Is the guy who wrote the book The Party of Death—in which it is ‘argued’ that Democrats maintain a pro-death agenda, and only Republicans can stop them (because Democrats are so menacingly powerful right now)—is this the same guy who gives sympathetic nods to atom-bomb-dropping on our enemies and also to increased tolerance towards wartime “collateral damage” i.e. having a more chill attitude over dead innocents?
Is it me or do these endorsements sound slightly pro death? Not that anyone is explicitly pro death. Any book title that implies otherwise is what we would call a Strawman book title. But his rhetorical dishonesty is less important than the fact that this young man is obviously confused about what kinds of political decisions yield the most harm for humanity.
It also strikes me that Ponnuru is more eager to consider explanations of violence towards innocents in the case of manly wars, than he is to consider the relevant conditions under which womanly women receive abortions. Killing in war is understandable because of x, y, z, while controlling birth must be an issue of indulgent death-lust. The charity principle probably ought not be applied so selectively.
Anyway, this book, The Party of Death, which will probably be on the Great Books List in 100 years, is edited by our boy Ben Domenech, which is funny because he knows a lot about parties—those of death and otherwise. Just check out this super article in which he pretended to give his own opinions about parties.
