If you believe that the problem of quadruple murderer Christopher Dorner was solved when he committed suicide in the burning cabin, you’re wrong. Consider these reports:
If you imagine that someone who murdered the daughter of a man he disliked, as well as her fiancé, would evoke universal condemnation, you’re wrong again. As Marc Lamont, associate professor of education at Columbia University declared, “It’s kind of like watching ‘Django Unchained’ in real life. It’s kind of exciting.”
Yes, it is “kind of exciting.” So is robbing a liquor store. So is shooting a person you dislike. And shooting the daughter of a person you dislike is really exciting. What is “kind of exciting” has nothing whatever to do with what is worthwhile or productive.
On the contrary, the relationship is often inverse. A great many things that are “kind of exciting” are evil. But if you thought a professor at Columbia would understand that, you’re really, really wrong. In fact, when was the last time a member of the liberal elite even used the word “evil”? The very concept of evil has become obsolete. Like whistling, it is something the older generation learned in childhood, but which is no longer taught, and is now considered old-fashioned and rather silly.
But to make my point, let me reverse the situation:
● Imagine that Timothy McVeigh, who bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building, murdering 168 and injuring hundreds, had issued a multipage manifesto listing his “grievances” and giving his thoughts on society.
● Imagine that Adam Lanza, who shot up the Sandy Hook School in Connecticut, murdering 20 first-graders and six school employees, was spouting political rants during his court appearances.
● Imagine that Jared Loughner, who critically wounded Representative Gabrielle Giffords and murdered six others, issued political diatribes from his jail cell, expounding on his views of our current problems.
In your wildest dreams, could you imagine learned professors and media pundits suggesting that we should “put aside” their murder sprees and look carefully at their thoughts on political and social topics? I can’t conceive of that happening. So why the difference?
It can’t be a question of race. Yes, Dorner was African American. But the first two human beings he murdered were Monica Quan, the daughter of the police captain who defended him at his hearing, as well as her fiancé, Keith Lawrence. Quan was Chinese American and a college basketball coach. Lawrence was African American and a security officer at USC.
If one is a leftist who is also a closet racist, it is possible to excuse almost anything a black does as not his fault but a result of white racism. Even so, Dorner began his spree by murdering two members of minority groups. His crimes remove any rational excuse for sympathy, much less admiration. So what could possibly be the reason that apparently sane people find Dorner to be some kind of “real-life super hero,” and his opinions on anything at all to be worthy of a moment’s consideration?
Here is a clue: Look at the contempt that the liberal establishment expresses for conservative African Americans such as Justice Clarence Thomas. And look at how the liberal media ignore the inspiring and instructive address by an eminent African American scholar, Dr. Benjamin Carson, at the National Prayer Breakfast. Clearly, to the liberal establishment, it’s not enough to be black; you also have to think black – that is, liberal; or better still, far left; or best of all, punctuated by violence. This approach is very helpful to the Democratic Party, but it is no help at all to those whom liberals purport to help – namely, blacks themselves.
Dorner’s rant on the Internet expressed admiration for President and Mrs. Obama, for the Clintons, and for liberal commentators on MSNBC and CNN, as well as support for gun control and contempt for the NRA. That is, he expressed standard liberal views. Apparently that makes him eligible for support, despite his murder spree. How revolting. But how revealing.
Because Dorner expressed liberal views, his liberal fans pay attention to his manifesto. But suppose Dorner had expressed conservative views. Then he would be used as a horrible example of “police brutality.” He would be identified with the LAPD, rather than as an opponent of the LAPD. The Tea Party and the NRA would be blamed for “creating” him. But he professed liberal views. Will liberal activists like MoveOn.org or the Occupy movement be blamed for “creating” him? Are you joking?
Liberalism is a religion. It teaches a series of dogmas, which a liberal must profess or be branded a heretic and expelled from polite society. If a person professes these beliefs, especially if he does so publicly and loudly, he is “saved.” No, not saved in a theological sense – absolved from all his sins and guaranteed a place in Heaven. But saved in a political sense – absolved from all his crimes and guaranteed a place in liberals’ hearts.
To some (not all) liberals, Dorner’s manifesto proved that he was “saved.” Perhaps this doesn’t quite remove all his guilt for four murders and other attempted murders. But to these liberals, it does remove so much of his guilt that we should “put aside” his crimes and give deep thought to the points he raised in his manifesto.
If we do that, we will surely encourage every crank and malcontent to commit a horrendous crime in order to merit public attention and have his grievances taken seriously. If there is anything more irrational and destructive, I have yet to hear of it.
Contact: email@example.com. You are welcome to publish or post these articles, provided that you cite the author and website.