Being against violence is way cooler than violence! (Except where violence is way cooler!)
As the last post reminded me, a number of people on the left (presumably including the Green Party) believe that there is no difference between Israelis defending themselves and the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians by Palestinian terrorists. And to some of these people, "peace activism" means opposing Israeli self defense while supporting Palestinian terrorism. While murderous leftists have long intrigued me (and I've known some), I think there's an antisocial aspect to this -- as several posts by Dr. Helen (aka the InstaWife) have reminded me (to the point where I'm feeling a bout of morbid nostalgia coming on).
The contradiction posed by such a species as "violent peace activists" is so self-apparent that most peace activists are forced to sublimate their natural hostility lest they look hypocritical -- or even ridiculous. Support for murderous radicalism therefore must be couched in terms of support for peace, opposition to war, advocacy of the downtrodden, belief in a better world based on "social justice," and above all an abiding belief that the violent people being championed are victims. (Usually, they are considered "victims" of the the activists' own country or close allies.)
Dr. Helen's touches on what I think is a similar mechanism in her post about vegetarianism:
I had a tremendous amount of free-floating hostility within me as well as downright aggression--I thought being a pacifist (which included being a vegetarian) could control my inner feelings of rage. But it only sublimated those feelings for a while. I sat quietly while peers at school made fun of me. But I learned the truth about what worked when one of my siblings brought down a boy who taunted me about my wild kinky hair on the school bus with threats of violence. My pacifism did not work.
While I am not saying that her pacifism was ever the equivalent of leftist support for violent people or causes, contrast it to her realism today:
I now look skeptically at people who preach vegetarianism to others as a type of religion--they are often the same ones who tout peace and brotherhood while trying to mask their feelings of aggression. My husband once said that he did not worry about violence from peace activists but frankly, I would rather hang out with a crowd of hard core gun addicts. I find them more capable of understanding and controlling their own aggression. People who preach peace in the face of appalling violence deny their aggression and target it at others who are not deserving of it or who are trying to protect them. I cannot justify that.
This is someone who gets it, IMHO. I think that many pacifists and "peace activists" have the same violent urges that we all have, but because they deny them and suppress them, they tend to come out in indirect ways, such as the "peaceful" position that there is no moral difference between terrorism and a country's self defense against it. Ditto for the gun control pacifists who seem unable to distinguish between armed criminals and law abiding citizens armed for self defense. The guns and are equally evil. Without them, the world would be a better place.
Frankly, it terrifies me that there exist people whom I have never threatened in any way who would use force to disarm me and leave me unable to defend myself against violent criminals. And make no mistake about it; that's precisely what gun control is all about. I believe that sublimated rage is a major factor, as is pure hatred of people who would defend themselves. Doubtless they would claim that I am hateful for owning a gun and that my being armed to defend myself is also a form of sublimated rage. Even if we grant them this argument, the fact is that I am not bothering anyone. I am not an aggressor in any way; I am only in a state of preparedness to defend myself. I am not making anyone do anything, nor am I asking anyone to do anything except leave me alone. It's plain to me that those who will not leave me alone, who would either invade my house as criminals, or cause the government to invade it to take away my guns, these are the aggressors. If anything, I am the true pacifist. Yet the people who'd use violence to disarm me and leave me without my defenses are the ones claiming to be pacifists. Such a contradiction is what results when deeply antisocial feelings are allowed to masquerade as precisely the opposite of what they are.
I have very strong feelings about celebrities who rally to get murderers sentences reduced or released. The legal system should deal with this, not a group of actors. It just makes me think of the Norman Mailer fiasco.
While Mailer and many leftists claimed at the time to have been horrified by Jack Abbott's crimes, I think "crocodile tears" more accurately describes their mindset. Similarly, I think the people who want Mumia freed because they claim he's innocent really know he did it. And (I believe) many of them secretly approve! (Ditto the Tookie Williams supporters.) They keep that a dirty little secret, because, like the people they claim to detest as "violent" and "evil," they too are violent and evil. Except they can barely control it. Like the unacknowledged mob they are, they thirst for blood. But they can't admit it, so it's all sublimated under the rubric of "saving" a murderer claimed to be "innocent."
