What Entitlement Hath Wrought
Little surprises me anymore; living through the OJ Simpson (NO riots), Trayvon Martin, and Rodney King nightmares changes you, and reaffirms your lack of faith in (and respect for) the spectacle that has become what is now posing as the modern human condition.
As I age, and observe the social and moral decay all around me, it has increasingly occurred to me that many of the Ancient Greek philosophers were on to something when, sitting around doing nothing but thinking out loud to an audience of mushminds eager to find meaning in their own pathetic lives, they made up really cool-sounding names for their ‘intellectual’ movements. If it’s new and catchy and has a nice ring to it, people will flock to you in droves with little regard for what it really means or whether it might destroy them.
I am always cautious, and offer here plenty of disclaimers, about the reliability of Wikipedia, but there is something about this passage that is instructive. I used to consider myself the greatest cynic I knew until I read the history of the term, and learned a little more about the original members among the ranks of history’s greatest cynics:
The name Cynic derives from Ancient Greek κυνικός (kynikos), meaning “dog-like”, and κύων (kyôn), meaning “dog” (genitive: kynos). One explanation offered in ancient times for why the Cynics were called dogs was because the first Cynic, Antisthenes, taught in the Cynosarges gymnasium at Athens. The word Cynosarges means the place of the white dog. It seems certain, however, that the word dog was also thrown at the first Cynics as an insult for their shameless rejection of conventional manners, and their decision to live on the streets. Diogenes, in particular, was referred to as the Dog, a distinction he seems to have revelled in, stating that “other dogs bite their enemies, I bite my friends to save them.” Later Cynics also sought to turn the word to their advantage, as a later commentator explained:
There are four reasons why the Cynics are so named. First because of the indifference of their way of life, for they make a cult of indifference and, like dogs, eat and make love in public, go barefoot, and sleep in tubs and at crossroads. The second reason is that the dog is a shameless animal, and they make a cult of shamelessness, not as being beneath modesty, but as superior to it. The third reason is that the dog is a good guard, and they guard the tenets of their philosophy. The fourth reason is that the dog is a discriminating animal which can distinguish between its friends and enemies. So do they recognize as friends those who are suited to philosophy, and receive them kindly, while those unfitted they drive away, like dogs, by barking at them.
Now, let’s have a painfully honest discourse about the dogs that surround us today. Consider our modern society, and the zealotry of this new popular movement “We are all Chris Dorner“. In what alternate universe do people not only support, but actually sympathize (and associate themselves) with a terrorist and mass murderer (by technical definition of the terms)?
Yeah, I just said that.
For the record, I most certainly am NOT Chris Dorner… and I’ll take it a step further and suggest that anyone who considers themselves to be like him deserves the same fate as he will, sooner or later, come face to face with. There is no room in any society for those who are willing to hunt down, taunt, and kill unarmed and defenseless human beings. Isn’t this precisely what the whole gun control debate, at its core, is all about?
I don’t give a rat’s ass how victimized this creature Dorner might have been by his superiors or the system… or “the man”. We are a nation of laws, and Dorner – as a Peace Officer sworn to Serve and Protect – is not above the very laws he once enforced and now violates to a standing ovation from his wannabes. He is beneath my contempt.
And that’s the sad and storied punchline here: if you are the “right kind of victim” you can entitle yourself to any special set of rules you fancy. That appears to be the rationale, at least, of all the people who so gleefully have jumped up on this serial killer’s particular model of bandwagon.
We have become so fixated by what separates us and singularly focused on the extent to which we can claim special status because of these separations… victim status if you will… that we’ve built up entire empires whose sole purpose is to sustain our victimhood. And, before anyone suggests there is a racial undertone here, let’s be clear: in today’s world, everyone is a victim… of every color and gender and sexual proclivity… so put down your weapons and your riot gear and open your damn eyes. IN-justice is just as blind on the streets as justice was meant to be blind in America’s courtrooms.
By compensating us for being victims, and encouraging us to find (even if by fabrication) other victims just like us who might also benefit, in some small way, from the benevolence of our masters (who so craftily never actually call themselves that for public consumption), all we have accomplished as a “society” is to have created classes of people who hold out their hand (figuratively and literally) for the next round of payments to which they’ve been convinced they are entitled as compensation for their continued victim status.
The only thing more disgusting is what little outrage there is among those most able to put a stop to the celebration of evil, and their lack of moral courage to even try.