Connect with us

Culture and Religion

The Context of Life

Published

on

Man #1 shoots Man #2. As a result, Man #2 dies. Is Man #1 a murderer?

Obviously, it depends. Context matters. Did Man #1 fire in self-defense? Did he shoot Man #2 by accident? Was Man #1 part of a legally appointed firing squad or under a hypnotic trance? Was the weapon a prop gun that mistakenly contained live ammunition? There are many points to consider before we can definitively say that an instance of killing constitutes murder.

Let’s try another thought exercise: protesters are gunned down by a neighboring country’s military forces. Is this murder? Is it a breach of international law? Is it a gross violation of human rights?

Again, it depends. Context matters. Are these protesters peaceful, or are they, say, planting landmines, tossing grenades, hurling molotov cocktails, and threatening to invade the country that is firing back at them? Have these protesters sworn to murder and pillage their neighbors until they are eradicated from the earth, all in the name of radical religious zeal? Are upwards of 50 out of the 62 protesters killed members of a terrorist organization?

Here’s another one: are illegal immigrants animals?

That depends; are the immigrants in question members of a ruthless gang that rips the beating hearts out of its victims? Do these immigrants peddle drugs, commit brutal assaults, and routinely rape women? Given the context and Oxford’s alternative definition of “animal” — “a person whose behavior is regarded as devoid of human attributes or civilizing influences, especially someone who is very cruel, violent, or repulsive. Synonyms: brute, beast, monster, devil, demon, fiend” — I think we can deem that perhaps too kind a descriptor.

Some people, however, seem to reject the value of context when it goes against their narrative. For instance, on the issue of calling MS-13 members “animals,” singer John Legend tweeted on Thursday, “Even human beings who commit heinous acts are the same species as us, not ‘animals’. I’m in the hospital with our new son. Any of these babies here could end up committing terrible crimes in the future. It’s easy, once they’ve done so, to distance ourselves from their humanity. … Dehumanizing large groups of people is the demagogue’s precursor to visiting violence and pain upon them.”

While MS-13 undoubtedly deserves any visitation of violence and pain upon them, the most glaring hole in Legend’s argument is that mere hours ago, he wouldn’t have considered “any of these babies” to be the same species as him (except when it’s his own baby). And as an outspoken donor and supporter of Planned Parenthood, he wouldn’t hesitate to defend the visitation of violence and pain upon them. But because of arbitrary abortion arguments, Legend and countless other Leftists ascribe more humanity to murderous villains than preborn babies.

Ironically, the one issue where Leftists insist on considering context is the one topic for which nuance is largely counterproductive — the sanctity of life.

As mentioned earlier, not all killing is murder, nor is it always unjustified. The right to life is unalienable, meaning it is intrinsic and therefore cannot be given nor taken away by man. It can, however, be surrendered through certain violations of another person’s unalienable rights. This is why many conservatives support capital punishment for perpetrators of homicide and rape. But it’s critical to recognize that this position is taken in order to emphasize the dignity of life and the severity of seriously harming and/or violating it. Similar reasoning is what justifies depriving someone of their unalienable right to liberty after they’ve committed a crime — they’ve automatically surrendered that right based on their actions.

That single caveat aside, any attempt to contextualize the debate for life pushes the dialogue further down a nonsensical rabbit hole designed to cheapen the worth of the weakest among us, or, to borrow Legend’s term, “dehumanize” them. At every turn, the argument gets slipperier and slipperier.

The Left will say that all human life is precious, even murderers, but they don’t extend this philosophy to unborn babies.

“Context!” they scream. “Fetuses aren’t fully human, and they aren’t really alive.”

Even if we gave the Left that argument, we have to ask whether fetal life, though not fully developed, is still worth protecting.

But the Left can’t give a straight answer here either, because while they celebrate a woman’s choice to terminate her unborn child, they cry for the conservation of fetuses that aren’t even human, proclaiming their inherent dignity well before birth. Eagle and sea turtle eggs come to mind, among other examples.

Next, the Left tries to establish what differentiates a human before birth and a human after birth, or rather what about birth makes someone human, but their attempts at context again fall short:

On one hand, they say it’s about viability outside of the womb, but standards of what constitutes viability are fully arbitrary. A baby born at 37 weeks is no more viable than one at 41 weeks that refuses to pop out — but because it’s still in the womb, it’s still not a living human, apparently. A baby born at 25 weeks in a big city is more viable than a baby born at 35 weeks in the boonies. My one-year-old daughter couldn’t survive without constant care from someone else, and neither could many elderly folks.

