Fund Your Utopia Without Me.™

16 December 2012

Adam Lanza: "Anarchist Communism"???



Culture of Death


http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/3611_423506811050933_1150852840_n.jpg


If true, it is unsurprising.

Neither anarchism nor communism have respect for the law or the rights of other people.  Adherents of both believe violence is justified in pursuance of 'the cause' - whether stated cause is universally-declared or defined by an individual or small number of people.  Both anarchism and communism have, historically, embraced nihilism and a "culture of death."


Why Do The Rights Of The Mentally Ill To Live Their "Fiercely, Independent Lifestyle Choices" Trump The Rights of Americans To "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"? 

 

Madness, Deinstitutionalization & Murder

 

 


3 comments:

Grim Jim said...

Isn't it so typical that the news media and all the sniveling liberals on television NEVER mention the fact that this mass murdering lunatic was a commie?

If this psychopath in any way supported say, Ron Paul or Romney, or anyone to the right of Che Guevara we would be hearing about it endlessly.

This particular omission by the media pisses me off more than anything else.

Neverfox said...

Neither anarchism nor communism have respect for the law or the rights of other people.

Anarchism is, by definition, about respecting of the rights of other people, whether it's communist or otherwise. If that was his stated political belief, then the events only go to show that his actions were inconsistent with his stated political belief.

Adherents of both believe violence is justified in pursuance of 'the cause'

Unless you are a pacifist, then I imagine you do as well to some extent, since you don't bother to differentiate between initiated violence and violence in self-defense.

Both anarchism and communism have, historically, embraced nihilism and a "culture of death."

Nihilism and anarchism are opposed at a fundamental level because ultimately the nihilist, to be consistent, must not give any normative meaning to the opposition of rulership central to anarchism.

Predictable-History said...

Neverfox, I am not a pacifist although I am far, far, far from being a "neo-con" or "warmonger."

I do believe that everyone has a right to defend herself. Self-defence is different than violence initiated in the name of "the cause." In both anarchism and communism, violence is justified if it furthers the cause. As Stalin famously said, "one death is a tragedy, a million is merely a statistic." The destruction of 6 million Jews, including members of my family, for "the cause" of racial purity can never be justified save for those anti-semitics that can, somehow, follow the tortioned logic of Naziism.

Blowing up a bus of Israeli children or using babies as suicide bombers cannot justify whatever "cause" for such can never be worth it when rooted in the blood of innocents.

The deaths of 600,000 Americans, who chose to fight over the issue of slavery, I would not call unjustified. The goal was honourable and, for the most part, the participants were voluntary.

Once, I subscribed to anarcho-capitalism, but even I determined that seeking destruction in order to rebuild a new society in my philosophical image (ACs will claim that this is not what they seek, but for AC to work, the state and much of current societal strictures would have to be annihilated) is not noble and the pain inflicted upon others for "my cause" would be selfish. I would be imposing by beliefs and my "Thou Shalls" and "Thou Shall Nots" exactly like the Progressive "Absolute Shalls."

If one were to ask the tens of millions slaughtered as a result of the anarchistic Black Hand's assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand and his wife, Sophia, which set alight the kindle, would they think WWI was worth it?

Would the 100-million-plus that died as a result of Communism think "the cause" was worth it?

I am reminded of a hideous article written by Melissa Lafsky in the Huffington Post following the death of Ted Kennedy. She wrote:

"We don't know how much Kennedy was affected by her death, or what she'd have thought about arguably being a catalyst for the most successful Senate career in history. What we don't know, as always, could fill a Metrodome.

Still, ignorance doesn't preclude a right to wonder. So it doesn't automatically make someone (aka, me) a Limbaugh-loving, aerial-wolf-hunting NRA troll for asking what Mary Jo Kopechne would have had to say about Ted's death, and what she'd have thought of the life and career that are being (rightfully) heralded.

Who knows -- maybe she'd feel it was worth it."