Many commentators saw, after Charlie Kirk was shot, a completely different reaction from that of the American and the world's left from that of George Floyd in 2020.
Of course, both events are not necessarily conducive to uncovering an analogy. In the first case, we had to deal with cold-blooded execution on a social activist, while in the second case we had to intervene with extant police officers against a repeater who tried to usage a counterfeit banknote. I want to stress that I have never explained and will not explain police violence, and my aim is simply to show the different circumstances of both events.
The fact is that while Floyd's death caused an outbreak of rage, resulting in riots on an unprecedented scale, the death of a twelve people and demolition of over a billion dollars, the killing of Kirk has become a origin of joy for a immense number of young Americans mostly. At the same time, the assassination of the MEGA movement activist was justified by all those educated above their own wisdom of lovers ‘yes, but’, always utilized erstwhile ‘yes’ before ‘but’ to justify the insulting message expressed after ‘but’.
Let me callback here – seemingly only unrelated to what I'm going to do – the word of a certain one, known in fact only from this message of a right-wing activist, who gave a fresh sense of saying "getting to the dogs." She argued that there was nothing incorrect with eating dogs due to the fact that “meat is meat.” Intuitive outrage was as much as possible covered in the value system. At the same time, without what conservative authors describe as a immersion in culture, we can actually feel polematically helpless against the argument of the said activist. “If we eat pigs and fish, why should we not eat dogs?” this argument gives emergence to a sense of confusion in anyone who recognizes the crucial function of logic in translating the world, and at the same time certain that there is something “not so” in this statement.
But logic allows us to make a akin argument, making it even more tempting, and it gives us the chance to shine, in a planet in which we "explain" and "grill" alternatively of discussing. We can make a scale, not based on principles of rationality, on which on the 1 hand we will insert an indicator of the level of biological improvement of the body, and on the another hand we will specify "the degree of predisposition to be eaten". Yes, we can logically and rationally lead to a ceiling on which they will be a illogical and irrational joke.
The "autistic right", replacing the sensitivity or perception of the planet as a mathematical equation, is the reverse of the same coin, the obverse of which is filled with infantile symbolism, the cult of empty gestures, caricature imitations of romanticism. Sensitivity and feeling let us to assimilate the culture in which we live and participate in it, so powerfully and so dignifiedly resisting both barbarism and theatricalization.
The "autistic right" will not explain why we should respect death, why our interior temptation of intellectual brilliance and love to search for paradoxes should give way to silence and reflection. In this sense, the "autistic" is the right due to the adherence to the absolute primacy of logic over everything else – due to the fact that in the utilized means of expression it is as extroverted as possible, seeking brilliance and applause.
I do not put the sign of equality between “Corvinism” which represents the most complete exemplification of the phenomenon described above and postmodernism, due to the fact that the erstwhile is based on certain values and seeks order, while the second is de facto affirmation of nihilism, raising verbal and logical games to the rank of a major business in a planet where there is no truth, and so there is no sense.
DEATH IN BARBARBARIMAN EYES
At the same time, the right-wing and left-wing absolutisation of logic as a mirror through which the planet is viewed may justify questions, which, by itself, are an expression of not absorbing cultural standards. I'll usage a hypothetical quote made to explain what I mean.
“Why should we not be happy about the death of our enemy? After all, he was on the incorrect side, so his departure means little evil in the world. The killer was like an antibiotic that destroys another bacteria with bacteria. Bad people who preach bad ideas are like cancer – cancer has metastasis and yet causes the full body to die. Cutting out cancer brings recovery. Why should we be sad about recovery?
Is it that he was killed a minute ago that diminishes the evil he did? Should we treat death as an acquittal? Even a fewer hours ago, erstwhile he was alive, he was an highly harmful individual – did the bullet, pointed at the center of his head, spread an halo around him, giving not only absolution, but even an elevation to the altars?’
Of course, logically, you can besides effort to explain to the author specified or akin words the inappropriateness of his reaction to death. 1 can appeal to the rule of profitability: “Do not rejoice in the death of your opponent, for you will origin hatred that will turn against you.” 1 can say, “Do not rejoice in the death of your opponent, for you will be met with the joy of the death of your friend.” But it is not about logic, it is about culture. The joy of someone's death is not primarily illogical – it is barbarous.
Let us emphasise – the joy of someone's death is not simply a sign of a deficiency of sensitivity, the deficiency of sensitivity that Minister Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz showed, telling the despairing flooded people that “you had to insure yourself”, the deficiency of sensitivity that Minister Katarzyna Sójka displayed, saying in the discussion of abortion that “women unfortunately died, died and would die.”
Both ministers, if we usage the barometer of fairness and relevance to reality, were simply right, while their statements were highly unfortunate from the point of view of tactics and appropriateness. Instead, they did not show a full scope of symptoms of the soul illness of the leftist crowds who cheered after the execution of Charlie Kirk. They were openly, seemingly infantile, and in fact sinisterly attacked by civilization and the function it attributes to man's death. The barometer of right or its deficiency is, in relation to them, as inadequate as it would be incorrect to dispute or good tactics for the match were chosen by a squad whose players played assisted by cheering and trampling their opponents. They did not come to a banquet in a sweatpants – they came there completely drunk, yelling and tearing their suits to its participants.
Jacek Tomczak
