Corrupt At The Very Core
ONE of the most depressing styles of 'thinking' that seems to pervert the morality of
people far more than is
actually evident to most of us concerns the willingness of people to foist
injustices upon others in order, somehow, to protect themselves.
This selfishness is exhibited in so many
areas that it seems more like a pervasive infectious virus that needs to be
eradicated rather than a minor aberration.
Whether the discussion concerns domestic
violence, capital punishment or sexual assault, it seems that the majority of
people are nowadays more than happy to prosecute, persecute or
disadvantage others in some way, no matter how great the potential injustice, so
long as they, somehow, feel better protected.
Take the issue of capital punishment, for
example. It seems that the majority of folk in this country are in favour of it,
even though they are aware that innocent people might be executed. Their
argument is usually that the world would be a safer place if there was capital
punishment, and that, therefore, the price of a few miscarriages of justice is
In other words, killing a few innocent men is worth the benefit to
them in terms of feeling marginally safer - though, in fact, they are not.
However, if you ask these people directly
whether they would be happy for themselves, or for their partners, or for their parents,
or for their offspring, or for their friends, to be so executed, even though they were
innocent, they readily admit that they would, of course, not be at all
Further, they would also claim that they
would vigorously oppose such a horrendous action.
"No WAY are you going to execute my INNOCENT loved one.
"No WAY are you going to execute my
INNOCENT loved one. I am, at the very least, going to create HELL of a fuss about this!"
And, it is at this point, on this
admission, that one must expose their hypocrisy. Thus, ...
"I see. You would be extremely
UN-happy for YOUR son to be executed for an offence that he didn't commit, but,
so long as it is someone else's innocent son who is executed, then you couldn't
give a damn. In other words, so long as YOU'RE ALL RIGHT JACK, then you don't
give a toss about injustices to others. So long as YOUR little world seems a
little safer, everyone else can go to Hell! They can even be executed despite their
innocence, so long as YOU are all right, and you feel a teensy bit safer."
And, at this point, such people usually
accept that their selfishness and their distorted sense of justice have been
exposed and, further, that both are utterly
On top of this, their
attitude is shown to be no better than that of the common murderer who ALSO thinks that
killing innocent people is OK.
Indeed, they are 'at one' with such a
Their notions of 'justice' are exactly the same.
Killing innocent people is fine, so long
as I'M ALL RIGHT JACK.
This is EXACTLY how murderers feel.
So what's the difference between them!?
What exactly is the difference between
someone who kills an innocent person and someone who merely thinks that doing so
is quite OK?
Morally speaking, "Not much!" is the answer.
But it isn't just on the issue of capital
punishment that this shamefulness occurs. It also arises
in other areas.
For example, innocent men are evicted from their homes and prevented from
seeing their children without any evidence against them. Teachers have their
careers ruined and become unemployable when they are merely accused of
misconduct - even when they are later found not guilty of any offence. And the
legal procedures adopted in areas such as these have been drawn up on the
presumption that it is OK to damage, debilitate and prosecute people (men
mostly) and to ruin their lives, simply in order to make life APPEAR safer
(mostly 'for women and children') on the grounds that some of these men MIGHT
have committed an offence and, in any event, the world is safer by taking such
But the same perversion of justice applies.
"You wouldn't want any of these
things to happen to YOU, or to YOUR innocent loved ones, but you are quite happy
for such things to happen to INNOCENT others, so long as you feel that you, yourself,
reap some kind of benefit. And, so long as YOU ARE ALL RIGHT JACK, then you
couldn't give a damn about injustice to others."
It is my belief that such people need to
be shaken out of their warped sense of justice and of their complacent attitudes
toward the poor treatment of innocent individuals.
For example - and in general - whenever I
hear our fawning politicians or our hateful feminists actually supporting
policies that treat INNOCENT men unfairly on the basis that it might protect a
few women (e.g. in the area of domestic violence, sex-assault etc) then I KNOW that
listening to someone who does not deserve my respect.
After all, there are only two
Either such people don't really care about
anyone else, or they care only for themselves and for those who are important to
them. And, in EITHER case, they are clearly people who feel that so long as
THEY'RE ALL RIGHT JACK then everything is just dandy!
Well, if they do not care about any damage to
innocent others so long as they and their dear ones
remain untouched, then they deserve to be exposed for the shallow,
self-serving, hypocrites that they must be.
And, talking about 'shallow,
self-serving, hypocrites' has reminded me of an email that I sent to a Canadian woman
who was arguing for the most draconian measures to be meted out to men in Canada
who were simply accused of domestic violence or of threatening it. (You can get
some idea about what is going on in Canada from Dave
Brown's article about Bill 117)
Needless to say, she was none too pleased
to hear me suggest that she was exposing herself to be a 'shallow, self-serving,
hypocrite' by supporting these terrible measures.
I got a long reply!
But it boiled down to this.
If many women were protected by such
measures then, frankly, the costs to a 'few' innocent men was surely worth it.
I wrote back and simply asked her this.
If it was her own INNOCENT adult son who was being kicked out of his home and losing his
children through a false allegation of domestic violence, would she do nothing, or would she create hell of a fuss?
She never answered.
But, of course, whichever answer she might have given would have exposed her
as being EXACTLY what I had accused her of being.
She was caught both ways.
EITHER she would, indeed, make a fuss to protect her
innocent son - in which case she was a woman who was clearly concerned only
for her own loved ones - i.e. she was concerned for herself - OR, she wasn't even concerned about
her own loved ones!
Indeed, people who support actions that harm
innocent others have no moral grounds on which to
They have hit the moral low ground. In
fact, they cannot get much lower. And it doesn't take much to expose them.
Further, it is well worth noting that the
usual 'justification' for harming innocent others is of the sort that actively
avoids having to come up with the solution to avoid the problems in
"What else can we do?" they
And, at this point, one should jump in
and tell them!
They should damn
well come up with solutions that PROPERLY protect innocent others!
And, until they do this, they should continue to be exposed for the selfish, self-serving,
hypocrites that they must be.
If people are quite happy to destroy the lives of innocent
others, just so that their world feels a little more secure and comfortable, or to capture
votes, or to make money out of the hysteria, or to increase their own powers,
then they really should be hounded.
And they deserve to be hounded.
And, if some of these people feel that
this is a bit strong, and somewhat 'unjustified' ...
... because they ...
OF ALL PEOPLE
... do not really have a moral leg to
stand on, do they?
After all, if they think that it is
perfectly acceptable to harm innocent others in order to make themselves
feel more secure, then they can hardly complain if people harm them in
order to achieve a similar increase of security for themselves.
Also see AH's The Golden Rule
to see why MRAs should have no reservations about striking very hard at those
groups that are prepared to inflict injustices on others in order to pursue
their own self-serving aims.