I'm also very much not a pacificist, but I've just been reading the Acts of the Apostles with a Bible study group.
It's a reminder of how widespread and horrific the violence -- both spontaneous on-the-street and institutional -- against the early Christians really was.
And as much as I enjoy getting riled up and thinking about hitting back, there's not much Biblical sanction for this, at least in Acts.
This is not to say that a given culture has to simply accept lawlessness and evil; far from it. But there are ways and ways, and it's clear enough what approach Paul, Luke, and other early Christians took.
“If they would agree, I would agree.”-Tevye, but yes being the aggressor is no good. The “we have to be as ruthless as the enemy” crowd doesn’t notice that that fails, so as the wise man said, it’s worse than a sin it’s a mistake.
Comey’s excuse is patently false - “hey, I just saw this random assortment of shells and posted it to my legions of followers without understanding any bit of what message I was sending!” Please.
On the subject of violence, yes it is to be avoided, but as Aaron notes the left is actually quite comfortable with action that can only be described as political terrorism to achieve its goals. The summer of 2020 was an orgy of violence and destruction, and as Time magazine triumphantly documented in in an post-election piece on how it was “fortified” but various actors, there were people on call to start more civil disorder had Trump won in 2020. All through that spring and summers, scores of Democratic politicians demonstrated that they would essentially stand down and allow political violence that they sympathized with to take place.
I think there is a non-negligible chance that the next 5-6 years are somewhat akin to the runup in to the Spanish Civil War in which left wing groups are able to inflict violence on religious and cultural targets and in which the relevant jurisdictions do almost nothing to punish the perpetrators. Should that happen, the question for those on the other side is whether there is enough trust in institutions to sit on your hands and assume it will be dealt with appropriately through traditional avenues, or if going off-script is increasingly the only way to keep the wolves at bay.
All excellent insights. Thought patterns that ruminate on political violence are spiritually self-destructive.
Though I want to push back on the Comey thing. I'm a firm believer in something like Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately ascribed to stupidity. Or rather, I think there's at least reasonable doubt in many cases.
I'm very prepared to believe Comey didn't know what he was doing with that meme. He's a Boomer engaged in memes, which by nature is like a fish out of water. And he's not exceptionally smart, dynamic, insightful, or adaptable. Not to imply he's stupid, he just seems to have roughly average capabilities for someone with his resume. No one cares about his takes.
To pick another name: if someone like Hanania posted that meme, then there'd be little doubt he knew what he was doing. He's considerably smarter than Comey and much younger. More Internet-native and fluent in memes.
I had read that Hanania recently had on his podcast the GMU econ PhD student who wrote the essay asking when it is ok to "kill them." Is it unfair to say that Hanania is doing his part to normalize the acceptability of political violence?
I'm not really interested in litigating the case for or against Hanania. I'm not part of the Hanania hate club. I'm ambivalent towards him.
I'm mainly just calling him out as an example of someone whose enemies and admirers should both be able to agree he clearly knows what he's doing online in a way that Comey does not.
Though I don't think retweeting someone's meme is the same thing as inviting someone on your podcast for a conversation. If I had a podcast, I would invite Hanania on it. I might even invite that grad student on it. And it's not like MSM's comically hostile interviews towards conservatives could be accused of "normalizing" us: e.g. the one journo who made all those nasty faces at JD Vance, or the one at the BBC who kept putting words in Jordan Peterson's mouth to the point it came across like a Monty Python bit.
Perhaps the least bearable part of the matter is the anarcho-tyrrany reigning in certain jurisdictions where even obvious self-defense exercised by the wrong person is maliciously prosecuted. Even if they are found not guilty, the process itself is a punishment.
I'm also very much not a pacificist, but I've just been reading the Acts of the Apostles with a Bible study group.
It's a reminder of how widespread and horrific the violence -- both spontaneous on-the-street and institutional -- against the early Christians really was.
And as much as I enjoy getting riled up and thinking about hitting back, there's not much Biblical sanction for this, at least in Acts.
This is not to say that a given culture has to simply accept lawlessness and evil; far from it. But there are ways and ways, and it's clear enough what approach Paul, Luke, and other early Christians took.
“If they would agree, I would agree.”-Tevye, but yes being the aggressor is no good. The “we have to be as ruthless as the enemy” crowd doesn’t notice that that fails, so as the wise man said, it’s worse than a sin it’s a mistake.
Comey’s excuse is patently false - “hey, I just saw this random assortment of shells and posted it to my legions of followers without understanding any bit of what message I was sending!” Please.
On the subject of violence, yes it is to be avoided, but as Aaron notes the left is actually quite comfortable with action that can only be described as political terrorism to achieve its goals. The summer of 2020 was an orgy of violence and destruction, and as Time magazine triumphantly documented in in an post-election piece on how it was “fortified” but various actors, there were people on call to start more civil disorder had Trump won in 2020. All through that spring and summers, scores of Democratic politicians demonstrated that they would essentially stand down and allow political violence that they sympathized with to take place.
I think there is a non-negligible chance that the next 5-6 years are somewhat akin to the runup in to the Spanish Civil War in which left wing groups are able to inflict violence on religious and cultural targets and in which the relevant jurisdictions do almost nothing to punish the perpetrators. Should that happen, the question for those on the other side is whether there is enough trust in institutions to sit on your hands and assume it will be dealt with appropriately through traditional avenues, or if going off-script is increasingly the only way to keep the wolves at bay.
Yes to all of this; being the aggressor in a civil conflict is not only morally wrong but also pragmatically stupid.
For an example of this principle in action, see what happened in Kentucky in 1861.
All excellent insights. Thought patterns that ruminate on political violence are spiritually self-destructive.
Though I want to push back on the Comey thing. I'm a firm believer in something like Hanlon's Razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately ascribed to stupidity. Or rather, I think there's at least reasonable doubt in many cases.
I'm very prepared to believe Comey didn't know what he was doing with that meme. He's a Boomer engaged in memes, which by nature is like a fish out of water. And he's not exceptionally smart, dynamic, insightful, or adaptable. Not to imply he's stupid, he just seems to have roughly average capabilities for someone with his resume. No one cares about his takes.
To pick another name: if someone like Hanania posted that meme, then there'd be little doubt he knew what he was doing. He's considerably smarter than Comey and much younger. More Internet-native and fluent in memes.
I too find the comedy thing stretched. "86" can be accomplished using nonviolent means, e.g. impeachment and removal.
I had read that Hanania recently had on his podcast the GMU econ PhD student who wrote the essay asking when it is ok to "kill them." Is it unfair to say that Hanania is doing his part to normalize the acceptability of political violence?
I'm not really interested in litigating the case for or against Hanania. I'm not part of the Hanania hate club. I'm ambivalent towards him.
I'm mainly just calling him out as an example of someone whose enemies and admirers should both be able to agree he clearly knows what he's doing online in a way that Comey does not.
Though I don't think retweeting someone's meme is the same thing as inviting someone on your podcast for a conversation. If I had a podcast, I would invite Hanania on it. I might even invite that grad student on it. And it's not like MSM's comically hostile interviews towards conservatives could be accused of "normalizing" us: e.g. the one journo who made all those nasty faces at JD Vance, or the one at the BBC who kept putting words in Jordan Peterson's mouth to the point it came across like a Monty Python bit.
Perhaps the least bearable part of the matter is the anarcho-tyrrany reigning in certain jurisdictions where even obvious self-defense exercised by the wrong person is maliciously prosecuted. Even if they are found not guilty, the process itself is a punishment.
Thank you for bringing up anarcho-tyranny- I came here to bring that into the discussion!
Well said and timely! Thank you!