Discussion about this post

User's avatar
tre peperoncini's avatar

And perhaps these are things a reader never says out loud.

But I am not just a reader. I feel, I think, and I question.

Today I read: here, see their wounds, the wounds of ethnic cleansing.

Today I felt: I met them. I grieved for them.

Then you ask me, the reader, to help them, to save them, to give.

But you do not say who inflicted the wounds of ethnic cleansing.

You do not say who sustains it, who funds it, who defends it,

or who silences opposition to it.

Even if unintended, this is moral inversion.

But let us set morality aside for a moment,

because the mechanics themselves demand scrutiny.

How do I know this family is real.

How do I know this charity, Chuffed.org, is real.

How does my modest donation reach this family when major charities cannot,

when truckloads of aid sit in warehouses,

and aid workers are blocked from entering Gaza.

Who decides which families are profiled on social media.

Who becomes visible, who receives direct donations,

and who remains unseen.

Are we simply asked to trust that unknown, unverified intermediaries

will not take their share.

And if I were to trust that all of this is real,

that no one involved will take what is not meant for them,

that my donation truly helps this family today,

then tomorrow, whose family will you ask me to save.

Your piece, intentionally or not, is ethical laundering.

It trains the reader to respond to atrocity

as a humanitarian problem rather than a political crime.

Worse still, it normalizes a future

in which readers are expected to privately fund survival,

while their taxed money finances the killing,

and their dissent is prosecuted.

No posts

Ready for more?