Kill Ben Shapiro

The moral case for killing the Littlest Chickenhawk:

In deciding how to treat our [columnists], then, we must answer one question: Do the benefits of [murder] in this case outweigh the harms?

In the case of [columnists], however, the answer is that [murder] will often serve a useful purpose. The [Iraqi occupation] scenario, wherein [murder] is necessary to save [American] lives from imminent destruction, is an obvious example. But it is not the only example. If a [columnist writes] about [invading other countries], if he [advocates] future attacks, if he [writes favorably] about [actions that will cost American lives], we should [kill] him.

The first duty of Western civilization is self-preservation. By the Littlest Chickenhawk’s own logic, if we could save American lives by killing those columnists who advocate actions that could lead to the loss of those lives, we are bound to kill them if we wish to preserve Western civilization.

Naturally, it would only be fair to start with him. Better not behead him, though, he strikes me as one who shows every sign of being able to survive without need for a functioning brain.

Torture is a historical aspect of barbarism. Shapiro is advocating the destruction of precisely that which he supposedly wants to save. America can survive ten dirty bombs without serious trouble, in fact, the odds of its long-term survival would increase dramatically without New York, Washington DC and Los Angeles. But it will not survive the varied and pernicious measures being put in place that are nominally supposed to prevent the possibility of such attacks.