
Thursday, April 19th, 2007
|
 |
Senior Moderator
|
|
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Croatia
Posts: 8,636
|
|
Re: US university shooting kills 33
This is how a "conservative" American commentator, a Zionist war-monger and defender of the "White Western civilization" Lawrence Auster, sees the whole thing:
Quote:
Why we call the massacre "senseless"
In the coverage and commentary on the Virginia Tech massacre I see no signs that America has learned the lesson it needs to learn if such events are to be prevented in the future. Thus President Bush and many others call the crime "senseless." But there was nothing senseless about it. A young man, deeply alienated and isolated and filled with hatred, was descending ever deeper into demonism and openly revealing his homicidal impulses and imaginings to the people around him. This is a well-known phenomenon. Something very similar happened just a few years ago in Littleton, Colorado. The pattern is understood. There was nothing senseless about the killer's behavior. It was entirely intelligible.
The horror crying out to be explained here is not the killer's motives and actions, but society's failure to stop him even though he had clearly and repeatedly manifested his sick and murderous thoughts. People don't want to try to explain society's failure to stop him, because that would require criticizing the ruling beliefs of society that precluded his being stopped: the belief that there is nothing higher than the self and its desires; the belief that everyone should be free to express himself; the belief that we should not judge people; the belief that institutions have no legitimate authority in themselves but exist only to serve the needs of individuals.
Thus, while several students and teachers were concerned about Cho,--he was so scary that some students avoided coming to a writing class he attended--no one did anything beyond asking that he be "referred" for "counseling." True, one teacher, according to Andrea Peyser in today's New York Post, went so far as to try to have him "removed" (though Peyser, showing the outstanding reportorial and thinking skills so typical of today's journalists, doesn't make it clear whether she means removed from the class or removed from the school), but the administration refused to do so because that would violate Cho's "freedom of speech." Now if you were in that situation, with a student who you thought might be a school shooter, would you accept that answer? I know I wouldn't. I would go back o the university administration, I would go to the university president, I would go to the local police, I would say, here is a young man who is a danger to society, you must do something about this. But no one did that. Because our liberal attitudes and laws militate against doing anything to restrain an obvious menace to society until he has actually committed a crime.
We call Cho's act "senseless" because we don't want to acknowledge that evil exists, and that society has a duty to take forceful action to prevent it. To see these truths would require that we give up our nonjudgmental belief system; so we choose not to see them. Instead we talk about the "senselessness" of the crime, thus giving ourselves a complete pass from thinking either about the reality of evil or about our liberal beliefs that make it impossible for us to oppose evil. The maintenance of the liberal order requires that people not think.
What would our society have done if it did not subscribe to its present liberal beliefs? Very simply, it would have isolated this person from the community by committing him to a mental institution, just as it would have done in, say, 1950--without confusion, embarrassment, or apology. Pre-1960s America did not impotently call homicidal insanity "senseless"; it called it a danger to society, a danger from which society must protect itself by means of decisive and authoritative action. The commonsensical, non-liberal measures I have pointed to are beyond the imaginings of modern people, including most conservatives. Unable to conceive of the only step that could have blocked the fiend Cho on his path to mass murder, mainstream opinion-makers in the wake of that atrocity are left tossing off and contentiously debating an endless series of nostrums and bromides, all of them absurd in themselves and irrelevant to the actual problem at hand. Recalling the insight that liberalism requires people to be irrational, we realize that this futile, distracting, and depressing discussion is nothing other than a core ritual of liberal society, by which it renews its very essence: every time some new atrocity is committed that was licenced by the liberal permissiveness that no one in liberal society dreams of challenging, liberals and conservatives alike begin running around like chickens with their heads cut off.
|
Why we call the massacre "senseless"
Basically, he is calling for more totalitarian control of our lives. Maybe that's what the whole hysteria about "terrorism" is about. Such cases cannot be avoided. Anytime someone can run amok, take guns in his hands and shoot at random. It is part of the risk of life.
Of course, allowing immigration can bring about a higher incidence of such cases. That is one of the reasons why immigration is bad. But events like this one cannot be prevented absolutely. The whole life is a risk.
__________________
.
Trpinjska cesta - groblje tenkova
Last edited by Marcus Marulus; Thursday, April 19th, 2007 at 13:59.
|