Other pro-aborts claim that if there’s no heartbeat, there’s no life, yet I don’t see many of them rushing to pull the plug on grandpa because he’s hooked up to a pacemaker.

I’ve heard some say that a baby’s first breath is what makes it human — so what about those who require artificial sources of oxygen? And if air confers humanity, then why aren’t all air-breathing animals human? If it determines life, then what happens when I hold my breath? I have the potential to breathe again, just as a fetus, left alone, has the potential to be born through natural processes.

The same goes for the sentience test. People in comas still enjoy an unalienable right to life.

Under the law, a woman can abort her baby, but if a pregnant woman is murdered, the assailant is charged with double homicide. No context can sensibly explain this double standard.

Some on the Right are guilty of it too. When asked whether abortion is murder, many engage in a similar exercise to the example I presented earlier about whether a shooting death necessarily constitutes murder: “it depends, what are the circumstances?”

There is no nuance to this question. Either the intentional taking of innocent life is murder or it is not. What difference does it make whether the baby was the result of rape or incest? I’ve stated in this very article that rape sometimes requires taking a life — but the baby is not the guilty party. Either life is sacred or it is not, regardless of how it got there.

Others cite the safety of the mother as context, but this argument is likewise flawed. Pursuing a vital cure for a woman’s ailment that indirectly harms the baby isn’t the intentional taking of innocent life but an unfortunate externality, so it’s not murder. And the case for actively terminating a pregnancy to save a mother is virtually identical to a self-defense argument, but again, there’s a problem: a baby is not an aggressor. It does not violate a woman’s rights, and a woman cannot violate the rights of her baby.

And a baby either has rights or it doesn’t. “Unalienable” means a baby doesn’t magically receive rights the moment it exits the birth canal, nor are a human’s rights any less inherent because he or she is dependent on someone or something else to sustain them. From the moment of existence, all human life has worth.

Life is the only consistent position, and it is so straightforward that it requires no nuance. Life either has intrinsic value or it does not. Context matters in almost every discussion of politics. But on the question of life, what people think is context is just an excuse to kill.


Richie Angel is the Editor at Large of thenewguards.net. Follow him and The New Guards on Twitter, and check out The New Guards on Facebook.

Advertisement

0

Culture and Religion

Hashtag Authoritarianism: How the Left uses subtle methods to manipulate the electorate

Published

on

By

Hashtag Authoritarianism How the Left uses subtle methods to manipulate the electorate

The danger of the Authoritarian Socialist Left using social media trends and tricks to alter opinions.

The dominant social media publishers are exerting their influence subliminally and the situation is only getting worse. It’s to the point that a small and exceedingly undemocratic elite could decide to swing future elections to the Left from now on.

This was extensively discussed in a recent congressional hearing where experts and victims of social media free speech suppression presented the problem in stark terms on the future of our representative republic

#Istandwith [insert name of SJW ‘victim’]

The danger in all of this was perfectly exemplified by the initial report of an alleged ‘verbal assault’ of Georgia Democrat Erica Thomas by a “white man” because she had too many items in the express lane. Suddenly the erstwhile hashtag #IstandwithErica trended and we were off to the races.

At first, she doubled down on her lies. Then she backpedalled, but not before showing the gullibility of several candidates for president.

What is rather interesting is that the hashtag in question started trending in the early afternoon Saturday, staying in the list for what was trending in the colonies for a few hours and then suddenly dropping off the list as though it has never been there. Then early Sunday another hashtag #HateHoax emerged.

These hashtags can easily drive a particular narrative, emphasising certain themes over others. These ‘trends’ are then picked up by a lazy national socialist media to drive the news cycle. All based on a hidden realm that decides what is ‘trending’ now.

Who determines what is trending?

According to Twitter, Trends are determined by an algorithm [In other words, we don’t want to tell you] depending on a number of factors. However, it is quite telling that certain trends can be ‘promoted’ or placed at the top of the list for money. What’s to stop some enterprising employee from adjusting the ‘algorithm’ to have a certain topic or issue trend?

There is a touch of mob rule in those who post in the trending twitter hashtag lists. People who want to be part of the crowd in adding their voice to the issue or cause. This is made easier with the ‘#Istandwith[insert name of someone of instant fame]’ format. Then it’s easier to go along with the SJW crowd – saying something without actually saying something.

If hashtags can be ‘promoted’ what is to stop the dominant social media publishers from ‘demoting a trending tag?

AutoComplete autocracy.

