Reasons

“He had his reasons for doing what he did, please don’t judge him.”

So says the mother of the person who murdered 21 people along with injuring 17 or so more in Uvalde Texas. For these sentiments, she has been (rightly, most people will say) raked over the coals, with excoriations emanating from both the left and the supposed right. Instead of examining the content of her statements and what they connote, most of these responses have essentially been personal attacks directed at her (and her son), which is in itself revealing.

The question that we will be evaluating is the following: Did the individual who murdered 21 people ‘have his reasons?’ If you are someone who subscribes to the morally (but decidedly not financially) bankrupt world view as presented by psychology, then you must stand and shout an emphatic ‘yes!’ And the reason that you must do so is revealed by taking just the smallest of steps back from his mother’s statements and then viewing them with the bare modicum of necessary sobriety in order to see that she is simply repeating the mantra (albeit in a simplified, and therefore more essential form) that the psychologists and their brethren have been telling us for years: no one who sins is accountable for their actions.

For nowadays, there are always mitigating circumstances (i.e. ‘reasons’) for the perpetration and propagation of evil by those who practice it. If one goes marauding and murdering in and through neighborhoods, they have their ‘reasons.’ If one loots places of business, well, they also have their ‘reasons.’ If an expectant mother murders her own child, she has her ‘reasons.’ If a supposed father stands idly by while his progeny is extinguished, he also has his ‘reasons.’ If a person is obese, they have their ‘reasons’ too. If a person capable of performing any work whatsoever lives off of the labor of others via welfare, they have ‘reasons.’ If a male pursues sex with another male, then he used to need ‘reasons,’ but now, he doesn’t need them due to the abandonment of both morality and reason. If a male wants to parade about dressed as a woman, he has ‘reasons.’ If you were to ask an alcoholic why he spends his days in a stupor, you’ll get plenty of ‘reasons.’ If you ask the person who declares bankruptcy, throwing their accrued debt onto the backs of others so that they can pay it off, you’ll get ‘reasons.’ If you ask the drug addict why he’s addicted to drugs, you’ll get ‘reasons.’ If you ask the student why they believe others should pay their tuition, you’ll get ‘reasons.’ If two people want to get divorced, our moral deafness has extended so far that we don’t even need ‘reasons’ thanks to no-fault divorce. Bearing in mind that ‘reasons’ are the fraudulent currency of rationalizations, let us remember that the psychologists have presented us with a litany of never-ending and ever-changing streams of rationalizations (always accompanied by hefty bills for ‘services’ rendered), but no accountability, no responsibility, no stability, and no finality.

How many diabolical actors have been paraded across the stage in the past half-dozen or so decades who have escaped justice due to ‘reasons?’ While they cannot be numbered, the number is staggering. If Salvador Ramos had lived, the taxpayers’ money would have been spent on court-appointed psychologists who would have deluged us with all of the ‘reasons’ for his murderous acts and it is quite likely that he would have eluded justice as so many have done before. Considering only mass murderers, those who come to mind of recent memory include Dimitrios Pagourtzis, who murdered ten and injured 13, and who has not stood trial due to being ‘incompetent’ to do so, and One L. Goh, who murdered seven and injured three, who never stood trial due to also being ‘incompetent.’ One doesn’t need to look very wide or very deep to find many such examples across the gamut of what used to be referred to as human wickedness. What is common amongst them all is that they have all had reasons aplenty, supplied to them (and a credulous public) by those devoid of sound judgment who lined up to feed at the money trough to supply us with said reasons.

As if there weren’t reasons enough in play already, we also have ‘pre-reasons.’ For these same rationalization factories are quick to tell us that if such murderers had only gotten the ‘mental health services’ they needed, their rampages could have been averted, which a moment’s thought will reveal to be a particularly egregious conflict of interest. However, because whatever is true must be averred as such, we are beholden to agree with them on this point, but not for the reasons they might posit. In a particularly ironic twist, the moral miasma created by these same people, if delivered early and often enough along with just the ‘right’ combination of mind-altering drugs, might induce the moral monsters they themselves created to be rendered inert and too confused to put their evil plans into effect. As we’ve often seen, these murderous rampages often occur when such and so has neglected to take their ‘meds.’ But, in the main, they fall primarily into two camps: those who never got their ‘meds’ and those who did get their ‘meds,’ but who stopped taking them.

As to his mother’s other plea, that we not judge her son (with the admonition that no one should judge another person, but rather stick to that person’s actions), her request is again, not only reasonable, but is in fact required of all who view the actions of humans through the shattered glass of psychology. Judgment requires stating that this or that is evil and that there must be a suitable consequence for this or that. The only person capable of right judgment (is there any other kind worthy of consideration?) of any action that isn’t simply accidental, is one who starts with sound morality and who then employs the sound reasoning which will always accompany it. In opposition to this, the psychological world view gives us no morality, no soundness of mind, no right reasoning, and hence, when its precepts are applied to the evils that men do, it has all the effectiveness of a flashlight with dead batteries being used to navigate out of the suffocating darkness of a cave: it is akin to asking a dead man for directions. The amoral and arational are not capable of judgment, hence, they should not judge. So, again, she is right.

Hence, in the final analysis, any person who affirms ‘mental illness’ as a reason for excusing the evil actions of men should stand in line to congratulate the mother of Salvador Ramos for cutting to the chase when she said that he ‘had his reasons.’ And in a complementary sense, any person who likewise subscribes and who concomitantly condemns her or her statements is a fool and an unwitting hypocrite.