Posted under Christianity & Conservatism & Religion
Paul Gottfried’s article on Takimag.com on the Tiller shooting is a disturbing turn towards behavior that may seem like righteous zeal or justified murder but in reality is heading towards anarchy in the guise of morality.
If you believe that Scott Roeder killed the wicked Dr. George Tiller, then you should have no problem believing that John Brown killed the wicked pro-slavery folks of Kansas by hacking them to death. You should have no problem with the four terrorists who bombed Sterling Hall at the University of Wisconsin in1970 which killed a man but was done to stop the wicked government from illegally bombing Vietnam and you should have no problem with Tim McVeigh’ s attack upon the Murrah Federal Building in response to deaths at the hands of the ATF and the FBI of all those who died at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Indeed, Gottfried could hoist a glass with Bill Ayers, who after all, resorted to terrorism in the Weatherman Underground against government murdered millions with its actions in Southeast Asia. What’s the moral difference? Murder is murder right? And before anyone says right wing murder = good, left wing murder = bad, please stop. For the ideology is all the same, the belief that social change can be brought about by violence. Roemer certainly thought so which is why he killed George Tiller. The aforementioned would also agree, the wicked must be dealt with right? Who cares if they are sanctioned by law or happen to be the authorities themselves?
We can debate the logic of the Hitler example but we must remember one thing, abortion is not forced upon us. All abortion could end today if no decided to have one (that was not true under the Nazis where abortion was state policy). Hitler may have come to power through elections but once in power forced conformity upon the populace or face a prison camp.
You can kill George Tiller but someone has already taken his place, so nothing was really accomplished by this act other to damage the movement for which Roeder claimed to serve, as the”righteous” so often do. I don’t disagree the Right to Life movement has been ineffective, but not because they have failed to lead an insurrection against abortion ala John Brown. And are the abortion doctors any less guilty of murder than those politicans who allowed them to do so through canyons of the law? Or how about those who write the checks to fund Planned Parenthood? Or those who still advocate for abortion in the media? How many people do you wish to kill or imprison for their crimes?
Those who would unleash anarchy to serve a moral end have no more claim to righteousness than those anarchists and nihilists who simply wish to tear everything down, because there would be no beginning or an end to whom you would inflict devine punishment. We’re all guility to a certain degree for allowing abortion to exist (and it would continue to exist even if it were outlawed across the country). But to destroy the village in order to save it? No, that’s not an option I choose to take part in nor should other men good will either
Kirt Higdon on 17 Jun 2009 at 4:07 am #
I was quite surprised at Paul Gottfried’s article. From the reaction to the murder of Tiller in many different Catholic and/or pro-life forums, it is evident that many sympathize with Roeder. He may be correct in claiming that others are planning to do as he has done. Scott Richert and others have argued valiantly against the immorality of self-appointed pro-life vigilantes going out and murdering abortionists. It is indeed moral anarchy.
Furthermore, the pro-abortion ruling establishment will use such actions, if they continue, as an opportunity to put the pro-life movement out of business entirely. Through inept opportunism, the movement is already out of business politically, but still provides a lot of outreach and assistance to pregnant women in difficulties and thus saves tens of thousands of lives. Now all pro-life organizations must contend with zealous vigilantes in their own ranks, being shunned by otherwise sympathetic people who don’t want to be considered terrorists, and infiltration by provocateurs from the FBI, DHS, or SPLC.
I don’t think the latter has happened yet, but it will soon. The tactics used against Moslems and white supremicists will be used against pro-lifers. Provocateurs will spin webs of fake conspiracy to entrap “lone wolves” and will also succeed in entrapping many who just talk vigilantism without any intention of practicing it. Keep in mind that all you need to prove conspiracy in court is some wild talk caught on tape and one overt act to further the conspiracy. And the overt act can be something legal (e.g. buying a gun or buying materials which could be used to make bombs) and can be carried out by the provocateur himself.
Andrew T. on 17 Jun 2009 at 6:00 pm #
I’ve just finished reading LeRoy Carhart’s bio. What a shameless, homicidal dirtbag.
