Evoking Emnity and Forgetting the Sanctity of Children

When the state treats civilians as the enemy they become the enemy and it incites civil war because ultimately when a populace is treated with such antipathy they are forced to rise up and defend themselves. When we treat children as being disposable and cease to protect them we invite our own destruction because without children there will be no one growing up to form the next generation. When the state makes children out to be the enemy it incites the creation of child soldiers and civil war because inevitably children and those who would protect them must rise up to defend themselves and in doing so that which makes up the very leading edge of the next generation is put at risk. Is it not enough for us to kill off our young adults and adolescents in pointless battles but now resort to bringing children into the fray?

The following quotes are from this article. Which in short outlines how U.S. Press Secretary Sean Spicer refuses to apologize for the detaining of a 5 year old Iranian child.

“When you look at the 329,000 people [who traveled to the U.S. over the weekend], 109 were inconvenienced for the safety and security of us all,” the Trump spokesman said. “And to make sure that, if they are a 5 year old, that maybe they’re with their parents and they don’t pose a threat.”

“But to assume that just because of someone’s age or gender or whatever that they don’t pose a threat would be misguided and wrong.”

Now honestly it wasn't the parents that were detained but rather the boy. What threat would a kindergardener be to national security? What does the U.S. government honestly think there are terrorist cells of toddlers being formed now? Children of that age are physically dependent on adults for pretty much everything, things like food, water, shelter, those kinds of things. Cognitive ability aside they are not going to be forming threats to the country. And obviously this particular child had parents that loved him. This is a clear case of presuming guilt before innocence. If one is so afraid of terrorists, or any threat for that matter, that one starts attacking children, one must ask what is the point of being afraid since one is attacking the very thing one is meant to protect. But wait there's more.

This article in short is about how U.S. intelligence commandos go into Yemen and end up shooting and killing not only U.S. citizens without fair trial but one of whom was an 8 year old girl.

"Amongst the casualties was eight-year-old Nawar Al-Awlaki. Nawar is the daughter of US-born preacher Anwar Al-Awlaki who was the first American citizen to be assassinated in a US drone strike in 2011, decried by civil rights groups as an extrajudicial execution that denied him his right to a fair trial."

With Nawar’s murder, it appears that no relative of Anwar Al-Awlaki is safe, regardless of whether they are children or not, or even involved in terrorism or not.

"In a Facebook post, Nawar’s uncle and former Yemeni Deputy Minister of the Environment and Water Resources, Ammar Al-Aulaqi said: '[Nawar] was shot several times, with one bullet piercing her neck. She was bleeding for two hours because it was not possible to get her medical attention.'”

"“As Nawar was always a personality and a mind far older than her years, she was reassuring her mother as she was bleeding out; ‘Don’t cry mama, I’m fine, I’m fine’,” Ammar’s emotional post continued."

"“Then the call to the Dawn prayer came, and her soul departed from her tiny body.”"

That people is so many kinds of wrong I can barely find words. Killing your own civilians to start with. Then being sloppy about it and letting children become casualties. Then not taking responsibility and getting the girl medial attention asap? I don't care how scared you are of terrorists there is no excuse for that. I don't care what God you worship or what flag you fly. That is wrong.

But wait, there's more. There's this article written by a female doctor that depicts how Germany is struggling with the massive influx of Muslim migrants.

" If they receive a prescription in the pharmacy, when they learn they have to pay cash they become violent. They were told in the middle east that everything in Germany would be free. Everything would be handed to them on a silver platter.

Finding out that they MUST pay for certain things leads to loud, violent, outbursts, especially when it is about drugs for the children. Many of these muslim immigrants kidnapped children, so that, their social benefits would be higher once they landed in Germany.
Finding that they would have to pay for the children's drugs, they gave up the ruse and abandoned the children with pharmacy staff with the words: 'So, cure them here yourselves!'

Now, the police are not just guarding the clinics and hospitals, but also large pharmacies."

" In a hospital near the Rhine, migrants attacked the staff with knives after they had handed over an 8-month-old on the brink of death, which they had dragged across half of Europe for three months before seeking medical attention. The child died in two days, despite having received top care at one of the best pediatric clinics in Germany. The physician had to undergo surgery and two nurses are in the ICU. Nobody has been, and no one will be punished."

It's not just Christian U.S. policies that have such issues. It's also Muslims as well. And don't even get me started on China's one child per family policy and the resulting horrors of infanticide. The point here is it isn't just one side treating children badly. It isn't one religion or one country even. But children are the ones we should be protecting. What's the point of having giant super guns if one can't use them to protect a helpless child? What's the point of traveling across Europe if the child you're dragging in tow dies en route or at the end of the journey? And no attacking the doctors with knives is NOT the right solution, just as being needlessly violent with commando units is not the right solution. Either way children end up dead. Children are not objects. They are not property. They are people worthy of love and respect. And very young children are exceedingly delicate and vunerable people.

