The unperson. You know the reference. In the current framework, it means those who are out of favor because they are irrelevant or inconvenient for the cause. You know, the former homosexual who put the lifestyle behind him to get married and raise a family. The woman who believes children need two parents in distinct roles to raise them from a home, not a daycare center. Heck, the woman who opposes abortion. The black who votes republican and rejects the theory of systemic racism or even admires Robert E. Lee. Or the most recent and growing unpeople, those who regret that their parents and doctors changed their gender because at the ripe old age of one, someone reached for a blue blanket. You get the point.
On the other end of this scale are the negative unpeople. Those are the ones who aren't white or male or Christian or American and yet do naughty things. The black who murders whites after posting a racist screed against white people. Or worse, the black who murders Hispanics, Jews, or anyone else in a designated minority group. The child raping homosexual. The Islamic terrorist who coincidently keeps mentioning Allah whenever she kills someone. You know, the ones that break the 'if it's evil, it must be white or conservative or male or Christian' narrative.
But then you have the worst group of unpeople, the inconvenient victims. Jazmine Barnes will forever be the poster child for that group in my mind. They are the ones who suffer, die, are tortured or otherwise oppressed and abused - but can't be exploited to advance a progressive agenda. Mass shooting victims at the hands of a Muslim or a racist black man. Children abused by transgender or gay individuals. Victims of almost any disaster that can't somehow be laid at the feet of a group targeted by the Left. And that includes Americans suffering and struggling whenever there is a Democrat in the White House.
To deny that this is the way it works - and not just passively, but on purpose through carefully constructed media narrative templates - is right up there with believing the moon landings were a hoax. It's nakedly obvious. And it's purely evil. Especially evil is that last category. For the Scriptures do not say care for the widow and the orphan if doing so dost glorify the Left, otherwise ignore them. Yet how many believers today seem so programmed by the media's machinations that you can bet they will care when the press cares, and care how the press cares, or not really care at all.
I thought of that when I got this email from a reader. I don't typically post emails I get - though I read them all. But this one is worth noting just to see it's not me running about imagining things:
I noticed something kind of amusing. The usually verbose Deacon Steven Greydanus, always eager to share his thoughts on systemic racism and the moral turpitude of Donald Trump voters (a group I do not belong to), was uncharacteristically silent in response to the Kavanaugh news on Wednesday. Nothing on Facebook or Twitter.
Yep. In fairness to Deacon Greydanus and everyone else, if you blinked you'd miss the media coverage in general. You have to Google the tragedy by name to find stories. I Googled 'News' when I first heard about the horror to see if how low on the list of stories it was. Turned out it wasn't even mentioned in the general news feed. And that was a mere couple days after it happened. They just don't matter because Christians murdered are themselves small beans in the leftwing narrative. If they were murdered by members of a designated minority group, that's even worse. The story must die and die fast.
A terrible, demonic evil. Yet when I went to several Catholic sites and blogs to see any prayers or mention of the attack, I saw none. At least Deacon Greydanus did mention the horror, chastising the press for failing to mention Pentecost in its stories.
But that's it. That's the only mention I found from him. Others like Shea or Dawn Eden, at least based on what I found on their sites that I know about, mentioned nothing at all. True, there could be other social media sites where they post and perhaps they did. Perhaps they commented somewhere else if it was brought up. I sure hope so.
But I know on the very same platforms in which they went on tirades about gun control, or lambasted Kavanagh, or pledged to post on Twitter a daily celebration of BLM, there was nothing. And that silence, driven by the media's mandated concern for human life only when it can be exploited, screams volumes.
We've all been complaining this for years. We need a plan. What's our strategy? You can be where it starts. Run for officeReplyDelete
Sadly I lack knowledge in the two most crucial areas needed to be effective: economics and law. I do believe there is a skill set for leadership. What we need is those who have that skill set to also have the courage to stand up to the obvious.Delete
There are several sorts of people who run for office. Set one consists of people who want to be professional politicians. The ideal number of such people in a healthy polity is zero. Set two consists of housewives who can forego working if they have spare time; such people belong on school boards, municipal councils, and county councils. Set three consists of empty nesters in late middle age; again such people belong in local offices which are presumptively part time. Set four consists of retired people or people who can afford to set aside their principal livelihood. All such people should be in late middle age or old age. Perhaps if you have someone who has made his pile like George Bush ca. 1963, you might tolerate someone in early middle age. Our friend Mr. Griffey is at age 55 someone in the zone to hold some sort of public office, but he's made clear his family responsibilities remain consuming and that their financial circumstances have not been plush.Delete
I'll offer one suggestion. I don't think you need a background in economics or law to be a satisfactory elected official. I do think that it's helpful to have a CPA on local councils.
You can have an economist and a lawyer on your staff. I doubt you'd be any worse than what we currently haveDelete
Is there a paragraph that's missing here? You went from talking about Kavanaugh to talking about Nigeria without providing a transition.ReplyDelete
In the email I was sent Kavanaugh was mentioned, This was to contrast between the numerous posts from Deacon Greydanus blasting Kavanaugh, versus almost nothing about the Nigerian massacre. Which, as I said, at least he mentioned. Many others, based on their typical platforms, didn't bother with so much as a prayer. Again, in contrast to the Buffalo shooting, or Kavanaugh for that matter.Delete
Why is Steven Greydanus whinging about Brett Kavanaugh?Delete
Art, I don't know why. I just remember he really went after Kavanaugh, repeating almost everything that was said about him, clinging to whatever made him guilty as charged.Delete
Do you mean now or in 2018? Mark Shea issued a series of fatwas contra BK, but those would only persuade you that Shea is emotions-driven and not perspicacious.Delete
It was back from the hearings. I think the point is that Deacon Greydanus seems to reflect the priorities of the press: he went to town during the Kavanaugh hearings, made Buffalo about racism and joined the gun control mantra following Uvalde, yet where was he (and others) after Nigeria, a story briefly mentioned and then dropped in a few days?Delete
It's something Theodore Dalrymple has written on before as well. About how much the people try so hard at caring... they end making things so much worse.
That's the most forgiving interpretation of what they do. But there definitely is an unwillingness to admit that the grand ideas to save the universe might have ended up wanting.Delete
But there definitely is an unwillingness to admit that the grand ideas to save the universe might have ended up wanting.Delete
Well... if you had to come to the realization that all the good you thought you were doing was going bad, would you? Or would you cling even harder to the illusion that it would all work out? To some extent I can almost understand their dread at learning the truth and willful remaining in ignorance.
It could be because we've made solving world hunger the purpose of our lives, rather than just feeding the hungry. It's not enough to enjoy singing songs with friends, you need to form a band with three other lads from Liverpool and change the world. Enjoy tech? You need to be the next Bill Gates. And on and on. But it makes you wonder if there's something in this and the almost panic level hostility willing to sacrifice anything rather tha n admit we've been wrong. .Delete
"We're obsessed with solving world hunger than feeding those starving."Delete
I like that, Dave. Gonna try to steal it.
"It could be because we've made solving world hunger the purpose of our lives, rather than just feeding the hungry"ReplyDelete
Excellent David. I've never looked at it in this way. Christ said we will always have the poor and can give to them anytime we want. He never said we would solve poverty but we can help those in poverty. Thank you.