|
|
The murder of Charlie Kirk and widespread celebration of it in leftist circles has clarified what may have been less clear before.
The choice for modern citizens of the United States is not as gray as it used to be. It has become starkly binary in terms of worldview. It is apparently a choice between life or death. As multiple different social media personalities have observed, it's useless to pretend any longer that the problem is 'both sides.' Violence and the approval of violence has become 90% Left and 10% Right. The justification of this leftist violence against conservatives has been solidified by manufactured speculative scenarios that have never been observed in real life, nor have these scenarios ever been seriously suggested for implementation by high profile right wing individuals. This fact has neither slowed nor lessened the increasing irrational fear leftists maintain that conservatives are going to round them up and do whatever their dark leftist imaginations can conceive of after that. To compensate for the real-life conservative lack of interest in doing anyone harm, leftists have constructed an entire narrative that claims conservatives are evil control freaks who want to 'genocide' (kill) entire groups of people. Even though reality has not supported this view, the propaganda is relentless and growing in popularity. It is a safe bet that every single person who is celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk has never bothered to actually listen to Kirk's message and why he believed the family was so important to our country's survival and potential to thrive. Instead, they watch edited clips and commentary from people who further the hateful narrative and fear-mongering. Instead, they support and affirm each other in insulated social media bubbles that encourage the anxiety, fear and anger that resulted in the horribly violent death of Charlie Kirk. Here's the thing. The main subjects of contention between liberals and conservatives are these:
Abortion vs Birth: Amid euphemisms such as 'pro-choice,' 'bodily autonomy,' 'pregnancy interruption,' 'elective termination,' 'health care,' 'fetal reduction,' and 'reproductive choice,' the fact remains that abortion literally equals death for the unborn human being, while birth literally equals life. Rationalization about quality of life does not justify intentional murder. Let's say an innocent teenager is crossing the street, and someone runs her over, killing her instantly. The driver wanted to get from point A to point B as soon as possible. Is the convenience of the driver more important than the life of the teenager? Transgenderism vs Biological Naturalism: Transgender medical prescriptions and procedures seek to introduce changes to a body that are not intrinsically suited for that body because gender is DNA-hardwired into every aspect of an organism that is born with reproductive organs. The long term effects of these experimental treatments often include not only sterility and an inability to nurse future children, but the suicidal incidence rate of people who opt for gender reassignment is so shockingly high (before, during AND after reassignment), it deserves a great deal more investigation than anyone who supports gender reassignment is willing to commit. Based on sterility and suicide alone, transgenderism is certainly not about producing or preserving life, but instead encouraging unprecedented levels of identity confusion and filling the pockets of the pharmacological, psychiatric and medical professions. These factors have greatly contributed to unprecedented spikes in depression, anxiety and death by suicide, and in some unfortunate cases the deaths of innocent people as well. LGBT values vs Traditional values Traditional values are most often associated with heterosexual families consisting of a father, mother and their children. Traditional values typically encompass protecting and preserving the family as a unit. These include having sex with only your spouse, and protecting and nurturing the offspring this coupling produces. LGBT values are all centered around the choice to replace a monogamous heterosexual sex life with one that does not produce children. Although this is not actually directly choosing death, it is choosing a lifestyle that deliberately does not procreate, which would eventually result in the end of the human species if practiced by all. DEI vs Individual Merit Diversity, Equity and Inclusion are assumed to be unassailable concepts until you look closer at what their official implementation accomplishes. Airplane pilots are currently a focal point of the debate, but surely any profession that can potentially cause death by subpar performance should be practiced by individuals who are held to the highest possible standard. This standard is naturally upheld by rigorous training requirements, it can't be guaranteed by inflating employment percentages with potentially less qualified people. Representational percentages in a workforce should be generated naturally, with free market competition and achievement, not side-stepped with an irrelevant desire to make sure there are equal percentages of arbitrarily selected groups. Gender Inclusion vs Binary Biology So as the reasoning seems to go, there are infinite varieties of genders available to pick and choose from, and each one is rooted in the concept that it can be easily traded for another when the whim suits a person. While this sort of mercurial challenge to biological reality doesn't directly cause death, the contrasting contingency of binary biology has existed as a bedrock through millennia of human experience, upon which was built all family trees that now populate the Earth. Therefore, to claim gender is no longer binary, and to demand an emotionally driven spectrum of ever-growing neo-pronouns, is to embrace a new paradigm that leads not to the propagation of the species but instead a chaotic melange of philosophical confusion that may or may not produce a child automatically saddled with generational angst. Unrestrained Immigration vs Managed Immigration Certainly one may argue that not every illegal alien is a murderer or rapist, that would be very easy to prove. But one may not claim that every illegal alien is not a criminal, because their very status of entering and living in the USA without going through a proper vetting process makes them criminals. The issue of unrestrained immigration versus managed immigration is complex, and there is no easy answer. Employment concerns, tax-based assistance abuse and violent and non-violent crime are all subject to debate based on statistics. Percentages of violent criminality may be argued over, no doubt. However there is also no doubt that every citizen that is trafficked, overdosed, raped or killed by the activities of illegal aliens is a victim that would not have been a victim had the border been secured. Therefore choosing unrestrained immigration opens the door to needless death by sheer probability. Gun Control vs Gun Ownership