Determining the Victim and the Aggressor

March 25, 2013 at 8:15 AM 5 comments

We have discussed the fact that the oversimplification of issues by those within the arena of political correctness (PC) causes them to divide everyone into two categories; either a person is a “victim” or they are the “aggressor.”  The “victim” is seen as being “right” (and supported) while the “aggressor” is understood to be “wrong” (and consequently, vilified).  It is as basic and as simplistic as that.

A person is determined to be a victim if he/she is up against someone or something that appears to be stronger. Strength represents aggression, regardless of whether or not it is that.  It is seen as lording it over others and creating victims because of it.  All “good” people then, must fight against the aggressor.  Those who defend “aggressors” become just as vilified.

For instance, the president of Planned Parenthood – Cecile Richards – can publicly announce that declaring a fetus a human being is an “extremist” position [1] and women’s groups and supporters will agree with her.  She is referring to the recent North Dakota Personhood Amendment.  Richards notes, “These politicians don’t care about women or whether these matters are on the minds of the American people.” [2]

This is exactly how the PC see issues in life and react to them.  The absurdity of her words masks a political subterfuge. Richards (and others like her), must always bring it back to a focus on women and women’s rights and do everything in their power to eradicate the fact that women who have abortions are carrying a human life within them.  The focus cannot be on the unborn human being, but on women’s “health” issues and it should stay there.

Richards claims that politicians do not care about women.  She also denies that a fetus is a human being.  As the representative for Planned Parenthood, she cannot admit that the unborn child is a human being because if she does, she immediately becomes a hypocrite and guilty of supporting murder.  She has to deny that a fetus is a human being so that those who attack Planned Parenthood then are seen as solely attacking women.

For the politically correct minions (including Planned Parenthood), a woman carries an unborn baby to term and delivers a baby.  At that point (after the birth), it magically becomes a human being.  A woman who is pregnant with an unborn baby, but opts to abort (even as late as the third trimester through the partial-birth abortion method), kills something that is never seen as a human being.  This is how political correctness works.

Remember, Richards must emphasize that women are the “victims” here by focusing on women’s “health” issues.  She does this by making a sweeping generalization that politicians do not “care” about women or their “health” issues.  It’s an untenable position, but it is done so that she forces the focal point of the discussion to remain on women as “victims” (without using the term) and this focus disregards the fact that an unborn child is in the mix. The people at Planned Parenthood can never waver from this position at all.

This is why a person who, for instance, shoots a pregnant woman during a robbery or carjacking is often charged with two murders (if both mother and unborn child die).  The accepted assumption is that the mother had every intention of carrying the unborn child to full term and giving birth.  In that case, the law sees the perpetrator as being a murderer of the unborn child as well as of the mother.

However, if the same woman had gone to an abortion clinic and paid to literally have the child murdered, this action is acceptable by law because the woman made the decision to end her unborn baby’s life and abortion is not seen as murder.  In that case, the unborn child is never recognized as a human being.

In both cases, the murder of an unborn baby occurred.  Yet, because one method (abortion) is socially acceptable, (another term for political correctness), it is not considered murder.  It is considered a legal “choice” by the mother and the doctor is merely paid to perform a “health” service that removes fetal tissue from the womb, regardless of the age or development of the “fetal tissue.”

Those who claim to be Christians and see life through the lens of political correctness must look seriously at how they make their decisions.  In nearly all situations, these individuals base their decisions not on biblical truth, but on the ever-changing tapestry of societal relativism. If they would stop to consider the fact that they are actually aligning themselves with atheists, agnostics, and in general, people who are in complete rebellion toward God and His absolute truth, they might realize the problem.

God considers societal relativism (or political correctness) to be compromising with the world, regardless of how well-intentioned individuals may be who call themselves Christian.  Far from standing on His truth, they are firmly in line with the world’s relativism or “virtue.”

So, even though God says “thou shalt not kill” for instance, those who claim to be Christian, yet use political correctness to define their position, do so by setting God’s immutable law aside, replacing it with human-made moral relativism.  How is that Christian?  We understand that when God issued that command, He was speaking of premeditated murder since He also made provision for those who accidentally killed someone, or killed someone in self-defense (cf. Exodus 22:2-3; see also Nehemiah 4:17-18).

