Children's Books For Adult Children

Pandering to People's Philistinism is Promoted as Perspective

Whenever a forceful regime change happens, typical tools to implement 'change' are enacted.

Censorship.

Removal of the intelligentsia.

Deportation of individuals having profound influence or criticisms.

And, most obvious: murder - fighting, war, and the justifications for such illicit activities.

These efforts, coupled with positive propaganda aimed at portraying a convincing argument for 'change', is necessary and vital to convince people.

The promotional propaganda includes attack (polemic) and usually illogical arguments against dissent.

Is there clear argument or honorable debate, or are these invited?

Hardly.

Removing, censoring, deporting, killing those with the ability to clearly explain what is happening are crucial to the 'management' of others.

Propaganda, pandering to people's fears, ignorance, pride, division, and so forth, constantly argue a 'solution'. and promote victory where things have actually deteriorated and became worse.

Arguably all revolutions in history were immediate failures, with a semblance of 'victory' having come out of working things out after mass destruction.

Sadly, murder and failure are 'allowed' and 'justified' to reach certain ends.

The ends justify the means.

Illogical.

Oftentimes the 'solution' is irrational, or speaks to the lowest triggers of humanity.

The irrationality is exemplified in this manner: a state government (whichever you'd like to point at) argues about justice, peace, lawfulness, consideration, in promoting laws against murder / killing human beings... yet allows abortions and upholds capital punishment (death penalties).

Hypocrisy.

On one hand, equality of all life under the law is touted, while obvious inequality between life (criminal and innocent children) is the outcome.

Those who are familiar with their own hypocrisy can see the hypocrisy in other individuals and in community institutions.

The diluted (or easily diluted) have a more difficult time looking at themselves (and measuring their favorite political, religious, economic, ethnic tribal group) in sober judgment.

Typically human.

What history shows is that life has always been a top-down management system of people.

Some argue this is 'evil', but I disagree.

It is 'how' such management is done that can call it 'evil' or 'good' or 'rational' or 'fair'.

The family model is a simple example.

Father and mother work together to raise a family.

Do the children have a say as children to their upbringing, or what kind of food they will eat, or what the budget would look like?

Of course not, they are children.

Father and mother have a role to fulfill, mother has hers and father has his.

Mother bares children, the natural constant.

Father protects mother and children, another natural constant.

Yet it is currently popularly argued that mother can protect and father can bare children.

My how water has been turned to mud, or a bird argued to be a flying rat.

What is typically touted as a 'new' idea that argues 'change' is merely the mythology of change.

A new 'packaging' that hides yet the same human model of top-down, rich over the poor, strong over the weak.

Instead of seeing these natural constants as 'evil', perhaps viewing the inherent responsibility that is found in these dynamics would better bring understanding.

An irresponsible top-down system does not last.

Nor does an irresponsible rich over the poor scenario.

This is why the semblance and certain facts of upward mobility in some places on earth are shown to 'work', and immigrants make their way to such places.

This is also why people flee places that do not 'work' in the least sense of that word: subsistence living being near intolerable, while any semblance of 'achievement' or 'progress' being stifled or discouraged in some illogical manner.

Instead of 'change' being seen in typically historical ways, yet always rendering the same result, this reality can be perhaps made and perceived in another way:

It could be argued - to correct an already poor or detrimental trajectory - to place intelligentsia and experts atop the mechanisms of mass information.

This is the purpose of professors and experts in universities.

Books are widely published that not only clearly explain society's ills, but sometimes offer solutions to such ills.

However, wisdom and intelligence is not popularly promoted.

Only very few people finish university, or eventually learn from experts in particular fields.

The experts that do visit a news station for a short segment may share bits of important information.

At times, the 'experts' are still advocating a narrow bias or their own ignorance through a regurgitation of information not reaching the hearts of listeners.

The 'news' reveals this fact.

Instead, pettiness is what entertains... and entertainment is what is considered 'mindful' (mind-filled).

Pandering to people's philistinism is promoted as perspective.

Is it that the populous is too ignorant or not smart enough to understand what is happening in the world?

I don't think so.

I think it is the 'manner' information is shared, explained, defined.

A children's book can sometimes explain the most difficult human dynamics in simple terms.

The messages of love, tolerance, forgiveness, sharing, hope, etc., are easily expressed and easily understood.

How can a politics be messaged as a children's book?

How can economics be messaged as a children's book?

How can religious ideas be messaged as a children's book?

How can popular ignorance be dealt with as done in a children's book?

How can media be made whole and wholesome if not by approaching content as a children's book?

It would be highly offensive for a children's book to include overtly sexual connotations, or somehow argue justification for killing other children, or even promoting pedophilia or something other obvious perversion.

But would you be surprised if such media were to be found in your local store and argued as 'freedom of speech' or some other banal and illogical and morally corrupt argument?

If a children's book should never contain such information, why do some adult children think it is okay to message such information in news and cable and radio broadcast?

Because there is an assumption the public is 'mature' and 'immune' to such depravity?

Or because the public is already depraved?

Or is it some other corrupt reason?

A message can be sophisticated, thought-provoking, instructive, even discussing taboo subjects, while the manner it is mentioned can be palatable for an audience able to understand the message, while being hidden from the unintended audience.

Sadly, currently there is a lack of intelligentsia and mature individuals atop the mechanisms of media.

They should read some children's books and emulate the kind efforts found therein in their professions.