It’s time for us all to wake up. You and I live under a nation whose political system is so completely disingenuous and influenced by special interests that four out of nine Supreme Court “justices” vote to affirm dilation and extraction (partial-birth) abortion just so they can represent their proper place within the bulls**t left-right dichotomy of American political opinion, while those same exact “justices” will invariably vote AGAINST the use of the death penalty under ANY circumstance.
Jeremiah Whitemoore on 17 Jun 2009 at 9:23 pm #
Many conservatives and traditionalists have rightly pointed out that Christians have looked upon abortion as a grave moral evil since the early ages of Christianity. They may also want to learn about how the Church and earlier Christians handled the issue.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 17 Jun 2009 at 9:45 pm #
John Brown is the role model for all of them — Tim McVeigh, Tiller, and the Evil Empire in DC.
Weaver on 20 Jun 2009 at 3:27 am #
CC,
so you’d kill a baby if doing so appeared to improve the gene pool? You would actually kill for that?
You’re a total Moby – what a joke. People like you don’t actually exist.
Andrew T. on 21 Jun 2009 at 4:15 am #
“You’re a total Moby – what a joke. People like you don’t actually exist.”
Think again, Weaver: http://www.penttilinkola.com/pentti_linkola/ecofascism/
Andrew T. on 21 Jun 2009 at 4:26 am #
Weaver,
If there is one aspect in which I believe CC would disagree with a collectivist, homicide-loving maniac like Linkola, it is probably in the area of technology. CC seems to support technological growth whereas Linkola is a primitivist, as long as technological advances work to the supposed advantage of the white race rather than humankind as a whole. A charming prospect, eh?
Weaver on 21 Jun 2009 at 6:00 am #
You say I’m “race betraying” without knowing much about me… I don’t obsess about the abstraction (in a sense it is and clearly in a sense it isn’t – depending on use of word “abstraction”) to the extent you do, but it should be clear that I value it nevertheless. I oppose amalgamation; I oppose mass immigration; I oppose foreign rule – what other reason would I have than loyalty to what historically was referred to as “race” (or what Andrew T. prefers to be called “ethnicity” which is really the same thing)? I don’t find anything inherently malevolent in such attachment, and I find it impossible that any real conservative could not hold such a view – just what is a “conservative” then – someone with bourgeois sensibilities and a penchant for bombing foreigners? Hardly! That said, I don’t see where the accusation stems from or how it relates here.
I don’t see how a fetus can be said to not be a person, and those tests are not always accurate, especially in older women (or so I’m told).
Weaver on 21 Jun 2009 at 6:21 am #
To use a euphemism for “race”: attachment to one’s “people” can be taken to an extreme of justifying the immoral for the sake of such attachment.
An example that stands out here is support for abortion for the sake of your highest attachment (race). A similar example would be to not treat others humanely, which does not mean to sacrifice one’s own for the sake of a stranger but simply to act appropriately as situations arise.
An example similar to one from Dr. Fleming’s Morality might be to sacrifice one’s own “average” child for the sake of another’s “exceptional” child who appears to be of more value to the highest attachment. The state might favour the exceptional child (e.g. providing free education or some such), but the family of the average child should itself care for its own.
I don’t know Filmer’s position on this, but the reason he in the past accused you of ideology is because of your tendency to value race too highly above other attachments. That is not the same as saying race is of no value, though again I don’t know his stance on that.
Jeremiah Whitemoore on 21 Jun 2009 at 8:16 am #
Captainchaos,
Where did you procure the term “faileocowards” from?
Would you prefer a “faileocoward”, “Straussian”, or “nazi” society?
Kirt Higdon on 21 Jun 2009 at 12:58 pm #
From Margaret Sanger on, abortion, contraception and racial “eugenics” have all gone hand-in-hand with the now well noted irony that high IQ segments of the population are the first to abort, contracept and sterilize their progeny right out of existence. Had they done what the “sky fairy” (otherwise known as God) approved of and avoided what he disapproved, they would have been blest with many progeny and real improvement would have taken place. Through a combination of pride (including racial pride) and laziness, they have condemned themselves to extinction unless they repent and change their ways.
Lord Peter on 24 Jun 2009 at 12:49 am #
Excellent post. One important aspect of Just War Theory — which serves for evaluating all acts of righteous violence — is that the war (or action) is likely to succeed in vanquishing the injustice. This crucial point of JWT effectively rules out the concept of “righteous terrorism.” Indeed, history shows that martyrdom succeeds much more often!
