Yesterday Politico’s Josh Kraushaar wrote this in response to Marco Rubio’s common sense observation that the Iranian people would have been better off if their divinely given right to bear arms in their defense had been respected:

Florida Senate candidate Marco Rubio is the latest to make his own curious comparison drawn from the Iranian demonstrations — that the protesters would have more success if they had a constitutional right
to bear arms.

“I have a feeling the situation in Iran would be a little different if they had a 2nd amendment like ours,” Rubio tweeted on Sunday.

Not sure if Rubio was advocating an armed uprising from the otherwise peaceful protesters, but his follow-up tweet was a bit more dovish: “Hoping police and military in Iran will refuse to attack unarmed civilians if ordered to do so.”

Kraushaar seems to imply that the massacre of unarmed protesters by a theocratic regime is a more desirable outcome than an armed insurrection where the people could defend themselves from government paramilitary forces and allies, including Palestinians imported into Iran by the Mullahs because they knew Hamas thugs would be more brutal to the protesters.

As Ed Morrissey pointed out Rubio’s point is hardly “curious” and shouldn’t be controversial. The theocracy of Iran can only enforce its will on the people through its monopoly on arms. That monopoly on arms makes protesting pointless, as the savage barbarity of Baharestan Square makes clear:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEtVRgZ3Szw[/youtube]

According to Threats Watch 10,000 Basiji Militia waded into the protesters with axes, clubs, and of course, guns. The helpless protesters could do nothing but die in droves, unable to defend themselves from axe wielding thugs. There’s a picture of one of the dead with an axe wound at Threats Watch if you want to see the end result of civilian disarmament.

Kraushaar seems to think this outcome was better than the one Rubio and I and I’m sure any person with an ounce of compassion would want, which is a population who can resort to use of arms to prevent their loved ones from being hacked to death, their wives and daughters taken back to Palestine as Hamas war booty. Kraushaar is arguing that it is in some way immoral to wish that the Iranian people, like we Americans, had the resources with which to resist governmental tyranny.

Instead they cheer on the protests and the slaughter. They love to see Martyrs to the cause of Democracy, but they can’t abide heroes. They won’t support Iranian self-determination, or the Iranian people’s right to overthrow a regime that rules only through force. It would be easy to claim that for people who spent the last eight years pretending that they were fighting a fascist dictator through blogging on DailyKos seeing true heroic resistance to oppression, and the horrible consequences of civilian disarmament (a policy they support) too painfully exposes their own childish perfidy. But that’s not the reason the Kraushaars of the world find the idea of Iranians having the means to defend themselves abhorrent.

I maintain that to fully understand modern liberalism you have to understand it not as just a political ideology, but as a state worshipping pseudo-religion. In fact, modern liberalism is little more than secularized radical Christianity where God and Jesus have been replaced with “the common good.” Liberal thought posits that the world is divided into good and evil people. Where this bastard offspring of radical theology and academic Marxism truly perverts Judeo-Christian thought is in how good and evil is judged. In fact, the act of judging something or someone as evil is, to the Liberal cultist, evidence of not only the evil of whoever it is making that judgment, but of the victimization, thus the goodness, of the object judged. Victimhood is to the modern liberal what Sainthood is to the Christian.

Those who don’t want to be victims, those who seek the means to keep ourselves from being victimized, are not just rejecting liberal pacifism, but the entire cosmology on which that selective pacifism is based.  Kraushaar no doubt finds my personal gun ownership as “curious” as the wish for Iranians were armed. He would find the pepper spray my social worker mother habitually carried with her into rough areas of NYC, a practice that was illegal for much of my life in both NY and NJ, “curious” as well. Women carrying anything more than a “rape whistle” (and anyone who thinks that’s a good idea should read this) to prevent being victimized are no doubt met with the same naive disdain disguised as curiosity that Kraushaars showed Rubio.

The modern Cult of Liberalism, an anti-theist doctrine that searches for cultural rather than personal salvation, seeks to achieve heaven on earth through class, race and gender warfare. This warfare, which has never fully erupted, needs a soldier that is willing to tear down entire classes, races and genders. It needs people who are not only victims, but people “stuck” in their victimization. Stuck in the anger, resentment and fear victimization breeds. Victims are kept by modern liberalism in a state of perpetual co-dependency, and encouraged to continually define themselves as victims. They are never encouraged to use their victimization to learn how to protect themselves. Victim status is fetishized and sought after, making examples of of people refusing to be victims, or ideas which would ensure people can’t be victimized, greeted with the same enthusiasm Christians would greet a heresy.

The Utopia the Kraushaars of the world envision is one in which the individual is completely reliant on the state. The State Will Provide will be the new mantra of the non-Jesus freaks, assured that a benevolent all-encompassing and ever watchful state will feed, clothe, shelter and protect them while they revert to a child-like existence of pure innocence, worrying only about nothing more important than what trendy restaurant to eat at. Their fantasy ignores reality as it is. If the outcome of the protest, now massacres, in Iran would have been more positive by people owning weapons and defending themselves, then their faith is undermined. It is better for liberals to claim that the act of being killed is superior to killing to defend yourself.

The Iranians will pay in blood for this leftist hubris, and all they will get in return is some theatrical hand-wringing and and some talk about how brave the dead were. But like Darfur, Burma and dozens of other outrages, the Iranian government will suffer no consequences for the slaughter, and those who will continue to suffer for the next few years as these crackdowns continue will be left impotent martyrs to the long abandoned cause of freedom, whose throat was slit long ago by the “the common good.”

It is perhaps the worst part of the secularization and perversion of Christian doctrine that is modern liberalism. You must die for their beliefs, because if you as an individual can resist victimization you will have undermined their foundational mythology. There can be no Liberal Heaven on Earth if there are still men and women who can care for themselves, and desire their freedom more than a false sense of safety provided by weapon restrictions. Those of us willing to fight and die for our lives and our families, and worse yet kill for them, are truly the Fallen in the modern liberal’s view, and must be sacrificed on the altar of The Common Good.