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

 IV.       The Mobs.


Still these cowards run our world, sarcastically remarking on our passion from a good, safe distance, charmingly or snidely, all depending on the “social context” written by the therapists. It is small wonder that the “Villains” wiki classifies Light Yagami as being not just “evil” but “**pure** evil”. Clearly, saving millions of lives, while ending those that cannot be redeemed, is not “redeeming” in itself, and legions of supporters, all over the World, are just “delusional” when just a couple cops express disgust, the latter following instructions from a kid who does not care for Law **nor** Justice but investigates a vigilante for his own **amusement.**

^ Such a paragon of ethical complexity and vision.

How convenient to those who never had to **bother** with such lofty concepts but depended on these agencies for their security!! If **these** are those same people who would sympathize with murderers who murder out of fear or envy, then they clearly hate the Hero since they don’t wish to be targets of his malice, should they find themselves in prison following financial setbacks (or whatever cheap excuse you’ll make them) of their own. They’ll always judge from good, safe distances, within the cozy realm of subjectivity, inside a cloister of familiar opinion.

How brave and stunning. Falstaff would be proud.

Yet should one man bring all their judgements to a logical conclusion, they would shrink away from his “extremist” outlook; Heaven help them should he put it into *practice*, thinking that he was protecting **them!!** It’s no great wonder that disgust within a group remains their only rubric for “pure evil”; all they have is their security in groups.

That's right: this kid is your leader.

Yet it is this precise mentality which lets them do such horrid things in mobs and vilify the Heroes who oppose them. They’ll defend the cops as heroes, irrespective of due process, just so long as Kira is the greater threat; they’ll pummel cops with sex toys if they fear police brutality. Why bother to discern the fiction from the fact where they’re concerned? They have no moral objectivity in either.

... Except when you are.
 

**[({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