Weaver on 24 Jun 2009 at 2:14 am #
Your posts were removed by someone because you’ve been banned here. It’s not regarding your content but your past behavior.
I wasn’t trying to debate you but to answer you since you continue to call me “race traitor” or what not without any sort of basis.
Weaver on 30 Jun 2009 at 9:04 am #
CaptainChaos,
I read and appreciate your response to me.
You well know I value Dr. Frank Salter, but I don’t take such a direct, logical route to genetic interest. That is to say, a parent ought to put his own family first in most cases even if traitors of the village or state are to be punished for direct crimes against the whole. What I value most about Salter is his ideology of “universal nationalism”, meaning the return of rooted, traditional societies and the breakup of cosmopolitan, mass societies. That’s not to say utopia would arise but rather that within some of these rooted populaces, wonderful societies could arise, even if the rest of the world remains in a rootless nightmare, always seeking and striving for the rooted community they’ve lost but often unable to attain such – some Godly communities are better than none.
There’s a lot written on this, but I don’t have it all readily available. We could have a pretty interesting debate on it, and at some point I’ll pull it all out – if not here then somewhere on the web.
It’s an incredibly important debate between the hard core WN like yourself and the less rigid traditionalists that very much needs to be hashed out. There’s a great deal of misunderstanding between the two camps I think, not that there’s much unity within them either…
-
I appreciate your lengthy responses, even if at times I doubt your sincerity, and appreciate how you’ve often honoured and taken seriously my replies to you.
You’ve been banned here, so I mayn’t publish your posts. I apologise for my rude behavior at times here, but though I haven’t behaved ideally we felt as a group that your posting was similarly unethical. The banning has nothing to do with your views but rather your behaviour.
I admire your attachment to your people even if I disagree with you in some important areas.
-
Reg. the Allies, yes they were without question guilty of genocide against the Germans. Though I don’t revere the NS as you do, you’ll never find me praising the Allies. WWII was simply dreadful – there doesn’t need to be a good side in a war, and I think Buchanan is right that the war was preventable.
It is vitally important to bring forth an honest telling of the events of WWII that allows each side to accept and learn from the evils committed. However, you go too far with your embrace of the Axis.
The current religion of our evil modern society is of course founded on WWII – we can see this in how it is illegal to even discuss the war in parts of Europe as your article points out. Bringing truth to this would undermine the modern faith and the vast empire it upholds. The great danger to approaching such a faith is in appearing to be the very demons it preaches against, and your embrace of NS etc. is just that. Before you disagree with me, I hope you’ll consider what I say there carefully. Disagreement is fine provided we each understand what the other is saying.
In my humble understanding, the Holocaust did happen and Hitler’s Mein Kampf and speeches are too left wing/anti-nationalist/modernist/anti-traditional for me. Hitler praises the Romans, and at least official history records him as having committed many immoral actions. He also went to war with people he didn’t even want to war with – a great statesman perhaps could have focused his fight on communism, or perhaps it was impossible to avoid I dunno. Franco who attempted genocide against the Canary Islanders and the Basque (who’d survived the Romans) is similarly only the lesser of evils – preferred to the ultimate evil of this world: communism, which he did save Spain from. Mussolini’s empty statism too is of course not appealing to me.
I’ve said all that before, and each time we talk I pretty much just say the same thing over again… It would be enjoyable and enlightening to expand this debate at a later time, and maybe we’ll one day have the chance. I at least don’t have the resources and time for such right now, and all I can do is respond as I have. Just the same, I’ve heard your arguments and I’ll continue to keep an open albeit critical mind to information validating your claims and arguments.
Farewell.
Weaver on 30 Jun 2009 at 3:15 pm #
I’d like to add though that you’re such a terrifying guy that whatever position you take, people will flock to the opposite. So, your supporting abortion really is a good thing. Were you to go on TV saying “Godless Nazis for abortion”, we might really get abortion banned.
And similarly you could go on TV calling for free trade and war with Iran, etc. and the reverse positions would be aided.
I know you’ll continue marching, consequences be damned; but I hope at least that if you’re ever invited to discuss hate law legislation on FOX News you’ll decline. Otherwise, America might really get it.