Jane's Revenge is on the march. They claim to be "not one group but many" and they claim to have attacked pro-life entities (churches, crisis pregancy centers, individuals, etc.) all over the country. "You know that we are serious." They offered an ultimatum. Get out or else. If you run a crisis pregnancy center aimed at helping women have their babies, you had 30 days to close your doors. They were not surprised that the time has passed "with no sign of consilience."
"Consilience"? Really?? I had to look it up. Consilience is the principle that evidence from various sources can converge. It is the linking of principles from different disciplines to form a comprehensive theory. It is compatibility, harmony, consensus. So what does this "consilience" look like to Jane's Revenge? Walk away. "You quit and we win." Strange. That doesn't sound anything at all like consilience.
So now "the leash is off." They say they have demonstrated "How easy and fun it is to attack." They warned "We answer to no one but ourselves." They promise "increasingly drastic measures." What is the "crime"? What is the wrong they wish to right ... by whatever violent means necessary? Apparently helping pregnant girls without killing their babies is making survival "largely untenable." Helping girls without killing babies is criminalizing humanity (their words). Offering help without killing babies is limiting medical autonomy. It is an "infrastructure of the enslavers." To them "complete liberation" is the elimination of any other options. Attacking clinics that do not kill babies helps build "robust, caring communities of mutual aid." They say, "Through attacking we find joy, courage, and strip the veneer of impenetrability held by these violent institutions." Wait ... "violent institutions"? You mean the ones that help without hurting or killing or damaging anything? Those "violent institutions"? You who urge people everywhere "to paint, to burn, to cut, to jam" are the non-violent?
Protesting outside the homes of Supreme Court Justices to coerce a decision in your favor is an illegal act. Threatening to kill a Supreme Court Justice is an illegal act. Vandalism from graffiti to arson are illegal acts, all multiplied by their repetition. Violent people are aiming at nonviolent people and calling it "good" and "right." Like the abusers who claim, "You made me do this," they demonstrate their insanity by continuing to break the law and blame the victims. But, of course, this issue is one that the powers that be actually want violence against, so we aren't expecting any law enforcement or justice in the foreseeable future. Indeed, the White House encouraged illegal activities like this. Talk about corruption.
________
Postscript. For documentation of Jane's Revenge's aims and perspectives, go to their blog. Seriously, they are documenting this stuff in the open .. including the source of the above quotes.
7 comments:
That Dan! He's a stitch!!
I have been watching Thomas Sowell videos at YouTube. I recommend them to Dan Trabue.
Who have you oppressed?
Don't know how that got in there. I pushed the "delete" button like always.
Last time I checked, white supremacy isn't listed in my concordance. Gonna need a reference. Apparently the loving response to women wanting to keep their children is assault, but those that want to murder their unborn is acceptance.
Seriously, David, I couldn't figure out how "We want to provide alternatives for women who need help with their pregnancy" became viewed as an evil that must be addressed with violence.
Given the narrative that these folks spout about abortion being such a difficult, momentous, choice and all the documented trauma post abortive women have endured shouldn't the be welcoming people who provide all sorts of helpful services to these women without sucking up half a billion tax dollars per year? Seriously, if these folks just wanted women to make whatever choice was best for them, then they wouldn't be engaged in this campaign of destruction against people who are helping women.
Post a Comment