Published on September 3rd, 2010 | by Dr. Joel McDurmon9
Leftist Gunmen take Hostages, Dissolve Civilization
A three-hour hostage stand-off with police ended with Lee shot dead and no one else hurt.
What can we take from this scenario other than a dead body?
First of all, since Lee’s document includes a diatribe against the show Future Weapons for its glamorization of firearms, let’s talk about disarmament for a moment. The situation Wednesday could very well have been over in three minutes instead of three hours if the State of Maryland had any respect for the Second Amendment. Judged by opencarry.org as one of the top five States where gun rights are most restricted, a private individual needs a permit to carry either open or concealed legally. But an average individual has virtually no chance of receiving a permit for self-defense as the State demands “documented evidence of recent threats, robberies, and/or assaults, supported by official police reports or notarized statements from witnesses” before it will condescend to give permission.
Dear State of Maryland: Can you see the problem with this requirement now? Who in their right mind would make a law saying, “We may consider issuing you a permit, but only after the criminal has his way with you and you have a police report to prove you’ve been attacked.” Please also notice that some of the nation’s strictest gun laws still could not even prevent a mentally ill homeless person with a criminal record from obtaining a handgun with which to carry out this deranged crime.
However, thanks to James Lee, all 1,900 employees of Discovery Communications now have the documented evidence, police report, and plenty of witnesses required for a Personal Protection permit.
I hereby encourage all 1,900 employees of Discovery Communications, Silver Spring, Maryland, to exercise what little Second Amendment rights they have left and immediately apply for a Personal Protection Handgun Permit. At the very least you will swamp the State bureaucrats with what they do best: paperwork.
One also wonders why Lee himself—so opposed to proliferation of arms and war—would resort to guns and bombs as the means for implementing his agenda and steering a corporation to follow his manifesto. Of course, this is what all welfare-States do—mandate education and regulate business according to their own agendas under threat of gunpoint. Lee merely deprived his subjects of the illusion of freedom and democracy as he tried to play Messiah.
The blogs and comments are abuzz with associations of Lee’s actions with his radical leftism, but many have quickly pointed out that the right has its deranged killers as well. Agreed. I don’t wish to make any oversimplified associations. I wish, however, to make a couple of further comments about what we can learn from the situation.
There’s an issue here about how misleading extreme examples often can be. For example, I have spent several days now writing a study guide to the DVD debate between Douglas Wilson and Christopher Hitchens, Collision. Near the end on the production, Hitchens proposes a scenario he intends to prove that all people naturally have “common moral properties” innately. (Even though largely true, this point says nothing about the origin of those properties, whether they derive from God or from godless evolution.) Nevertheless, he proposes the following scenario:
You see a woman thrown to the ground in the street by a man or two men and kicked hard in the stomach—kicked in the uterus. What is your instant reaction? Is it one of revulsion? Or not? Who is going to say they are indifferent? You are welcome to do so if you like. Do you need divine permission for this? I would say not. I would add another question. The woman is visibly pregnant. Does that make it seem more revolting to you? Is your revulsion thereby increased? Who would not say yes to that?
Hitchens almost whispers that last sentence with nearly sanctimonious concern. Wilson interjects into the rhetorical emotion. Who would dare not be revolted by an assault on a fetus?
Hitchens accuses him of being “flippant”—in this case, using an extreme example of crime as a parallel to the “accepted” medical practice of abortion. But Doug presses the point:
If it is a common moral property, then why? When you see a woman being kicked in that fashion, to be more consistent—and this is why I was emphatically not being flippant—people would run up and say to the kicker, do you have a license? Don’t you know that the place for that is down the street? And you have to advertise in the yellow pages and you have to get funding from Congress? What do you mean flippant?
The legitimate here is that while we would consider heinous and criminal certain acts were we to witness an individual imposing them upon another, large parts of society often smile upon nearly identical behaviors as long as they collectively believe in the ideals being imposed by force. So, it’s not OK for one man to tell a private businessmen how to run their businesses at gun point—unless that man has a license from the government. It’s not OK for someone to force their neighbor’s kids to attend indoctrination classes—unless, they have a license from the government. In the latter case, not only will society smile upon forced indoctrination, they will tax your property in order to fund the process and pay the licensed indoctrinator. It’s a boondoggle for a small army of would-be dictatresses “teaching” people’s kids that are compelled by law to attend classes.
