Home Important Posts Liberalism Persistence of Evil Vision: Why Liberals Justify Murder
Home Important Posts Liberalism Persistence of Evil Vision: Why Liberals Justify Murder

Persistence of Evil Vision: Why Liberals Justify Murder

Behind a lot of the sympathy we see directed at criminals and terrorists is the underlying false premise that equates their motives and morality with ours. We assume that they are people just like ourselves, that their humanity and innate morality is equivalent to our own. It is only 'circumstances' which have forced them to steal, to kill, to molest children, to blow themselves up in crowded streets. It is not they who are to blame but the 'circumstances.'

You might argue that this line of argument goes back to class warfare, to the French revolution, to Communism, to Clarence Darrow and the entire spread of liberalism across Europe and America. Where the right divided up sinners from saints, the left argued that the sinners were not truly any different than the saints but only societal hypocrisy and economic and social divisions maintained the illusion and the circumstances to insure that division.

In reality both sides were partly right. Sometimes people are stealing out of need. Sometimes their lives have been driven into such a corner that they have little choice but to kill. But like most beliefs, this position is quickly taken to extremes. Most murderers in the end kill because they wish to, because they have a desire to or because they don't care enough about human life not to. By making 'circumstances' king 'free will' had been all but eliminated from the human moral calculus. People no longer did evil because they had a choice but because they had none. Being born poor, abused as children or oppressed by a cruel unfeeling government had so narrowed their choices that they had no true free will and we could only sympathize with them.

The conventional view of such naivete may be that it is idealistic. That liberals, progressives, the enlightened elites who are themselves privileged children of the upper middle class and the upper class and the educated class, reject the idea of evil and unable to believe the monsters they see are truly any less 'people' than themselves decide that their crimes must have been justified because as they themselves could only kill under great need or oppression, then this is the only reason murderers and terrorists do what they do.

The unconventional view is somewhat different. It is not because of idealism that liberals are driven to justify the motives and morals of murderers. When they look inside the mind of a killer, a Black Panther, a Hamas Terrorist, they do indeed see themselves. Not the idealized self who is truly a deep and thoughtful person who has been driven to do what he does by circumstances. Instead they see a part of themselves they would rather not see. A part that glories in the killing and the violent act itself.

When the peaceloving liberal defenders go on to justify every act of terrorism and violence as brought on by circumstances and oppression, as they do their best to whitewash the killers; one cannot help noticing how they cheer on their deeds. One cannot help noticing the Che T-shirts, the Hizbullah banners waved at Anti-war rallies, the keffiyahs and the red banners with gold stars and the rest of the terrorist and mass murderer chic. As once upon a time one could not help hearing chants of 'Ho Chi Min Will Win' at Vietnam anti-war rallies.

When morality is independent of circumstances then it does not matter the conditions, we must nevertheless do what is right. When morality is purely circumstantial, situational, purely dependent on social circumstances then the privileged upper middle class white boy or girl can look into the heart of darkness and justify its tug on him or her by joining it in spirt, by waving a red or green banner, by defending and exculpating terrorists and killers. By joining the 'revolution.'

As upper middle class boys and girls they couldn't conceive or approve of murder, violence, mayhem, rape, looting, bombings, shootings and the like. It may appeal to the darker side of their nature but few people go out and kill with no better excuse than that they want to. Violence may be its own reward but violence needs a pretext. It needs justifications and excuses. Human morality requires that a killer's worldview be sufficiently twisted as to believe that what he is doing is the right thing. He needs a higher cause that overrides all moral laws.

The French Revolution and Communism wound up consisting of members of the middle and upper classes and educated elites who believed they had a right to carry out any atrocity in the name of the oppressed people. The majority of their own members who weren't willing to go all the way in this, wound up on the butcher's block themselves. The Guillotine chopped heads daily and in the basements of the Lubyanka NKVD men wearing bloodied butcher's aprons did their own work out of sight. The pretext for the violence was the oppression of the poor, the peasants, the workers by the monarchy; but in both Paris and Moscow the the butchery began well after the monarchy had been overthrown and had no more power. The monarchy, the oppression were just pretexts for the butchery.

When morality is situational, when circumstances can turn wrong into right and evil into good, then justifying murder is only an excuse away. Excuses are by definition selective. The French mobs who wept over the prisoners of the Bastille had no such mercy for those they themselves imprisoned. The fighters for freedom had no qualms about ruthlessly suppressing even their own moderates with a sharp blade. So too the anti-war protesters are horrified and outraged by women's underwear on an Iraqi's terrorist's head but have no interest in hearing about Saddam Hussein's rape and torture rooms.

The left routinely accuses everyone who supports national security or the war of letting patriotism override all morality until we are willing to countenance any act in the name of national security. Yet these people same see a Palestinian suicide bomber blow himself up on a crowded bus leaving a burning shell and hunks of bloody flesh dangling from it and shrug and say sympathetically that 'when people are oppressed they have no choice.' The irony escapes them that it is they who are willing to justify any act and do. Not in the name of patriotism but in the name of something far far worse.

Morality that is situational is ultimately no morality at all. There is always an excuse to discard that morality into the gutter when things get tough or when you feel things are tough or when someone else tells you they're tough. The sort of people who think that circumstances are an excuse for evil, are people who have discarded free will and absolute morality in favor of a belief that circumstances dictate morality and that we do not choose between right and wrong but follow a path chosen for us by our circumstances. It's a belief that allows the embrace of any crime no matter how horrific as long as your political and socio-economic status justifies it. Those who make the excuses, the protesters, the reporters, the activists, the academics and lawyers can share in the violence that is then unleashed.