All hashtags are equal, but some hashtags are more equal than others to paraphrase George Orwell. This was seen in the little graphic added to the ‘#Marchforourlives’ or #Pride tags. Apparently, this is a perk of being of a certain political bent. Then there is the very useful feature of auto completing certain tags. Meanwhile, other tags don’t seem to engender this benefit because they don’t fit into the politics of the ‘algorithms’.

The hashtag #LibertyControl is a prime example, since it contravenes the #GunControl hashtag, framing this issue as being one of Liberty instead of inanimate objects of metal and wood, it does accrue the ‘perks’ of a more politically palatable tag.

Desire for control determines one’s place on the political spectrum.

Governmental power or desire for control is the only practical metric for arranging the political spectrum. It is to the advantage of some groups to obfuscate or confuse the issue, leaving it undefined, but with the implication that Left means good and Right means bad or some other nonsense.

These vague metrics are confusing at best and dreadfully false at worst. The metric of governmental power or desire for control is the underlying theme to almost all dictionary definitions of political ideologies, thus, this makes the most sense. Never mind that it eviscerates certain political lies or long-held but farcical beliefs.

For all of their false protestations over a desire for democracy, the far-Left radical socialists only want one thing: Power. For all their words about equality, they desire the exact opposite just as happens with their use of the term Liberal in connection with the cause of Liberty.

These examples show that the Left is using the dominant social media publishers to manipulate and control the electorate. Control epitomises the Left and the Left epitomises control, even if it’s by covert methods and hashtags.

The Takeaway.

While these issues may seem rather inconsequential, consider that we as a nation are on the razor’s edge in what happens in the next few years. Its not being overly hyperbolic to assert that if the national socialist Left attains control of the government in 2020 that will be the end of the country. Were they to win, they will no doubt open the borders and offer anyone and every free goodies all paid for by the taxpayers – until the run out of other people’s money.

Authoritarianism via hashtags is but one method the Left wants to use to accomplish that goal. Create a crisis or cause and have it trend and have enough people vote for their own enslavement almost subconsciously.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Ben Carson points to Trump’s policies as proof he is not a racist

Published

on

Ben Carson points to Trumps policies as proof he is not a racist

HUD Secretary Ben Carson knows about racism. He’s dealt with it throughout his life growing up in Detroit. He knows how to recognize a racist and makes an important point about President Trump as the media and Democrats continue to paint him as a bigot. His point: If you want to see whether or not Trump is a racist, look at his policies.

I’ll take that sentiment up a notch and say look at the results of his policies. The unemployment rates for black and Hispanic Americans are at all-time lows. His attempts to thwart illegal immigration are designed protect and empower legal immigrants. And the freedom to live as an American citizen regardless of race or any other element of intersectionality has never been higher. If Trump is a racist, he’s very bad at it.

The point the media and Democrats point to is a Tweet that many question whether or not it was a racist sentiment. Don’t buy into the media lies that it’s a foregone conclusion; they are using the logical fallacy of “begging the question” in order to try to convince the American people that they don’t like Trump’s Tweet. But in reality, what he said in context was not racist. Irresponsible? Yes. Inappropriate? Maybe, maybe not. The House members he was referring to have a tendency to inflame people, mostly in a negative way, and have demonstrated clearly anti-American worldviews through their own words and actions.

Secretary Carson’s point should be heeded by all Americans. If Trump is a racist, his policies certainly don’t reflect that. If he’s trying to keep minorities down, he’s failing miserably. But look at the state of minorities in Democratic cities. Different story.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

What the far-Left radical socialists do not understand: They are now a small political minority

Published

on

By

What the far-Left radical socialists do not understand They are now a small political minority

Studies have shown that the far-Left radical socialists are an ever-shrinking but excessively vocal political minority.

This is one of those columns that’s been in composition for weeks, being a number of ideas that floated about in their own eco-sphere until they attained enough weight to gel together. Oddly enough, the spark was a piece on journalist Andy Ngo in Buzzfeed ‘News’. Apparently being attacked by a mob of the fascist Left that put him in hospital was the best thing for his career, never mind the neurological aftereffects.

Much like the stopped clock being right twice a day, the Far-Left media does get things correct on occasion. They have begun to label anyone not of their ilk to be on the ‘center-right’ or Conservative as in this case.

The Hidden tribes study showed this to be a stark situation for the far-Left radical socialists, with only 8% of the country self-identifying as such. These are what the study termed to be ‘Progressive’ activists [ a misnomer in itself since they want to go back to the failed ideas of socialism of the past – but we digress]. However, they do have it correct in that most who are not of their collectivist cadres are on the Pro-Liberty Right, the country’s political majority.