In the case of abortion, these individuals claiming to be Christian choose to believe that women are “victims” so their decision is made clear.  It is to fight those whom they see as oppressing women (keeping them from having an abortion in this case).  This is in spite of the fact that the “aggressors” they fight against are also fighting for the rights of thousands of unborn babies every day; true innocents, who have no one to speak for them and whose innocent blood is spilled, something that God abhors (as the Scripture points out in places like Deuteronomy 19: 10; Proverbs 6:17; cf. 2 Kings 8:12; 15:16; Hosea 13:16; Amos 1:13).

To the politically correct “Christian,” their truth is clearly (and only) seen in who is the “victim.”  Having arrived at that conclusion (in spite of God’s absolute truth, which judges not based on victim/aggressor, but on the act of a person), that the unborn child is not the victim, but the woman is, they find ways to make God’s Word fit into their preconceived idea of truth.

In all issues that face society, it is imperative for those within the politically correct camp to determine victim and aggressor.  That is the starting point for them in determining “truth.”  Once this is accomplished, it is merely a matter of “aggressively” supporting the “victim” while also viscerally castigating those who are seen as standing against that “victim” (aka, the aggressors).

This is why – according to the politically correct – the Tea Party is evil.  The Tea Party is seen as the aggressor, because it supports capitalism, as well as the Constitution and Bill of Rights as the rule of law in America.  Ultimately, the Tea Party believes in biblical values as outlined by the founders. This stance is anathema to the politically correct.  This is one reason why people were and are so desperate to paint the Tea Party as racist and sexist, in spite of not one shred of evidence to prove the charges.

It is also why the Occupy Movement, which leaves tons of garbage and destruction in its wake, is seen as the victim because they are opposed to corporate America, or capitalism, which is seen as the aggressor.  The Occupy Movement – the perceived victim – is given a wide berth to do what it needs to do by the politically correct (including the media) and among politicians.  The Tea Party – the stated aggressor – is the enemy of the “freedom” and “equality” and should, in every respect, be verbally abused by the media and virtually everyone else.

Another example of how political correctness works is seen in a recent discussion that occurred on Al Sharpton’s show.  In it, he and two others focused on Mayor Bloomberg of New York City and his continued efforts to abrogate the 2nd Amendment.  Right out of the chute, the race card was played – anti-Semitism – because of Bloomberg’s Jewish ethnicity.

MIKE BARNICLE: Let’s get down to it: Mike Bloomberg, Mayor of New York City.  I mean, there’s a level of anti-Semitism in this thing, directed toward Bloomberg —

AL SHARPTON: No doubt about it.

BARNICLE: I mean, it’s out there.

DAN SENOR: I don’t think it’s anti-Semitism.  I think it’s the perception of big-city urban elites, wealthy elites, telling the rest of the little people how to live their lives.

SHARPTON: But if he were not a big-city Jewish man, in some parts I think it would be different. [3]

The only one who sort of got it right was Dan Senor, though I believe he was off the mark as well.  It is not so much “big-city urban elites” telling the rest of us how to live.  It is the fact that Bloomberg believes the 2nd Amendment is outmoded and needs to be seriously curtailed or eradicated.

As for Sharpton’s agreement that the attacks on Bloomberg are due to racism, this is the guy who invented the word!  Tawana Brawley, Crown Heights, and so many other situations that Sharpton has inserted himself into and fanned into flame for personal gain are too numerous to mention here.  He is a professional race-baiter and yet, he has no problem making racist statements against Jews when he feels he needs to do.  “If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house.” [4]

Sharpton is a complete ass, but since he is black, he is also seen as the “victim” at the hands of the white race (the “aggressor” in this case).  Therefore, the media will gloss over (or ignore) anything that Sharpton says that can be construed as racist or simply wrong.  So, when Sharpton speaks racism against Jewish people, he is still seen as the “victim.”  He can also make statements in support of someone who is Jewish, without being seen as duplicitous, depending on the specific issue at hand.  Sharpton always speaks as a “victim” and therefore, is never wrong even when he actually is wrong.

