When hearing the word tyrants, one thinks of people who are so callous no suffering would break through their cold stone hearts; one thinks of warmongers, executioners and mercenaries.
Today, a mutant type of tyranny threatens western civilisation, coming from those who are hard of hearing by their own choice, excluding unquestionable facts from political debates on the basis of not being able to handle them emotionally.
Imagine a jury refusing to see or hear key evidence in a trial, claiming it is too disturbing, and reaching a verdict while ignoring it. Imagine the day murder investigators are publicly accused of gathering evidence for some sick gratification, because they egotistically want to be proven right at all cost or because they like looking at it. Imagine even the basics of our reality being reduced to theoretical notions; subjected to surreal discussions on their validity.
And imagine us all taking it, shrugging, accepting the ever-changing status quo in a demented world, where everything but the law of gravity can be questioned at any time, at the whim of any group which manages to reach a position of power.
My generation has developed in full confidence of western states working according to well-thought systems and rules which simply make sense. Science, objectivity and logic, as well as moral principles which have proven viable throughout the ages seemed guaranteed to us and our offspring. A fair justice system, freedom of thought, speech and faith, political pluralism, the freedom to study, to choose a profession, plus the protection of the family unit – to mention but a few of the conditions we took for granted. Humanity would never tear down what it has built, we thought.
Today, we have people who constantly hiss at the natural law, claiming gender is a social construct and has nothing to do with human anatomy. We have those who moon and raise their middle fingers when confronted with logic, because in their primitive mentality, he/ she who shouts the loudest gets to lead; only now they shake megaphones in people’s faces as opposed to spears.
Above all, we have so-called intellectuals proliferating in essays and books about defying nature in every possible way, because it feels right to them. They only operate with abstractions, never with palpable realities; one can show them undisputed facts and they will react with memes and slogans, convinced they are on the right path.
You ask them how women are still being oppressed in first world countries. They can’t give you any facts but they’re dead sure they are oppressed; the patriarchy is of course to blame. It must be so, if dozens of women with their breasts hanging loose are shouting about it in a public park, in broad daylight. If you conducted a lengthy interview with the average participant, they most likely wouldn’t be able to have a coherent conversation.
Labels today overshadow reality as we all experience it. They make fetuses or illegals out of human beings, who in other circumstances would be regarded as all the rest. The fact that they are not wanted even though they already exist or they don’t have the proper papers signed in the right places makes them less human; their deaths are not seen as avoidable, intentional destruction of human life.
I have always marveled at our ability – both individually and collectively – to ignore what’s in front of our own eyes in order to submit to an abstraction.
Today I came across this article. Compassion aside, the mind-fuckery is monstrous.
A few years ago, the pro-abortion lobby used arguments such as the mother’s inability to care for a child due to poverty, a young age etc; now they don’t even bother as society accepts one’s will as all that matters (even though feelings are likely temporary, while death is irreversible). Pro-life activists were scorned with accusations of basing their stance on emotions or religious beliefs and not on science or logic. Hence there was nothing left to do but confront advocates of one’s right over their body with the cold, hard reality of abortion by showing them images of its result. Images are irrefutable proof of what goes on in those clinics.
If a warmongering politician refused to look at photographs taken in war zones due to conflicts they started, there would be a media outcry; they would be accused of hypocrisy. Surely, some have been frank enough to say the “price had been worth it”. Abortion advocates can’t even do that. They cannot face the sight of what they support; regardless, they go on supporting it.
Hence when they claim a material reason is valid for an abortion, they accuse their critics of being emotional air heads with no sense of practicality, with unrealistic expectations – in other words, of basing their critique on feelings. When faced with genetics and with the reality of abortion, they attack with feelings, claiming the other side is cold-hearted for subjecting them to those images.
How can one possibly have a debate with people who refuse any evidence of the opposing viewpoint, simultaneously behaving as if they had the truth? How can the truth be established while rejecting the evidence as too disturbing to even consider? It makes no sense whatsoever. However, since SJW tactics are based solely on emotional manipulation, sense is not really a prerequisite.
The message is stop trying to save lives; you are offending people, which is apparently the ultimate crime. And what is frightening, some might not realise just how wrong that is.
Sorry for making the comparison again but it is appropriate – it reminds me of refugees in Greece, torn by war from their homes, sleeping in the street with next to nothing to their name, and middle-class tourists walking by in disgust because those poor people were visually polluting their holiday in the sun. This comparison might sound very cruel but one cannot equate a human life with another person’s feelings – a person who thinks they should be protected from the reality they are promoting.
If someone has been through trauma (and I’m not sure there is anyone on this planet who hasn’t) there are many aspects encountered in everyday existence which can trigger them, but obviously they cannot ask the rest of the world to adapt. In this context, the issue is a powerful tool of manipulation. Life is not a rose garden; it never has been; the world is full of atrocities. Our sensitivities do not entitle us to turn our heads and pretend nothing is happening. Images are powerful; they are a wake up call more than anything else. They represent reality – not feelings, opinions or abstractions. Reality. And it should speak for itself.
The words ”dead fetus porn” are used.
Imagine, as I said in the beginning, that someone told the police they attended and documented crime scenes because they like it. Or if they told reporters sent to disaster zones they were documenting the aftermath of a catastrophe for the same reason.
In the same way, Peter LaBarbera was accused during an interview of ”spreading gay porn” when documenting the Folsom Street Fair in San Francisco, where minors are allowed to witness BDSM and sexual acts, as well as full nudity, without the authorities at least mandating adult only participation.
Although the abortion related presumption is far more gruesome, the method is largely the same – if you express outrage or expose an outrageous reality, you must be getting some sick gratification out of it or simply scoring points against the other side. This I believe to be a good example of projection. They use such rhetoric to divert attention from the reality you are exposing towards your presumed motivation.
Personally, if I saw a powerful video exposing a certain event, I wouldn’t care who recorded it; I would only care if it was genuine. If it was, the motivation of the person happening to catch it on film would not even come into question.
Pro-life activists are emotionally scarred by the pictures they share, as any normal individual would be. As people are when they share images of war victims, especially children. The way to stop it from happening is not to keep quiet and “stop showing those photos”. I have more doubts about the emotional involvement of a person who uses a phrase such as “dead fetus porn”, or who thinks someone being offended is worse than someone else dying. Pro-life activists have saved lives and that is a fact.
The fear of offending is taking over. Universities, where naive individuals such as myself once thought the brightest minds developed unbridled, are now dispersion grounds for the PC madness.
So to whoever got this far, I leave you (and myself) with this question: is it worse to feel helpless as an atom in a huge universe one cannot influence in the slightest, or to have an enormous sense of entitlement, thinking you can change the world to suit your exact needs, if need be by censoring others?