Friday, 19 March 2010

Sarah Palin and Violence

By Kathleen

Sarah Palin has a problem and her problem is with anyone who does not believe in her small town view of an America in which God’s Law is paramount. As she sees it, unless the rest of America falls in line with her view, then they are non-believers and haters who must be stood up against. So deep-set is her belief that she consistently runs with the narrative that because people hate her then she must be a victim. A victim persecuted for her love of a God who will soon reveal his mighty power to all of us. Sarah believes that that judgment day is near as we are living in the “End Times” and she is preparing herself for the battle to come. I don’t have a problem with this. Sarah’s religious views belong to her. Do I think that her views are unreasonable? Yes, I do. But that is my personal opinion and she is more than welcome to take care of her own spiritual soul. I’m comfortable with mine.

However, my concern regarding Sarah is a much more elementary one because she has another shield and it is one which she wields very effectively. She’s not just on a mission for God. She’s on a mission to save America from “big government” and it is the political weapons that she has chosen which most concern me. Fundamentally, Sarah’s supporters see her as a martyr preparing to set herself against a system of “big government” which has lost its way. She has armed herself with language. A language of division, fear and resentment, couched in frustration and one that essentially promotes violence - violence that is on the verge of escalation without reason and which is very close to spilling over into becoming physical, as reported by The Redoubt Reporter:

Jenny Neyman / Redoubt Reporter
Michigan Militia founder Norm Olson, left, and master of ceremonies Bob Bird, both of Nikiski, at last week's Second Amendment/Constitutional Task Force rally in Kenai.

A recent meeting in Kenai, Alaska of the Second Amendment Constitutional Task Force began in a friendly enough manner but soon disintegrated into bitterness and inflammatory rhetoric when Schaeffer Cox, of Fairbanks, announced that “something horrible was going on” as he implied that America was presently run by a tyrant. He went on to say:

“My greatest fear is that they’re not going to hear us until we speak to them in their language, which is force,” Cox said. “… We would be doing a wrong, bad thing if we skipped over all those other forms of force and we jumped right to bloody force, but right now, America is headed to bloody force. If we sit on our hands until it hits the fan and it’s go time, we won’t be able to exercise that warlike force with a clear conscience. So we need to be very faithful with what’s at hand right now.” And:

“I am not opposed to violent, bloody force. I know that is hard to say to a big group of people. It sounds kind of bad but that is something that we’ve got to reckon with. That is a duty that we have as an individual, as people who have families and friends.”

I watched Sarah last night on the Glenn Beck show as she followed Beck's call and denounced the use of physical violence whilst at the same time dropping in her code words of fear, desperation and unheard voices.

Furthermore, in the interview, Sarah reveals to a shocked somewhat bemused Glenn that "she doesn't pretend to be a believer in everything that she reads in the media. Not in the ADN or other aspects of the mainstream/lamestream media." She continues to say, "I won't pretend that everything is taken in context." She's read enough "to know that violence isn't the answer but that there is legitimate frustration with Government today" and thinks that "those who assembled at that meeting in Kenai, what they were saying is that there is some desperation out there in society and citizens want to know what they can do to have their voices heard. Violence is not the answer though."

It’s good to know that Sarah believes that “violence is not the answer”. What I’d like to know is can we now expect to see a change in Sarahs’ violence contaminated rhetoric? Or is she still going to employ the media to inveigh America with her particular brand of shrill and divisive discourse which is designed to limit rational discussion? I watched Sarah closely during this particular interview and I do not believe that we will see any drastic change in her message. You can see it in her manner and in her cold eyes. You can hear it in her venomous responses to Glenn. She understands their violent nature and fears because she is one of them.

Further reading on ADN

(Please read the previous post and help if you can. Thank you)


No comments: