|Sunny Days in Heaven
Spiritual/Political/Philosophical Blog on the Nature of Truth and Falsehood and Heaven
Sunday, July 18, 2004 Chilling
The so-called "banality of evil" is a cheap and false characterization. Evil is evil and the actions of it are not banal. So how could its actors be called such?
Yet, this woman and her boyfriend bring to mind the smallness, pettiness, cheapness, and self-analgesic nature of much evil and their doers.
When One Is Enough (NYT)
By AMY RICHARDS as told to AMY BARRETTThe whole piece is more horrific and chilling than this.
This is not banality. This is no different than anyone who has ever thought, I want something for myself, someone else is in the way of it, and if I kill him or her, it will solve the problem for me.
The jails are filled with Scott Peterson types who murder with premeditation because what they wanted was best served by the killing of someone else.
Interesting that her first line reads: "I grew up in a working-class family in Pennsylvania not knowing my father."
Next comes the very big lie: "I have never missed not having him."
Strange sentence. A double negative that could easily read : I have missed having him. She means to say: I never missed my dad or not having a dad ever bothered me, but her construction is weird; and the biggest lie, to boot.
There is not a child in creation who has not missed a parent when they were missing from their lives.
Scott Peterson looked at his life, his desires, and options with no different a set of calculations than this woman, and decided that his life would be best without a wife and child. This woman decided her life would also be great without two more children to care for, and no sacrifice on her part was worth the effort.
Feminists actually believe that if they tell their unaborted children, "I chose you. See how special you are to me?" That children will believe it. But what happens unconsciously to a child (who has great fears of the world) is that he thinks, "You could just have easily killed me, and be saying this to my brother or sister."
People used to write plays about the "awful family secret" that would be revealed at the end and explain all the chaos and drama which preceded it. The crazy uncle in the attic would explain the family's strange treatment of their son by people looking to see if he's inherited the insanity.
Or incest would be revealed as the source of family evil. Or it was molestation, rape, or some horrible crime. But nobody has yet written the stories of children formed in test tubes, selected amongst embryos (the rest destroyed), or selectively aborted, or had brothers and sisters aborted prior to their birth or after. Or been chosen from a sperm bank, or had their discarded embryo implanted in someone other than the parents, or been raised by homosexuals, or been taken from a paid surrogate mother, and so on.
All these things create deep, subconscious traumas in children and alienate the child from the mother. When are we going to get a literature that reveals this, too? A modern Agamemnon or Medea.
We aren't going to get this kind of storytelling because the last thing storytellers are currently interested in is bucking the fashions of political correctness. Anything that tells the truth about abortion and "reproductive rights" is suppressed, while Angels in America is a play that celebrates homosexuals passing around AIDS.
That is strident, but the fact is that the play wants the audience to sympathize with homosexuals getting and suffering AIDS without apportioning any serious responsibility for the affliction.
posted by Mark Butterworth | 2:31 PM |