The Weaponization of Innocence

How Society Infantilizes Itself to Death

2–3 minutes
The Messenger. Oil stick on canvas by Ilana Shamir, 2013. 10 x 8” (25 x 20 cm)

Watching guests on Piers Morgan Uncensored repeatedly ask, ‘What about the children in Gaza?’ got me thinking—why does the discourse always center on children? Why do we not ask, ‘What about the adults? What about the elders? What about the people who have lived, learned, and have something to contribute? Why are the wise ones erased while society fixates on the youngest among us? We need to stop these knee-jerk emotional arguments and start asking the real questions that no one dares to confront.


Do you want to know what one of the most insidious manipulations of modern discourse is? It’s the fetishization of childhood innocence as a moral trump card. It’s not about valuing human life—because if it were, all life would be valued. Instead, it’s about leveraging the most emotionally potent imagery to shut down rational discussion.

Children are used as symbols, not people. In every war, every conflict, every crisis, the appeal to “think of the children” is the easiest way to generate outrage. Why aren’t we asking ‘what about the adults, the ones who have built things, contributed, earned their wisdom? What about the elderly, the ones who carry historical memory, who should be guiding society? Why do we treat them as disposable while placing infinite value on children who haven’t yet done anything?

It’s infantilization on a civilizational scale. A society obsessed with childhood innocence is one that is perpetually kept in an adolescent state—governed by feelings rather than reason, reaction rather than analysis. And the worst part? The same people who cry about children’s lives today will have no problem discarding them the moment they grow up and form opinions that don’t serve the dominant narrative.

This isn’t new. It’s been used for centuries as a way to sway public opinion without engaging in real discussion. It’s why you see footage of grieving mothers but not discussions on military strategy. It’s why “protecting children” is used as justification for censorship, policy changes, and even war. Because no one wants to be the person who argues against saving kids, even when the argument itself is being used as a tool of mass manipulation.

The irony is that the people most worthy of protecting—the elders, the thinkers, the ones who carry actual knowledge—are dismissed, ridiculed, and erased. The wise ones, the ones who have survived long enough to see the patterns, to warn about the cycles, to offer solutions—are the first to be ignored. Because their existence is inconvenient. Because they ask the wrong questions.

So we end up in a society where we worship childhood but destroy the very conditions that allow children to grow into wise adults. Where we cry for the young while ensuring they inherit a world devoid of history, guidance, or meaning.

It’s not about valuing life. It’s about controlling the narrative.


Leave a reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

5 responses to “The Weaponization of Innocence”

  1.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Très beau texte et surtout très bonne question.

    Après y avoir réfléchi voici ce que je pense. Pensée qui n’engage bien entendu QUE moi.

    “les femelles et les petits d’abord” semble être effectivement la priorité dans le monde animal car elle engage l’avenir de l’espèce, tandis que la disparition d’un mâle est beaucoup moins essentielle puisqu’un seul mâle peut ensemencer plusieurs femelles. C’est pour ça que la défense du troupeau est généralement attribuée aux géniteurs.

    Il en a été probablement ainsi au début de l’humanité jusqu’à ce que de proie potentielle, elle devienne le principale et de nos jours presque l’unique prédateur de la planète, Y COMPRIS ET SURTOUT DE SA PROPRE ESPÈCE.

    Et, d’après moi, c’est au moment où l’homme a colonisé la femme il y a seulement quelques milliers d’années que ce principe de la priorité de la génitrice et de la progéniture est devenue une véritable hypocrisie, surtout surtout depuis la deuxième guerre mondiale. La guerre totale avec les bombardements aériens massacrent plus de civiles, femmes, enfants et vieillards que de soldats. Mais la formule est restée : les femmes et les enfants d’abord… après les requins n’ont plus faim !!!

    L’horreur que tu dénonces c’est bien l’hypocrisie des dirigeants qui font se massacrer leurs administrés au nom de faux principes pour les manipuler à travers les médias et réseaux sociaux (de nos jours). Et c’est tellement ancré dans notre culture que ça marche à tous les coups.

    Bravo pour ton courage qui dénonce ces faux tabous.

    Like

    1. tbearbourges Avatar

      C’est moi T-Bear qui vient d’écrire cette réponse. Je ne veux pas rester anonyme

      Like

  2.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Thom McCarthy

    Very valid and interesting concepts. I like the angel you are coming from. Using kids as war propaganda is not new and, it’s always worked.
    I love the painting by the way.

    Like

  3. maxfrancesartist Avatar

    Had this conversation so many times (mostly with myself). The urge of adults to protect children is real, it’s so powerful that the arrival of medicines to save children seems to inevitably lead to a population boom and a whole lot of people available to work in factories who can’t support themselves by agriculture any more. This really bothers me. It seems that ‘save the humans’ drives NEED to be accompanied by family planning drives or ‘the west’ (or whoever) is sponsoring famine.

    There’s also the question of cowardice. Men who go away to fight never have to see what happens to their families if they lose. Adults who prioritise children without a way to take care of them have some of the same qualities, such as not having to clear up after them/ sort out the poor messed up little so and so’s as they grow up etc.

    Like

  4.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    I have a lot of quilt that I can’t even share cause it’s so painful. Life is hard , love Tracy

    Like