It is not okay to treat children as things. Children are not things, they are not objects. Children are human beings just like you and me. It is not okay to randomly kill or detain a child regardless of who they may or may not be related to, regardless of what their friends or relatives may or may not have done. We do not try people in court based on the actions of our families and friends, we try people in court and judge people in society based on their own actions. Therefore it is not acceptable or just to attack a child for the actions of another. It is not okay to neglect anyone who is dependent upon you for their life's essential needs but a child most of all. Having a big family is wonderful. Having a ton of children but not taking responsibility for supporting them, not so much. If you want to be a big Dominant male and have a submissive woman depending on you and pumping out babies that's great but if so you're still responsible for caring for them both, regardless of whether you go to Church or a Mosque, or anything else for that matter. Power means taking responsibility and if you can't do that then you're only demonstrating how little power you actually have, and more to the point how undeserving you are to have power entrusted to you. Any idiot can use intimidating tactics and become a bully but it takes a true leader to care for others. And much like a man caring for his family so too do political leaders have a responsibility to the nation under their care. Whether you're a mayor, a senator, a president or a king it matters not. If you have people entrusting and delegating power to you then they become your charges. These people place their trust in their political leader, much like a child places his or her trust in their parents, and when that trust is betrayed through negligence, apathy or outright malice then that trust is destroyed and the politician loses the empathy and trust of the people he would lead.

When people of any age are abused they tend to withdraw from the abuser. Sooner or later there will come a time they will have had enough and rebel. When politicians abuse the people they represent this results in civil war. And when politics abuses children this tends to invoke the wrath of parents and citizenry alike. But it also makes clear a very strong message: That being a child is no protection from the state. However the corollary is also true. When it becomes a cultural norm where families and parents neglect, objectify and abuse children then the CREATION of a state where such abuse against all it's citizens is underway. Remember parents model the first "government" a child will ever know. Parents also model he first love a child will ever know. So if parents model healthy relationships then children will grow up attempting to replicate those relationships. If however parents are abusive children will also think abuse is the norm in one way or another, even if they break away from their parents. This is the basis of perpetuating propaganda and cultural submission generation after generation. It is also the basis of how to regain our freedom.

It needs to start with us. It needs to start with us reclaiming our power and respecting each other and our children. We need to stop trusting and depending on government and do things ourselves. There is power to be found in that. Notice that much of the anger and the hostility by the Muslims in Germany was due to their feeling of entitlement? Also notice their families were largely dependent upon government subsidies? They were in short helpless and without any real power and so lashed out in frustration. Notice how the commandos followed orders blindly and didn't stop to consider the consequences or moral implications of their actions or obedience to authority? They had given up their power and the ability to make moral choices for themselves and the result was to become tools of horrors and atrocities. Notice how the Press Secretary cited "security" and tried to invoke fear as the rationale for detaining a mere 5 year old boy even when any rational person could tell there was no real threat? I believe Voltaire said it best " Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities." Wanting to stay safe is fine. Letting our fears become so irrational that we start attacking the innocent? Not so much. One must ask "Is it reasonable for me to feel this way about this situation?" Is it reasonable to feel threatened by a 5 year old and his parents who are peacefully trying to get into the country? And if one could somehow perceive a threat what does that say about all the other happy families trying to go to and fro over the border? If a child can be a threat what does that say about one's attitudes towards children in general? At what point does the threat and fear of being harmed become irrational paranoia? And do you really want someone with irrational paranoia making decisions of national security? To take this onto an individual level if someone pointed a gun at a kid because they were afraid they might pose a threat how would they then be perceived? We each struggle with striking this balance between using a reasonable amount of emotion and overreacting. But on an individual level would someone who unduly threatened peaceful civilians, one of which was a child, be considered to have made a rational socially acceptable decision? Not likely. Then why would it be acceptable on a political and cultural level? And what are the implications if this becomes the norm?

Already in the states there are children being treated to police violence in schools. Autistic children are being locked in isolation rooms. Misbehaving students are being arrested and charged with assault. When I was in school misbehaving students were sent to the principal's office or suspended, perhaps expelled in extreme cases. Never were they arrested or placed in isolation. So let's seriously consider the implications of social acceptance of the abuse of children. What would a state precedent of detaining of an immigrant child mean? What does it mean when a little girl is shot in the neck and left to bleed out? What does it mean when Muslim fathers get violent and assault the very doctors that are attempting to treat their children? It means that regardless of country, class, religion or creed, there is a cultural demographic with a severe apathy and objectification towards children and life itself. And these attitudes are what lead to abuse. When you have power and combine it with empathy you get healthy leadership. When you have power over another and REMOVE empathy you get abuse. Children are naturally in a state of dependence upon adults. So as long as society views them as objects and with apathy or outright hostility then they will be at risk of being abused. And this abuse will lead to rebellion at best, if not the continued cycle of abuse within the next generation of society or worse the death of the child.

This is why I opened by saying when the state treats civilians as the enemy that they become the enemy. And when the state treats children as the enemy it incites the creation of child soldiers and civil war. Civil war isn't just about a difference in policy it is also a rebellion against abuse and whether you're the victim or one defending the victim abuse one way or another tends to result in rebellion. Parents want to protect their children. Children want to protect themselves. And ultimately without children there is no future. What you do to a child you do to all because children are life. If life is of no consequence then how can anyone be of consequence? If you hold children sacred, however that may be expressed, all are sacred.

As above so below. As within so without.
Blessed Be.

On a personal note this was actually quite difficult for me to write. It was very emotionally charged and I am very passionate about the defense of children. This whole situation just seems so incredibly fubared.