Neither Robespierre nor Lenin wielded a blade. Instead they provided the rhetoric and the organization and let others do the killing for them. Their modern day counterparts lack mobs in the streets of New York and Paris to do the work for them. The 70's was the last gasp of hope for that. Instead much like the telecoms and the corporations, they've outsourced the mobs and the killing to Iraq, to Pakistan, to Israel. They provide the propaganda, Hizbollah, Hamas and Al Queda provide the dead bodies. They counsel peace in the newspapers and write angry letters and post on blogs and the terrorists back up their arguments with a rising body count. Viva La Revolution.

The inverted rhetoric of peace isn't the product of naivete. It's the product of a secret desire to carry out the very crimes they're whitewashing. Few like Adam Gadahn and John Walker Lindh will actually go all the way and convert to Islam and join Al-Queda. Most will just be satisfied sitting at their keyboards, fumbling with their video cameras and protest signs. A handful will go further and join ISM or become a human shield and get the thrill of being photographed with actual terrorists and get to hold their weapons. But the line separating them is only one of practicality.

Terrorism is difficult and time consuming and dangerous. It's much easier to work at a dot com and produce Refuse and Resist videos than it is to strap an actual bomb to yourself. That takes a little too much fanaticism and Hashish for the average son or daughter of the Western middle class. But inside underneath their Abercrombie and Fitch they keep a little secret. A dark nasty secret.

They've looked into the heart of darkness, into the evil of the terrorists and murderers they whitewash and found it thrilling and absorbing. Rather than face the darkness inside themselves, they whitewash it and they can't do that without whitewashing its perpetrators too. What follows is an utterly distorted morality in which good is bad and right is wrong and wrong is right. A morality in which the villains are heroes, their victims criminals, their country and all conventional morality the enemy and they are the righteous warriors fighting for justice and truth against oppression and evil. But the reality, the reality is as close as a suicide bombing, as Saddam's torture rooms and chemical warfare. It's as close as the evil they excuse because it's become a part of them.


  1. This might be a OT, but I am curious as to how the terrorists that slaugtered Daniel Pearl will be portrayed in the new movie that Angelina Jolie is starring in (as Pearl's widow) and Brad Pitt is producing in India. Any word on that yet? I certainly hope they don't turn his murder into a typical Hollywood "morality" piece as Spielberg did with Munich.

    BTW, for quite a while the media hushed-up Pearl's manner of death, they reported "only" that his throat was slit while the snuff video released after Nick Berg's beheading showed that Pearl's fate was nearly identitical.

    What's gutwrenching is how both men seemed calm in the seconds before their murders, almost as if they didn't believe these monsters would really do go through with it. Berg seemed as though he may have been sedated, not so with Pearl. Daniel Pearl...seemed innocent as he described his family and the street named after a family member in Israel.

    What a horrendous betrayl of humanity this terrorists are guilty of (among other things). You'd think Pearl's pleasant nature, that he was a family man, something, anything would have appealed to these monsters.

    Daniel Pearl received (posthumously) the Elijah Parish Lovejoy Award. Lovejoy was the first American martyr for freedom of the press, an abolitionist newspaper editor who was killed by an angry pro-slavery mob.

    Any journalist or media outlet that caves to liberal causes or terrorist threats tarnish the memories of men like Lovejoy. Shame on them all.

    (okay, I'm done)

  2. And yes, I agree with Kahaneloyalist...your writing is eloquent and you have a wonderful understanding of history.

  3. You are right on Sir Knish.
    I agree about the writing as you well know..nudge nudge.

  4. it's very nice of you to say and thank you all

  5. Never mind the thanks, get on the stick and get that book on the shelves.

  6. you don't want to know.

    And me and Lemon want the first invites to your book signing party.

  7. Anonymous17/10/06

    Brilliant piece! :] And another vote for the book! :]

    It's another reminder that right before Moshiach comes, what's good will be called evil and what's evil will be called good. And here's a vote to Moshiach coming and let's get on with the good stuff! Like an actual perfect world where evil kittens no longer pee on the kitchen floor! (bad kitty!)

  8. done and done but someone better bring the jello

  9. Jello now?
    Whats wrong with my cake?
    ok, you in trouble now boy.

  10. Hey, I thought this involved pies, now cakes and Jello? Lemon and Sultan keep changing the rules on us, yobee.

    And I want pecan pie.

  11. oh but we have to leave some jello for the rabble to eat ;)

  12. I make the best pie in the world.
    I can admit this since I hate baking. (the logic is there somehow.. cant explain it LOL)

  13. That post was simply outstanding. I had not noticed most who excuse terrorism as the result of the perpetrator' conditions (poverty, U.S. foreign policy, etc.) are the same ones who suggest our actions in the Global War on Terror are the result of immorality, not a response to conditions.

    Ward Churchill and Noam Chomsky excuse terrorism as a natural response to violence against people, but see America's aggressive response to violence as abhorrent. Never mind there was no memo (fatwa?) from Al-Qaeda's justice department on just how far Mohamed Atta and pals could go on their acts of violence and remain within Sharia law.

    The left has moved from hypocrisy to cognitive dissonance, and is fast moving to utter insanity.


Post a Comment

You May Also Like