And the great irony here is that most of the very ideals Lee wanted imposed are already imposed in public schools. This particular demand of Lee’s really strikes me: he wanted the station to hammer home programs that “Talk about Evolution. Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’s brains until they get it!!” What does he think public education is for?
He’s also very worried about population reduction: “Saving the Planet means saving what’s left of the non-human Wildlife by decreasing the Human population. That means stopping the human race from breeding any more disgusting human babies!”
This has been a liberal goal for some time, though they rarely talk about it anymore. Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger herself enthusiastically promoted the eugenics and racial-sterilization laws in American States which Hitler later used as a model for his. Forced sterilizations were carried out in America first—by the thousands every year—before Hitler ever signed his legislation.
Originally called the “American Birth Control League,” Sanger had to change the organization’s name to the more PC “Planned Parenthood” in 1942. Why 1942 one wonders? Once Hitler really popularized forced sterilization and eugenics laws, and the US entered WWII, the public outcry against the practice forced Sanger’s true sentiments underground.
But she could never erase what she had already published. We will always know that beneath talk of individual “planning” lies the true agenda of population reduction, especially for, as Sanger put it, the “ill favored… dysgenic races… Blacks, Hispanics, Amerinds, Fundamentalists, and Catholics.… [And also the] feeble minded, syphilitic, irresponsible, and defective” that are “bred unhindered.”(1)
And there is a direct tie from Darwinism to the Eugenics movement, as these people and their circle of peers amply demonstrated through their many publications. In fact, they were not content with shared theory, but enjoyed each other’s company. Sanger was Darwin’s Cousin’s Student’s lover. ((Grant, Killer Angel, 70.)
She really wished for a reduction of about 70 percent of the population.
That may sound drastic, but other bright humanists agree. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has recently stated that she thought Roe v. Wade was really a solution for overpopulations, specifically for stopping “growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of.” Famously now, scientist and deep sea-explorer Jacques Cousteau has been cited as saying we need to eliminate 350,000 people per day. Former Soviet leader Gorbachev—now masquerading Communism under the guise of environmentalism (like all environmentalists)—wants to cut the population by 90 percent. Apparently, Margaret Sanger is conservative by today’s liberals’ standard. But a 90 percent cut would still leave 600 million people, and that’s too much for some folks. Whoever funded and built the Georgia Guidestones monument—a very mysterious secret person—wants to impose a one-world language, government, and religion ruled by reason, and reduce the population to 500 million. Sounds reasonable enough, eh?
This is largely why Sanger began Planned Parenthood. She wanted to force sterilization and promote abortion. Ginsberg understood RvW to help secure the same goal. Enviro-Gunman Lee just wanted the Discovery Channel to further their message: “stop encouraging the birth of any more parasitic human infants and the false heroics behind those actions. In those programs’ places, programs encouraging human sterilization and infertility must be pushed.”
Perhaps Hitchens may want to rethink his “common moral property” argument in light of such expressions of anti-child hatred as “parasitic human infants” and “disgusting human babies.” There are indeed some people who find a pregnant woman more revolting than bludgeoning a fetus, and given a chance would enforce the latter.
Perhaps all of this can help you discern why there is not a huge media outcry over Lee’s actions. Yes, it made headlines, but details of his motivations are already dying from the news. Instead, mainstream news are finding character witnesses to tell how nice of a guy Lee really was. Judging from headlines, he was not a “radical environmentalist” or “left-wing pro-abortionist,” but merely a “gunman” and a “hostage-taker.” Consider the difference had someone with even the slightest TEA-party, abortion protest, or PRIDE rally opposition connections carried out such an act.
Nevertheless, the point is not to say that the media is biased—we all know. Rather, consider that the government in general imposes the exact same agenda as Lee, and in the exact same manner—via threat of gunpoint—and you can understand the media response. Even FOX has argued we should not trivialize the State’s sacred War on Terror by labeling this poor mentally-ill victim a “terrorist.”
Lee himself was the product of the very programming he wished to implement—Malthusianism and Darwinism force-fed throughout American education. But worse yet, his desired Discovery programming is already aired in public schools, universities, public radio and television, and in many, many other places, including United Nations propaganda, Bill Gates, etc.
I’d stick with the Discovery Channel myself, but heck, I don’t even subscribe to cable. And I educate my kids myself. Don’t let the leftist gunmen take youhostage.Endnotes:
- See George Grant’s short biography of Sanger, Killer Angel, 73.(↩)