An analogy: A nation is at war and defeats its enemy. The people rejoice and look forward to the fruits of peace. War-time restrictions are reduced or eliminated.
A few isolated incidents break out in the conquered nation. The threat is minimal and could be handled easily by small remaining military units. Instead, the minor insurrections are used by powerful groups to demand a larger than ever re-armament program and even more restrictions on citizens. They demand an unrestricted reorganization of the entire nation to fight a total war.
What would be your reaction to this group? Would you think them irrational? Perhaps you would wonder if the group has secondary aims. Would they get rich selling armaments? Perhaps it is a power grab of some sort.
You might even ask questions about the threat. Why do we need to restrict our entire lives to fight an enemy that has, except for isolated incidents, been defeated? Of course, there has been some guerilla action and several terrorist attacks, but this is not the total war that has already been resolved.
The reaction is far out of proportion to the threat.
When citizens raise these issues, they are attacked as being dangerous. Their comments are removed from social media. Over time, those opposed to the re-armament are seen as enemies of the nation, whose views should be silenced. Those who present statistics and historical data showing the response is not logically or historically sound are ridiculed as dangerous extremists who are committing such egregious harm that they need to be subject to public humiliation.
People are also reading…
As an outsider looking in, you would conclude that those within the power group in this nation had lost their minds.
A number of years ago, I was wandering through a university faculty office building when I noticed almost every office door had a sign attached stating that this was “a safe space.” This raised some questions: safe for whom… and safe from whom?
Evidently, the offices were “safe spaces” for college students, who insist, by the way, they are adults. Was someone attacking these students? Were they physically threatened? Was someone ridiculing them because of their race and gender?
There must be a lot of nasty people lurking around campus if every door needed a sign offering a “safe space.” If this were true, why hadn’t the administration done something about it? Why had the rest of us heard nothing of it?
And if there were all these nasty people roaming around the university, how were the academic intellectuals who worked in these offices going to protect anyone?
These academics, by and large, are the very people who have brought us Critical Race Theory, discovered systemic racism, and proclaimed that if you are white, you are a racist. All of which is blatantly racist, but that is alright because most midlevel intellectual academics with a “This is a safe space” sign on their door are white, and, truth be told, are living lives largely removed from reality.
I noticed, for example, that the signs were missing from the doors of business professors, and probably were missing in the mathematics and physics departments.