Many freedom lovers in America are a bit on the fence, I think, as to whether extreme action is necessary today to protect our freedoms, or whether moderate action is enough.
It's fair to ask what I mean by "extreme" here. By "extreme," I am not talking about or advocating violence, but rather some nasty and merciless political fighting of an extremely harsh, personal nature; to put it another way, a type of campaign that would be expected to produce a strong backlash. (I do not rule out that violence might be justified at some future point, but I don't believe we're there yet.)
In deciding whether "extreme" action is justified, two key questions must be answered. (1) Is the situation desperate enough to call for it? (2) Will anything short of it lead to a solution?
I believe the answer to the first question is yes, and the answer to second question is no. In combination, these two considerations indicate that yes, extreme action is justified.
(1) Is the situation desperate enough to call for it?
Yes. America has been taken over by zealots whose primary interest is the protection of Israel. Many of our civil liberties are lost already. Not much more needs to be said.
(2) Will anything short of extreme action lead to a solution?
No. Zealots are by definition unpersuadable through traditional or moderate means. In addition, a large contingent of the people we are dealing with here are religious fanatics, an even more intransigent bunch. Moderation will by no means achieve results.
So yes, extreme action is necessary.
No comments:
Post a Comment