This debate seems to be a no-brainer for those who wish to do away with private gun ownership. Their logic simply stated is, if you have zero guns, you have zero gun deaths. That does seem logical on its face. The problem lies in real-world implementation of gun confiscation. The irony is that law-abiding citizens are the only ones who would turn in their guns. This would have the immediate result of a lot more potential innocent victims across the country as of course criminals by their very nature would not turn their guns in. Gun ownership acts as both an enforcement of civility and a protection of the innocent. Gun control proponents foolishly assume that everyone will abide by allegedly agreed-upon rules. Taking guns away from responsible citizens, thus leaving them vulnerable to aggressors who have not given up their guns, would lead to a lot more suffering and death than the unfortunate statistics we currently struggle with thanks to those same aggressors who already terrorize the innocent. Would those same aggressors suddenly agree to behave properly just because their potential victims have less means to defend themselves? Defund Police vs Increase Police Despite current denials that defunding the police was ever suggested or proposed, the concept swept the country in 2020 when every opportunist realized their chaos was not being stopped by the authorities. City councils filed and voted on measures that would weaken their city's police departments and divert the funds to social workers who have never been trained nor equipped for dangerous perpetrators. Nightly during the summer and winter of 2020 we were treated to live video streams of crowds of protesters who used aggressive intimidation toward disinterested citizens, used incendiary devices against government buildings, set police cars on fire, destroyed store fronts and stole designer handbags and big screen TVs as a means to soothe the starving need for bread according to Alexandria Ocassio-Cortez, assaulted detractors and law enforcement officers to the point of hospitalization or even death, and boldly dismissed civility that they automatically insisted they deserved to receive in return. Had we only employed more law enforcement officers during that time, and had they actually upheld the law instead of obeying the impotent orders from their politically biased superiors, there would not have been so much destruction, assault and death. Release Offenders vs Incarcerate Offenders There are many in society who think if we just set everyone up in a nice, clean suburban home, tell them how much we love them, give them praise just for existing and forgive them every time they victimize someone, that they will play nice with everyone who works and tries to carve out a decent life. Statistics and rates of recidivism completely destroy that Utopian ideal, but the true believers will not be dissuaded, regardless how many innocent people pay the horrible price for their historically ineffective experiment. On the other hand, the method for thousands of years of protecting the civil members of society by removing the criminal element and placing it either behind bars or in the hangman's noose was always effective, hence its staying power. More violent criminals off the streets literally equals less murders of civilians. Wear a Mask vs Don't Wear a Mask In 2020, we were given mixed messages over time regarding the efficacy of wearing a mask to stop the spread of COVID. One of the more incendiary messages was that if we didn't wear a mask, we'd be killing grandma. We were also told that children in school must wear masks, even though freely available and plentiful data from Europe clearly indicated children were not at risk. We also now know the emotional and educational damage that forcing young children to wear masks has wrought. At some point Saint Fauci acquiesced and admitted the masks did not prevent or slow the spread. At another point, it was admitted that the vaccine did not prevent the contraction of nor spread of COVID. At another point the much-ridiculed lab theory of origin was acknowledged as the highest probability source of COVID. This comparison is unique from the rest in this essay, because the narratives of vaccine/no vaccine and mask/no mask were independent of the truth about COVID: People with multiple co-morbidities were in the highest risk factor for death, not those who skipped the vaccine or decided to stop wearing a mask. That was the fault of the people who created the virus, not of the innocent people on Earth who were exposed to it. Climate Anxiety vs Climate Acknowledgment Unless you subscribe to the manipulated statistics that place us all dead or living in Waterworld by 2031, according to Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez in 2019, or the ten year window Al Gore insisted we had left to prevent disaster (ending in 2016, nearly ten years ago), you may have noticed that dire predictions from manipulated statistics come and go through the decades, and Obama's house on the ocean shore is still not being touched by the surf. Instead of just a snarky commentary, the previous paragraph exists to make a point about the emotional effects of the climate change narrative. Through time and many deadlines passed with no actual consequence, the sensible person understands that whatever the global climate does, it was, is and will be always be manageable by human beings, as we've managed to survive thousands of years of climate change already. The assertion here is that those who acknowledged the changes in global temperatures, but decided not to believe the prognostications of doom, were free from the anxiety and attendant depression that sometimes resulted in suicide. Therefore the climate change narrative has generated more death than the narrative that we're all going to be fine regardless. Drug Legalization vs Drug Prevention Why wouldn't people who enjoy recreational drugs support the legalization of them? Illicit drug use in this country is staggering in the amount of death it generates. Those who insist that legalization would solve many problems are concentrating on the weakening of the illegal drug trade as well as generating more tax revenue. What these proponents prefer to dismiss as the price of doing business (so they can have ready access to their drugs of choice) is that once these destructive drugs are no longer stigmatized or made harder to obtain, the amount of deaths will substantially increase as more will view these legitimized drugs as an acceptable risk. So, TLDR: illegal drugs kill huge amounts of people every year, but legalizing those same drugs would remove any obstacles that the rest of the population had for avoiding them, thus generating substantially more deaths by sheer probability. In conclusion, a quick survey of the above bullet points should net a resounding recognition of the differences in terms of death. But of course, subjective truth being what it is and all...deaf ears probably came in pretty handy for many of you. |