Why do people cheer Death? Castro, Consistency, and Compassion
So Fidel Castro has died in the waning days of 2016. He was still a member of Humanity. Arguably he wasn't on the lighter or more desirable side in terms of the promotion of peace, creation of real wealth, or the protection of Humanity as a whole; but why mock him now? Why mock him at all?
The Thanksgiving weekend in the United States has witnessed the atrocious attacks on a dead man guilty for a lot of things that are undesirable. Castro has undoubtedly been the cause of suffering for so many. Yet it seems so many of the keyboard warriors of social media mock and berate him unnecessarily in such a way that is eerily similar to the way Saddam Hussein was murdered by invaders claiming he was in possession of weapons of mass destruction. Of course that was after more than a century of Western intervention into a region of turmoil all stemming from that region’s own inconsistent moral codes and philosophies. The Western intervention was simply gasoline poured on an already ignited oil fire. The hypocritical icing on this cake is that the Western societies intervening have their own inconsistent moral codes and philosophies.
So why use the admiration of Castro by others only to slander his admirers’ intelligence when it is their nescience that is responsible for the trouble in our lives, not a dead man or even when he was living? Or is it really only the nescience of those admiring someone's political leanings which don't match those of their dissenters?
I'm pretty sure spending time taking cheap shots at a dead man as a means to insult others while claiming in some fashion to be pointing out inconsistencies in the living now is a less efficient way to create more peace in the world than by teaching life skills to others, such as how to ask questions for clarity. After all, if the goal of those mocking Castro and his admirers is to achieve peace and prosperity by getting such minds to reconsider their actions, then how is setting up the potential for blowback by attacking people who truly do not understand what they are supporting not going to allow them the ammunition to escalate verbal hostilities they don’t recognize the purpose of to violence as retaliation and revenge instead of simple honest vindication and enlightenment?
Peace and prosperity doesn’t start by destruction and mocking. It starts by creating and defending. There is no honor in mocking dead men to teach the living lessons. The lessons are taught when the living find what you are creating to be interesting and of value to them too. To say it is acceptable to ridicule those who assault our peaceful means and without recognition of if they understand why they are the threat is to ridicule a child having a fit of anger not understanding how to communicate his or her ills. The child will take offense or grossly misinterpret his or her own actions and that only cultivates further complications which will need to be problem solved in the future; But at what expense of resources, of time, intellect, and labor? And how many people will give up before the task is even recognized, let alone the comprehension of such context begin to being unraveled?
If we who are advocates of freedom, peaceful anarchism, and voluntaryism are honestly seeking to truly be masters of the only domain in which we can justly seek to control, our minds, then we will seek clarity of context in those whom are causing trouble for us and themselves. That’s the real sacrifice of a free mind; to make time to help others become our equals in self mastery. The sacrifice is not in submitting to a collective rule of law for some greater good. That’s about control and central planning of lives we don’t even know exist let alone by a numbered tattoo or a social security number. The journey to self mastery and true freedom begins with the creation of a goal of crystal clarity which can be used to create parameters in which means can be employed to achieve the goal in question without contradiction and exclusivity.
My goal is that all interactions should be voluntary unless another has with intent to hurt transgressed against myself or another. I made time to create my goal, defined it with the utmost clarity, and crafted parameters from which to work inside in order to achieve my goal in a way that is not contrary to it. And my goal is universally applicable to all of Humanity. I did this in my book, Morality Defined. And then I decided to give it away for free.
What is your goal?
-JLD
Find out more about my works here:
I base all of my posts on previous content I've created in two books and multiple audio programs.
Download and read for free Liberty Defined and Morality Defined here,
https://www.smashwords.com/books/byseries/20333
Listen to my Liberty & Morality Defined presents audio series here, http://bit.ly/2eT3ZxN
If you're a Star Wars fan and would like to start the journey into a realm of fantasy following a journey of struggle against two separate empires and a galaxy of souls lost in a conflict still raging on after 10 million years, download and read for free book one of my Hunter's Gambit series, Revelations here, http://bit.ly/2b1QoBh
And visit me on Facebook at http://www.FB.com/LibertyDefined
& http://www.FB.com/JLimberDavis
Twitter @JimLimberDavis
Steemit @JimLimberDavis
If you enjoy the work I create, please encourage more of it with one time or reoccurring donations here,
http://www.jimlimberdavis.com/#!donation-support/c22og
if you really don't know, then there is little probability that anything i say could be of use to you.
there are people in the world without conscience. i, personally, will sleep a little better knowing this man is dead, it happened none too soon. i will still watch my back because there are a large number of people who, for one reason or another, will allow a person like that to take control, and support him in his aggression.
if the logic of philosophy fails to intersect with the dynamics of the real world, it remains theoretical. just from the statements in your post, i don't think we will agree.
cheering the death of the immoral seems to be an inbuilt, societal control mechanism, which is not expressed by every individual, for demonstrating disapproval of certain types of actions, that is otherwise suppressed by fear. ding dong the witch is dead., and so on. pissing on someone's grave is not generally a solitary activity. it is said and done, usually, with an audience.
Well, you are right about one thing. I disagree.
Starting out by telling me "if you really don't know, then there is little probability that anything i say could be of use to you" doesn't help me want to understand you position. But then again, when my position is to promote what I want to see in the world by creating it and teaching how to achieve it and yours is in part to sing about death and destruction, well... did you actually read past the title or just become triggered and decide to teach me something!?
I don't think we will agree.
I don't really care what society thinks about somethings. Majority whims and socially acceptable practices are often completely counter to the goals of maintaining life, such as the promotion of bully tactics called peer pressure to enforce the theft and compliance of rules called taxation and laws without 100% voluntary and peaceful acceptance.
But if comprehension of philosophy fails to be achieved, then people end up supporting contradictory ideas to goals they likely never fully defined with a clear path of thought progression. This must always start with a goal, then creation of parameters to abide by, and follow with the means crafted through the parameters to aid in not contradicting the goal.
Yet, this is frequently done by the individual fully aware that an audience will piss on him if it shows the audience how how wrong it is.
while you may be 100% logically correct in every possible way, most of the other people in the world don't or can't believe as you do. i try to treat people as well as i am able, i am not looking to be a martyr. purists often find themselves so.
i meant no offense. an emotional reaction was not unexpected. i thought i would give it a shot. while you may not care about what society thinks, they do, fervently. arousing the ire of a mob is inadvisable even if your logic is unimpeachable. the majority will never achieve comprehension of philosophy, no matter how much one might wish it. having grammar, logic, and rhetoric, i find to be enough to keep me out of the way of the lurching mob.
i search for like minds, and do not try to teach the unwilling. i rarely sing about death and destruction, unless to understand it better. i find that philosophy alone gets me into too much trouble, when i ignore the biology, chemistry, physics, and social psychology of the matter. self mastery does not take place in a vacuum, i have endured enough beatings to know this without doubt.
here is a question for clarity. do you think that berating people, nay, haranguing them, for doing the same, is an efficient way to create more peace in the world? while you may be perfectly logically justified, please, do read your own piece again, and tell me how it is not a tirade against tirades. it does seem intelligently and thoughtfully written, but reveals the frustration that so many of us, who wish we could soothe the ills of the world by giving out the tools we've seen work for ourselves, feel in our everyday experience.
to help others become my equal in self mastery, would be for me to aggress against them, unless they were capable, willing, and even desirous of it. if this is the case, i find it is better to stand back and let it happen, perhaps with a cheer of encouragement or a good word, as each has their own path, and my blundering interference may set them back further than they would be otherwise.