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

 

III.       The Cowards.

 

It must be obvious, in retrospect, how psychological projection must arise. The apathy and cowardice I hated was not my projection, for it is the very **source** of such projection, and, by hating it instead of letting it persist and worm its way into my heart, I kept projection at a distance, as with all excuses it was heir to, both from the neurotics and their equally neurotic therapists and advocates. We only are inclined to such projections out of **fear**, and only when that fear controls us. When I hate the coward, I do judge the action, but according to a Greater Good and not a feeble fear. Towards that end, intent makes all the difference.

Yet how can I be sure that the intent I see is **truly** cowardice or envy, while the critics who ascribe such vices to my heroes are delusional? It is because it’s *obvious* when *nothing* that the coward does is for the Greater Good, no opportunity for honour does he take, no basic reverence for goodness moves him. **That** intent is fact. Yet take a man who states his values and pursues them ruthlessly, who never wavers in that enterprise, committed to his goal with single-minded passion, almost to the point of madness, and good luck convincing me that “underneath it all” he was a troubled child and jealous adult.

I have no choice but to agree, since Heroes are antagonists within a Villain's story.

All that such analyses expose is the projection of the therapist, myopic and divorced from all the dignity of conflict. In the realm of **conflict**, it is obvious as day what one intends: the coward hides and flees; the hero runs in yelling. Yet the coward thinks the hero is a madman, and the call to action, through a therapeutic lens, is nothing but a nervous breakdown!!

You did not stop him, and you knew. (How in the Hell is this a "breakdown", but not of the man whom it condemns?)

How pathetic, truly, that an automatic censor in a chatroom scans for “coward”, not for “murder”. I can post a list of crimes from Fandom’s “Villains” wiki, but to call a man a “coward” should require the approval of a moderator.

"The better part of valor is discretion." - The Original Apologist for Cowardice, Sir John.

**[({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