The political minority that is the far-Left radical socialists: The Totalitarian Ten Percent

We’ve rounded this up to 10% for generosity and alliteration to be the Totalitarian Ten Percent as an accurate and handy moniker for those who want to ‘Rule the population’. This is the ever shrinking true believers in socialism, that dismiss the stark evidence of it’s 400 years of failure as ‘not really being socialism’ or some such nonsense. Many on the Conservative-Right have eviscerated this mythology numerous times:

The study showed the rest of the population as being the opposite of the ‘Totalitarian Ten Percent’. The people in the 90% fall into the defined categories of the rational political spectrum as being on the Pro-Liberty Right moving from the political center with ‘Traditional and passive’ Liberals, those politically disengaged, moderates and Conservatives.

Studies on ‘Political correctness’ the culture and Liberty destroying scourge of our day also show a decreasing tendency for ‘concern’ on this issue. As has been the case throughout our history, we have fixed the problems that have plagued us. The issue is that while the political majority on the right has righted these wrongs. The political minority on the socialist Far-Left has taken credit for these actions and then come up with new issues no one else care about, such as the labeling of underground cable access points as ‘manholes’. The rest of us on the Pro-Liberty political majority right don’t care, we’re too busy living our lives..

The problem of the Totalitarian Ten Percent annoying everyone else.

The problem for the political majority is that Totalitarian Ten Percent holds the attention or is part of the nation’s socialist media. While their ratings and audience are shrinking at an alarming rate for them, they have an unfortunate tendency to lash out at the rest of us. Their desperation has driven them to want to burn it all down, causing havoc and chaos, so they can step in and offer their ‘solution’. These are, of course, the usual concepts of an ‘Ideal state’ born in the Socratic dialogues of Plato’s Republic from 2,400 years ago, ideas that have failed for centuries but are now supposedly ‘new’.

This is why they want the insanity of open borders, free health care for the world, gun confiscation and strict controls on the Liberty of free speech. This is their ‘Hail Mary’ play to avoid ignominious defeat of their precious cult of collectivism. Encourage as many illegal invaders from around the world, in addition to murderous criminal gang members and drugs, to stream over the border to be newly minted citizens that can vote for all kinds of goodies with other people’s money.

Their socialist national agenda is clear to all that are listening, offer free healthcare, free college, free housing, free food, free childcare, free money and anything else they can think of. To everyone and anyone willing to pay thousands to hop a flight to Brazil and cross the Southern border.

All of this ‘paid’ for by simply – and insanely – inflating the money supply.  The funds for this extreme largess eventually being other peoples’ money. Never mind that their ‘Flat Earth’ socialist ideology has never worked in 4 Centuries, or that one way or another, it will destroy the economy. That’s a feature, not a bug for them, because in their minds, when the whole thing inevitably implodes, they will run in and offer their ‘solution’. In much the same way that they are offering the same solution to Obamacare imploding.

In the case of the inspiration for writing this, the piece from Buzzfeed ‘News’ was essentially another case of the overly vocal socialist far-Left blaming the victim. The piece also expended a number of electrons describing virtually anyone not of their collectivist mindset as Conservative or on the right, hardly attributable to some media personalities who ‘rightfully’ [pardon the pun] consider themselves to be Liberal or moderate. Thus was the inspiration for this essay.

It’s time for the rational 90% to stand up for sanity.

There are obvious problems with a small political minority of ‘neo Bolsheviks’ wanting to run everyone’s life, beginning with their complete hypocrisy [what else is new] in making demands for democracy. But then again, these are people who disdain Liberty while pretending to be ‘Liberal’ or want to go back to failed ancient ideas while being ‘progressive’. Of course, Leftists have explained that apparently ‘Liberty’ and ‘freedom’ are imaginary constructs – along with the concept of money. Illustrating just how far they have gone in losing the plot.

The Authoritarian Socialist Left would like to run everyone’s life for various reasons, social justice, global cooling, or just because they somehow are more intelligent than the rest of us [Just as them]. We of the rational 90% would just like to be ‘left’ alone, we do not care about their ever changing sensibilities over language. We do not care about their repetition of the dangers of global cooling, global warming, Climate change, climate emergency, climate crisis, or whatever it is this week. We don’t care that someone else is making a dollar more than us, the economy is humming along nicely.

Were they truly interested in democracy, Liberty or Progress, the far-Left radical socialists would advocate what works in the real world: Economic freedom. The fact that they want to impose by force a system that has never worked by undemocratic means to the detriment of Liberty should tell us everything we need to know about why they should be rejected and opposed at every turn.

We are currently forming the American Conservative Movement. If you are interested in learning more, we will be sending out information in a few weeks.

American Conservative Movement

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending