The liberal media consensus is that Donners actions murdering people were understandable.
Modern liberalism is moral dysfunction." When I recently made that statement after citing leftist social-media support for murderer Christopher Dorner some readers thought Id gone overboard. Surely the twisted rooting for a paranoid killer on Facebook and elsewhere is just the rambling of an odd minority; there are radicals on both sides" and one in every bunch right? But now more evidence has surfaced vindicating my statement that such feelings arent at all unusual among the passionate left evidence provided courtesy of the professionals" at CNN.
The networks Brooke Baldwin hosted a panel discussion on Dorners support involving MC Lyte of Caf Mocha Radio; Buzzfeed sports editor Jack Moore; Lauren Ashburn editor-in-chief at The Daily Download; and frequent OReilly Factor guest Marc Lamont Hill. The consensus?
Dorners actions were understandable.
What follows are relevant excerpts of the conversation. When Ashburn the only guest shocked by the support for the murderer said that there has been tremendous waste (lives police manpower etc.) because of Dorners actions Hill replied Theres no waste here though; this has been an important public conversation weve had about police brutality police corruption about state violence."
This is a bit like saying that wars can be beneficial because they help the economy (which is also a myth). Mr. Hill was Sandy Hook not a waste because it sparked a conversation about guns? Perhaps it would have been good if Dorner killed 400 people instead of 4. Then we couldve really had a talk.
Hill then said As far as Dorner himself goes hes been like a real-life superhero to people. Dont get me wrong; what he did was awful; killing innocent people is bad. But when you read his manifesto the message he left he wasnt entirely crazy; he had a plan and a mission here."
So did Adolf Hitler Pol Pot and Mao.
Hill continued And many people arent rooting for him to kill innocent people; theyre rooting for somebody who was wronged to…to get some kind of revenge against the system. Its almost like watching Django Unchained in real life; its kind of exciting."
Yep just get the popcorn and soda and sit back. You dont even have to spring for a theater ticket.
What youre seeing here is The Liberal Mind Unchained. Its kind of sickening.
When Baldwin then asked Do you think this should serve as a catalyst for a conversation talking about racism in the LAPD?" Lyte (in the head I suppose) chimed in Absolutely!" Moore then said But I think theres also something to it the support in that the narrative of Christopher Dorner doesnt… I mean in some ways it resembles a Denzel Washington movie where someone is wronged and stands up for himself and goes down in a blaze of glory. Its hard for it not to turn into a movie."
Ashburn then said that such grievances should be addressed through the law at which point Hill interjected Not if the law is broken! Not if the law is broken! …The proper channels dont work."
I wonder can conservatives apply this to Democratic politicians who violate the Constitution the supreme law of the land? I mean if the proper channels dont work….
Shortly thereafter Lyte lent her support saying Absolutely. Um everyones making a point that needs to be heard Im sure." She then took at face value Dorners claim that he was fired from the LAPD for reporting police brutality and said Its the support is an uproar because people are being brutalized."
Note here that the nonjudgmental liberals take ideological soulmate Dorners claims at face value including the claim that he was wronged. It doesnt matter that he was an obviously unhinged man who according to an ex-girlfriend was severely emotionally and mentally disturbed" twisted" and super paranoid." This mentality isnt hard to recognize either if youve ever dealt with a paranoid individual. Such a person will imagine out of left field that you did him dirty and then make taking vengeance an all-consuming tunnel-vision goal. You do not want to be on a paranoids radar screen. It would be a measure of justice however if thats exactly where the CNN panelists would one day find themselves (though its unlikely theyd make the connection and learn anything).
We also can only imagine what Dorner might have done had he been allowed to remain on the LAPD. And had he engaged in police brutality the same leftists now impugning the LAPD in his defense would be doing so in his condemnation.
The truth however is that two factors are in play here. First in the cases of Hill and Lyte who are both black there is the black code"; this includes the injunction Thou shalt not criticize another black person" especially in front of whites or when he can be seen an opponent of society.
But then there is whats characteristic of all leftists: a pathological inability to condemn ones own. When Republican congressman Mark Foley was found to have engaged in sexual impropriety he had to resign and his conservative constituents were so disenchanted that a Democrat won his seat; when GOP senator Larry Craig was guilty of same he wouldnt run again as it would only have resulted in a primary loss. Contrast this with Democrat politicians such as Gerry Studds (theres a reason his name sounds like a porn stars) Barney Frank and Bill Clinton all of whom could remain in office for as long as their little reprobate hearts desired. Why Noam Chomsky even defended the Khmer Rouge while they were in the midst of killing off a third of Cambodia and leftists generally dont even muster passionate denunciations of Joseph Stalin. But theres a reason for this. I think youll find it interesting.
Its always hard to condemn those to whom we have an emotional attachment or whose actions we find emotionally pleasing. The perfect example is a mother who is told her son committed heinous crimes and then goes into denial saying Hes a good boy." Yet weve all experienced this phenomenon. Just think about how its harder to take a friend to task for a minor transgression than it would be an enemy or how theres generally a reluctance to criticize those next to us in the phalanx of a cherished cause. But what increases the chances that youll stifle emotion and stand on principle?
You first must have principle to begin with. When you believe in Truth either explicitly or just in the sense of operating under the assumption that there is a transcendent right" it will be your yardstick for behavior and decision-making. This is when the head can intervene and begin to compete with the seductive heart. Its when youre more likely to tell an errant friend Look you know I like you but what you did there was wrong." What though if youre a relativist and thus dont believe in transcendent morality? What then will be that yardstick for behavior and decision-making?
There is only one thing left: emotion.
Sure the consensus values" of the wider society may influence you but in a relativistic age theyll largely be the product of emotion too and you certainly will see them as such absent a belief in Truth. And then why should you defer to other peoples emotions? Youve got your own and other people arent gods.
This is why liberals who are defined by relativism are so emotion-driven (think of Clinton and I feel your pain"). And it is why they will virtually never condemn those they like. After all what is there to inform that an emotional attachment is wrong when emotion is all there is? A yardstick cannot fail to measure up to itself and the head wont likely trump the heart when the heart is the governing part.
And this is why liberals are so dangerous. To use a play on a Ben Franklin line liberals are passion that governs and they never govern wisely.
A failure to believe in Absolute Truth is by definition denial of moral reality. And to tolerate people so delusional in control of government the media and academia is to allow the transformation of your land into a mental asylum writ large.