The THESIS: Death to Cowards. [Part V and Conclusion.]

V.       The Enemy.

 

What these jokers want is not a saviour, but somebody to “relate” with. They don’t care about the facts; they **want** it all to pander to their meaningless projections. They don’t want to practice what they preach; (for it would always fall apart, without objective infrastructure) they just want **excuses.** “Goodness”, to their minds, is being innocent and lucky not to have to bother with another’s pain, except when such an Other is a fellow coward whose existence seems to vindicate the Self.

One might then be inclined to posit, for a moment, that they all deserve the hellish World we live in. Yet that’s being much too generous with credit, yet again.  Remember: that not **all** of us are like them, (though they’d lead you to believe it) and not everyone who isn’t evil is a coward. Rather, evil **is** the cowardice, though cowards have conspired to believe themselves to be the good, to vilify the Heroes and destroy the innocent.

The only people who don't see it coming are the ones who let it happen.

Yet innocence persists, as well as Heroism. It **appears** under the veil of cowardly projection, but it’s virtue in disguise. Cowards don’t deserve the Hell we live in, since the rest of us deserve far better than to let them shape our World. The thought that anyone **could** save the World (from them!!) eludes them, since they have no such ability and must deny it in the Other for their precious “sanity”. Were someone to succeed, they’d label him (or her, etc.) “delusional” rather than bearing witness to the triumph.

Truly, Light was **not** delusional nor even egotistical. He managed to do more for Others than the average human being ever could. That’s why “projection” does not work in action: none of his denouncers ever found the strength to do what he had done. The fact that others **wouldn’t** use the Death Note only proves his point: it had to be one man.

Yet there are more of us than one may think. Light **had** to operate alone; **we** don’t. We’ll save this World together, though it vilifies us. Those “disturbing” characters I love, whom others vilify, form quite the lengthy list, yet just the fact there are so many Heroes in disguise should prove that we are **not** alone.

 

**[({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