Victims and aggressors.  Determining who is and who is not, is what it amounts to for the politically correct. In its over-simplistic reaction to the weighty issues of life, political correctness too often circumvents truth, in favor of emotional virtue (humanistic relativism).

There is absolutely no room for humanistic relativism within Christianity and those who say they are Christians, but are deeply ensconced within the Left’s camp, are anti-God because they use another “truth” to determine their course of action.  They do not use God’s absolute truth, though they would argue they are doing just that.

Jesus never put up with the nonsense we call humanistic relativism, which guides most (if not all) politically correct situations.  Humanistic relativism – based on emotional virtue – is diametrically opposed to God and His truth, which never changes.

Political correctness on the other hand, forces new outlooks all the time, depending on the situation and who is defined as the “victim” and the “aggressor.”  This is done by using the ever-changing “truth” of relativism.

As far as God is concerned, all human beings are aggressors, willfully rebelling against Him and the absolute truth of His Word. It is our “emotional virtue” that causes us to take this stance.  It began with Adam and Eve.  They then embarked on a road that they were never intended to go down.  Humanity has been walking down that path ever since.

Funny how we always manage to change the truth of God into a lie and it’s always for our own benefit.  It would be so much easier if we simply agreed with God in the first place.  Of course, that would require an uncompromising attitude of honesty toward God, wouldn’t it?

[1] http://weaselzippers.us/2013/03/24/planned-parenthood-ceo-declaring-a-fetus-a-human-being-is-extremism/

[2] Ibid

[3] http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2013/03/25/sharpton-barnicle-agree-anti-semitism-explains-opposition-bloomber#ixzz2OYzGu3iL

[4] http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/08/05/newsweek_whitewashes_al_sharpton_106619.html

Entry filed under: Religious - Christian - Prophecy. Tags: , , , , , .

Daniel 9 and the 70 Weeks, Pt. 1 How Political Correctness Pits Race Against Race

5 Comments

  • 1. Sherry  |  March 26, 2013 at 11:47 AM

    This statement made me think of your article:

    FTA:Erick Erickson, editor-in-chief of RedState.com, blamed the standard media worldview as the leading culprit in the poor coverage. Journalists have “one narrative over all others. It is victim versus victimizer, and the media like Christians as victimizers.”

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/03/25/media-jihad-american-journalists-embrace-islam-and-assault-christianity/

    • 2. Sherry  |  March 26, 2013 at 11:50 AM

      A bit more quoted from the article linked above:

      Christians and conservatives, on the other hand, get the exact opposite treatment. They have become the stock villains for both news and entertainment media. Every critic of Christianity—especially those in the gay community—gets treated like a hero. The institutions themselves get derided as “dictatorial” or worse for not bowing to a liberal agenda. And the faithful are forever the butt of jokes and derision—all without uproar and threats of violence from the victims of the abuse.

      • 3. modres  |  March 26, 2013 at 12:06 PM

        This is because – as you know – this country was founded on biblical principles and certainly at its beginning stages was Christian. Going to church was part of our culture brought here by Pilgrims and Puritans.

        Since much of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and nearly all founding laws of this country are biblically-based, it stands to reason why the politically correct need to overthrow Christianity. It also doesn’t hurt that they know we will not strap on a bomb for the sake of anarchism and to prove a point.

    • 4. modres  |  March 26, 2013 at 12:04 PM

      Yes, it’s very interesting. On one hand, learning what I have been learning has opened my eyes to what has been happening in society. I feel a good deal of freedom to simply be ME because of it. On the other hand, my concern for what is happening in society because of the lies foisted by political correctness makes me wish I didn’t know.

  • 5. Sherry  |  March 25, 2013 at 11:05 AM

    Reblogged this on quotes and notes and opinions and commented:
    Political correctness explained perfectly~


Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 6,213 other followers

Donate to Study-Grow-Know 501 (3)(c) Non-Profit)

Study-Grow-Know Archives

Blog Stats

  • 724,527 hits

%d bloggers like this: