Abgar Rolls Out Details on Handling Bigot Children

This is an indymedia report on the handling of bigot children in asymmetric warfare. Bigot children are being called that name because they are being introduced into enemy contact situations by bigot parents. They are enemies (...)

This is an indymedia report on the handling of bigot children in asymmetric warfare. Bigot children are being called that name because they are being introduced into enemy contact situations by bigot parents. They are enemies but not fully responsible, which is why people care what they think about them. That is not the case regarding the former, making a huge difference in handling. Bigot children still have their choice ahead: end up like planned or emancipate. In any case it matters teaching them that they are not like their parents.

“Compassion not contagion” recommends Abgar. “Don’t teach them the truth, teach them how to doubt. The truth is too valuable to argue over it with their parents, and the aim is that they remember as little as possible but of that little the bigger half shall be bigot-parents-unrelated for the whole memory not to hurt. That is so because as you can see with your heart these children carry their parents and not the other way around. When giving some of the bigots an improvised foot washing, mind the textbook recommendation.”

“I say that because you know the trick already: Change clothing ahead of the procedure, because you need it to dry those little feet on the spot. If they had towels they could help themselves. There are none, so improvise. The washing stands for the teaching how to doubt. We do not tell them go into this direction or go into that direction, but instead give them an opportunity to put down their load for a break and get clean feet. Of course this is a parable, there are no real extremities and real water getting in contact in the situation.”

“We are teaching them how to doubt what everything else with them relies upon. And the used cloth can go into the laundry anyway. And when it dries on the line bigots might see a flag in it, but that is why they are being called that name. It is necessary to understand why the bigot brings its child into the situation. It is because the bigot got itself convinced that the situation will change the child and it only depends on you how. It might be a speculation to impress you with unfair surprise. And where else could a bigot child learn fairness?”

“Of course not from its bigot parents. Let me name another example how to sow doubt at a depth it can take root. Why am I only interested in leaving the seed of doubt and nothing else? If you think of human interaction as music, where everyone and everything has a rhythm, either their own or that of someone or something else, then you will understand with your heart. Disharmony is when rhythms are being picked up against intent. Harmony is when they are taken up according to intent. Harmony may decline into disharmony, but there is no way to get from disharmony to harmony without silence in between.”

“What does this mean in regard to the bigot child? First, it must convince itself of change, if any. Second, it must find a surrogate to which to attach those mad ideas it had been instilled about us. That this or that was us. Ugly. Third, it must learn to separate messenger and message. It is being taught to doubt whatever needs to be, not just specific matters. It is not intended to convince the child of anything because the bigger half principle matters more than that. We are not the king of bigot children.”

“The kings of bigot children are these who survived getting swarmed as children by bigots without even having triggered a bigot issue. For example, your parents were weighing an abortion and you got to know how to handle bigots before you got to know how to handle money. You observed contraception side-effects and bigot responses to them. And so forth. But that grown-up expert is not part of the situation. It is only an anticipation of what they might get at once they work themselves out of there by means of their own doubt. This initial spark for healthy doubt is what you can provide, but not a referable orientation.”

”The point is anyway being the knight to bigot children, not their king. Why rival their bigot parents if you can effect something good that might last beyond your presence? The bigot child is there because the bigot parent imagines the situation to be ambiguous enough to risk it as a bargaining chip. But it is asymmetric conflict, the interest in conquest is one-sided. Our interest is in peace and prevention, which is why doubt is being suggested as the key remedy. Mind the bigger half principle when you intend any teachings to stick.”

“One more thing regarding the terminology that is being used. Certainly every bigot will say that it is not a bigot. Some are going to say it is a matter of point of view. I argue it is a matter of understanding the term. Here is an animal parable. I could say that we are not lizards, and everyone would understand what I mean although humans share a significant amount of our genome with these creatures. That is because they come from the same tree of life. But we evolved differently over a long way.”

“Can you imagine a foot washing parable with lizards? No because it is tailored specifically for the human species. It would be empty theatrics even if it was made real. These bigots need to be confronted so that it makes a change to the better, so when they expose the children who are carrying them, the response they get is the doubt taught to the latter. In the book the foot washing parable deals with treason according to the bigger half principle. It is being done to awaken the sceptics and let doubt rise up over the traitors without anchoring it all on an accusation.”

“An interesting detail in the incident omitted by the three other writers, although all of them are covering what comes right next, that it quotes an older source, namely a warning against treason, although it is not rendered as a quote by all of them. But the reference of it is only in one source. The general raising of doubt is being performed to make it possible in the first place to raise a suspicion without getting as far off the mark as its issue happens to be. No such suspicion can stand without an appropriate level of doubt, yet three of four sources suggest that there would never have been a lack thereof.”

Comments

Commenting has now closed on this article.

The Indymedia Network

Global
Oceania
Latin America
Europe
Africa
Canada
United States
East Asia
South Asia
West Asia