|
| “
|
The
left wing media was only too eager to point to [Anders Behring
Breivik's] ideology as the rationale for the shooting. David Neiwert of
CrooksandLiars [...]
A more rational answer would require an ideology to fulfill two basic
criteria in order to be blamed for a particular act of violence. First,
the ideology must itself promote the sort of violence get in their faces
at issue and the type of violence that
takes place must bear some resemblance to the violence being promoted.
This makes sense. If a group of pacifists shot-up a school, we could
say with accuracy that they'd clearly misinterpreted pacifism. The same
does not hold true of neo-Nazi ideology and Jews.
Second, a large number of adherents to the ideology must engage in or
support the form of violence in question. It is possible for formerly
violent ideologies to change over time -- no one, for example, save
Timothy McVeigh, thinks that Constitutional ideology is violent
anymore, despite Thomas Jefferson's proclamations about the tree of
liberty and the blood of patriots. [Ben
Shapiro cont.]
|
” |
Well said, but let's not get carried away
Ben.
 Wunderkind Ben Shapiro has a mind like a
steel trap, and is a member of that rarest of breeds— hardcore Jewish conservatives.
But, I don't remember Timothy McVeigh citing Constitutional
purity as motivation for his OKC bombing. Instead, it
was being pissed off at the government for
WACO. So here is my quibble, a rather large quibble—
If "Thomas Jefferson's
proclamations about the tree of liberty and the blood of patriots"
is no longer valid in his world, at what point would he suggest
taking forcible action to defend against a demonic government (on the
off-chance one should ever emerge, of course)?
|
|
