Vance Defends Killing, Proving Some Lives Matter More Than Others
JD Vance's defense of the killing of an anti-ICE protester in Minneapolis, as reported by the Financial Times, showcases a remarkably consistent pattern: those who challenge instruments of state power, particularly on immigration, are often deemed legitimate targets. This isn't an isolated incident; it echoes a historical playbook where dissent is demonized, paving the way for violent suppression
to be tacitly or explicitly condoned. One might wonder if similar defenses would emerge for protestors challenging, say, a multinational corporation's environmental record. The language is key. 'Leftwing radicals,' Vance calls them. How easily 'protester' becomes 'radical,' and from there, anything. It’s similar to how 'civilian' in Gaza often morphs into 'human shield' or 'Hamas operative' — a
convenient linguistic sleight of hand to justify violence (Source: FT, The Intercept on protest crackdowns). The selective outrage is telling: calls for 'law and order' ring hollow when state-sanctioned violence against dissent is defended, rather than investigated. Some lives, it appears, are simply more disposable in the narrative of national security.