinking.

This links links up to the outsiders, content wise with the simple terms of normalcy of the absurd.  Where we are reading both of these texts and that we see the happenings of gang violence of the 60s and the culture of consuming meat is quite analogous because it promotes and near glorifies then later demonises the lifestyle that is causing harm to our fellow species and man.  The Soc-Greaser divide is different because both parties stand a fighting chance and while it is an exciting read, it was based of factual events, and that should disgust the reader. While the culture of meat eating has a divide of species, and it is based on factual events and should disgust the reader.  What makes these books similar is that is holds a metaphoric mirror to our species, and it makes us look at what our species has done, what it is doing and what it will do.

(Devils advocate, because I’m working on this skill)

While it may seem hypocritical to eat meat whilst not supporting genocide this is simply just not the case. For if we follow the evolutionary plasticity theory, we can see that indeed all animals and speciations are simply plastic to their environments, we see the evolution of man and say the Bonobo to be similar but due to the migrating of Homo Habilis and others of the divergence of our common ancestor. It is seen that our bodies acted in plasticity meaning that we become more resistant to our environment, our hair thinned and our bodies demanded more protein and vitamins to survive, and because of our superior strength to other species we accumulated their energy, for they could not properly adapt to our presence.  But, back to the point. We would not attack our own kinsmen because they offer us something in return for their survival, no matter how minimal. babies soon will be big enough to contribute something, and the mentally disabled offers a family bond Mother/Father – Daughter/Son Whilst animals offer us nothing and contribute nothing, so why should we be lacking in protein, and precious vitamins just because of animals. Houses wouldn’t be built and people would starve. So it comes down to a question of thus, do you prefer your fellow man or are you a traitor to ones own species?

Article 2:

-Does the left have a future (in Britannia)? By John Harris

This article entails the steady decline in the Labour party of Britannia, and how this correlates to the decline in the left of the whole world, and to which they have declined due to the fact that they are slow to adapt to the changing political climate. For they do not realise that indeed, major principles such as unions, welfare, regulation and free trade is increasingly decreasing in popularity, while traditionalism, protectionism and business friendly economics is growing. This article also details the shift from monopolised corporate jobs to British industry being started, then destroyed by the left and it’s policy. These policies has caused an image problem with the party for it seems the Labour party is now seemingly for urban millennials and welfare recipients, rather than the workers that was held to rigorous value and importance at one time. People simply don’t see the left for either workers or businesses. And the article can simply be summarised as thus Left-Wing parties seem like a party that cannot appeal to other bases. With the rise of immigration, free trade and foreign investment. 

Content wise this is similar to the outsiders in the fact that it entails the swing between allegiance of the general public towards the two groups. Where the imagery of the groups can change, within a few actions of the group it can change the perception of greasers and socs to the public, at one moment they are menaces and at others they are the glorious, kind and bright youth. But at the core it is run by individuals that have their own ideas on how the world should be. And so are political thinkers in parties. And entails that the left and right are quite the same in many ways.

Language wise they are in no way the same. Whilst the article is full of logos and aggression the outsiders are more concentrated with pathos and neutrality.

(And, my personal opinion in this matter is simply that of, indeed. The left is failing, because of the left is weak, The left parties haven’t changed, the left has though. The culture shift has caused many people of the working class to vote conservative because they simply don’t agree with the regulation of business that is crippling Britannia’s markets, the over bearing welfare state and the globalisation that is stopping the free market of Britannia to employ the British to do British work for Britannia. This is true everywhere. The left is fractured, those who are lazy and are entitled, and those who are delusional and cling to the hope that the left will once again, hopefully be a party for the workers.)

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: