Why “anti-violence” campaigns are nihilistic

James N. writes:

All the “anti-violence” theory that inundates our schools wrongly condemns righteous violence—or, to put more properly, the righteous use of force.

I saw a bumper sticker yesterday in the teachers’ parking lot at a local school: “Wag more, bark less.” I was struggling to explain this to my eight year old in a way that could contain a moral precept.

The logical consequence of “Wag more, bark less” is that when the killers arrive, no one will remember how to bark.

It’s not the barking that’s the problem. It’s not the guns.

It’s the failure to discriminate between good and evil that’s the problem, and it’s getting worse all the time.

Attacking violence without addressing the rationale and purpose of violence in particular situations is nihilism.

This also applies to “gun violence.” If the principal had been armed, and had shot Adam Lanza dead on the spot, would she be guilty of “gun violence”?

- end of initial entry -

John C. writes:

The left talks a lot about “anti-violence,” but that’s just a front. Imagine the violence and bloodshed which the left would support if, for example, a conservative faction of the U.S. successfully seceded and stopped paying taxes to the leftist state. The very foundation of leftist statism is violence.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 15, 2012 02:04 PM | Send