The THESIS: Death to Cowards. [Part II.]

 

II.       The Therapists.

 

I’ll also add that, while I don’t believe projection to be at the root of all disgust, for basic sympathy *for victims* has to manifest in such disgust, it’s obvious to me that all those propagators of “projection” were themselves projecting, for what else is there to do when one won’t **act??* Projection proves to be a greater problem than I thought, since **actions** matter less to people than a falsified “intent”.

Rossiu was neither a Utilitarian, a Marxist, nor a Dreamer... but at least this video *allegedly* aspires to defend him.

Regardless, even the intent (the **true** intent) and the success of those they vilified would matter less to them than actions; what they truly lacked, consistently, was any worldview wherein action could be judged by *merit* and *success.* They did not care how many blameless lives were saved, what innocence inspired or the Law required. Just so long as they projected an intent that was not there, dismissed a duty as a choice, or shriveled in a cowardly disgust at what was necessary, even acts of heroism looked like villainy to them, without a second thought. Ergo it was not “action” in the context of a moral code, a Greater Good, or any noble purpose, but “*behaviour*” they condemned, to cover up their weakness.

Ever heard of something called "intent", "logistics", or "reform"? (No, I guess that money is a higher aim than justice, and an empire of drugs is better than a safer, law-abiding world.)

How convenient for them to say, then, “Evil in the Other is in you!!” for by so doing would they never **need** to fight it **in the World**, and anyone who dared to do a thing about it, to defy this secret Code of Cowardice, could be accused of those same crimes he sought to punish!! How convenient indeed, but only for somebody who has never **felt** true sympathy to the extent of rage, a selfless wrath and indignation on behalf of innocence!!

Yet theirs was not my proper diagnosis. If I hated villains, it was for their cowardice and not their courage, for the innocence and not the guilt of whom they murdered, for their envy, not their indignation. Were these qualities in me, potentially? It made no difference, for in the realm of **fact** I only cared about the victims, and I wished the villains to be punished **not** so as to save my pride but **rather** so that those sweet, harmless children would not have to suffer for another’s weakness. Yet without that sort of innocence there is no sympathy, except for those same cowards, and the only way a cowardice can prosper is if it believes that everyone is just as cowardly at heart. (We’re not.)

I only wanted to believe that **courage** was more common. I was wrong; I saw too much in people. Yet if I projected, then the goodness that I saw was mine, and evil shocked and disappointed me since it so shattered my illusion that my fellow man would never stoop so low.

**To Hell with it!!**

 

**[({R.G.)}]**


The THESIS:


PART I: The CRITICS.

PART II: The THERAPISTS.

PART III: The COWARDS.

PART IV: The MOB.

PART V: The ENEMY.


**This Page has been Optimized for Discord.**

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Early Death of Any Future Peace:

  The biggest problem with the issue of abortion seems, at first, to be that no one wants to talk about it *as* a controversial issue. All the major arguments which either “side” reiterates have been around for roughly half a century at least, and we have made no progress in resolving them in the last forty years. This does not stop idealogues from acting like the matter’s settled and that *their* side won, however.   Yet beyond the moderate, “politically correct” and “civil” surface of the issue lies the deeper issue: Hardly anybody wants to talk about abortion *in itself*, and those who advocate for “choice” (and, by extension, for abortion, as it has to be a choice) are those least willing to discuss *the act itself* and whether it is good or evil to commit.   Instead, we hear from advocates for “choice” a slew of beautiful ideals, impassioned speeches, and redundant platitudes: -    the value of one’s bodily autonomy, -    the need for ...
Read more

First Response to Hazmat: Absolutist Ethics.

Image
Yes: I value the opinions of others, insofar as I can vouch for their integrity. Yet that requires that they fervently believe that what they say is true, that they can stand beside it, put it into practice, and uphold it as a sacred principle, as though it were a Higher Power which compelled them. It thus follows that, so long as an opinion is valid, one must validate it not by merely practicing that view within one’s own life, but by holding others to it. One cannot impose morality on anyone, because morality is binding on us all, in equal measure, and one’s only burden is to fathom it, to the extent one can, and to uphold it. That is not an imposition; it’s an obligation, and, without it, we have nothing. You once asked me: “At what point is it an evil to impose one’s views of righteousness on someone else?” I’ll answer with the obvious: at no point, whatsoever, since it is impossible. Where Righteousness is what’s at stake, one can’t “impose on someone else”, as though one posed a...
Read more

Justice for R. Kelly: a Reflection on the State of Eros. (Dedicated to the Lady Jerri.)

  I've been reading, recently, about the life of Robert Kelly, whom you'd recognize from *Space Jam*'s soundtrack, the "Ignition" remix, and his many other hits, such as "Trapped in the Closet". It just breaks my heart to see how he was treated, not just as a child who had to grow up much too fast, but also as an adult, even after having given us such heartfelt, soulful music. I could never reconcile those sweet and sentimental, loving, sometimes mystifying tones with the entire image of a sex offender; he was a Don Juan, but not Don Giovanni.   Clearly, that same mainstream media that made him famous had betrayed him, while the legal system, which was never there for him when he himself most needed and deserved it, in the tenderness of youth, went well beyond its obligations in defence of "children". The hypocrisy is not the part which angers me, as it is so ironic that it's laughable, and that alleviates some of the sadness of this gr...
Read more