Dorhn incited the assembled radicals to join the war against "Amerikkka" and create chaos and destruction in the "belly of the beast." Her voice rising to a fevered pitch, Dohrn raised three fingers in a "fork salute" to mass murderer Charles Manson, whom she proposed as a symbol to her troops. Referring to the helpless victims of the Manson Family as the "Tate Eight" (the pregnant actress Sharon Tate had been stabbed in her womb with a fork), Dohrn shouted: "Dig it. First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them, they even shoved a fork into a victim's stomach! Wild!"
While they're much more slick, today's activists are more lame. Instead of actually supporting the crimes of someone like Manson, they meekly nominate murderer Tookie Williams for the Nobel Prize.
Why? Because nominating murderers for the Nobel Prize is cool, that's why!
All this leaves me with only one question to ask.
What the hell is wrong with nominating Charles Manson for the Nobel Prize?
Charlie never killed anyone, plus he loves the earth. Read the Truth.
We need to support the earth and get past this violence thing, folks!
Or am I just being nostalgic?
MORE: On the serious side, Ben Johnson offers some very powerful arguments against clemency for Tookie Williams.
UPDATE (12/02/05): Baldilocks calls the celebrities on their B.S. by applying something I love -- basic logic:
If Misters Foxx and Dogg really believe everything that Mr. Williams says about his case, let them be brave enough to ask Arnold to pardon the “innocent man.”
But the entertainers won’t do that because they know just how far they can go with this anti-death penalty advocacy or with any possible racial solidarity that they might claim to have with with Mr. Williams.
Why else are they speaking out for someone as heinous as Mr. Williams? Because that's how most of our "betters" do things: without any regard to the consequences of their actions. Such gestures and posturing look good to the undiscerning.
If Tookie is innocent, his sentence shouldn't be commuted to life imprisonment; he should be FREED. He may or may not have reformed his life, but even if he has, that's still not innocence.
They can't have it both ways.
UPDATE (12/03/05): Hube, at La Shawn Barber's blog has a real shocker about Oakland, California students being "educated" about Tookie by scolding activists claiming Tookie was innocent because the jury was "all white." (A claim Joanne Jacobs debunks as a lie.)
posted by Eric on 11.29.05 at 03:16 PM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://classicalvalues.com/cgi-bin/pings.cgi/3077
Comments
Like all groups, there are fringes, and the fringes are dangerous. I think peaceful protests can (and probably are) a good thing. It's good for the american spirit to publicly announce/denounce things. However, these protests are worthless if they're violent.
Go back to the Civil rights movement. They had large 'classes' taught before big walk-ins. People had to be ready to be nonviolent no matter what it takes. It's hard; there's something you beleive in strongly, you get angry, there's mix of testosterone and frustration in the air... it's a powderkeg. Civil rights leaders realized that good intentions weren't enough.
I feel the same way about individuals with guns, their intentions may be perfectly good (and I imagine most individuals are), but it's entirely possible that an argument might get carried away... Every psychological study i have seen shows that people are more agressive and violent around guns (even toy guns). If you can find a study that says otherwise, let me know. As such, I would rather not have guns on the street. In that sense, I understand the argument to get rid of them.
However, I also understand that they have a large power in american culture, and they're not going anywhere anytime soon. So don't worry, nobody's going to take away your gun.
alchemist · November 29, 2005 07:49 PM
"nobody's going to take away your gun."
(As long as I don't move to DC, or Massachusetts, or New Jersey....)
As to the contention that guns cause violence, I have to disagree, as I think they make law abiding citizens more polite:
The Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler
Don?t bang your head!
Like all groups, there are fringes, and the fringes are dangerous. I think peaceful protests can (and probably are) a good thing. It's good for the american spirit to publicly announce/denounce things. However, these protests are worthless if they're violent.
Go back to the Civil rights movement. They had large 'classes' taught before big walk-ins. People had to be ready to be nonviolent no matter what it takes. It's hard; there's something you beleive in strongly, you get angry, there's mix of testosterone and frustration in the air... it's a powderkeg. Civil rights leaders realized that good intentions weren't enough.
I feel the same way about individuals with guns, their intentions may be perfectly good (and I imagine most individuals are), but it's entirely possible that an argument might get carried away... Every psychological study i have seen shows that people are more agressive and violent around guns (even toy guns). If you can find a study that says otherwise, let me know. As such, I would rather not have guns on the street. In that sense, I understand the argument to get rid of them.
However, I also understand that they have a large power in american culture, and they're not going anywhere anytime soon. So don't worry, nobody's going to take away your gun.