What is a “blood libel”? It is an irresponsible and frivolous accusation of murder, like the one made against Sarah Palin, made with the intent of justifying real murders.
The left have long been issuing exterminationist rhetoric, and this blood libel has led to an explosion of calls for the murder of alleged rightists. x
This blood libel looks to me like preparation for the real murders that the left hopes to commit during the coming Cloward–Piven crisis.
The left is, of course, outraged at the term “blood libel”. It perceives only the right as using violent rhetoric. It sees nothing violent and menacing about its own rhetoric, because, after all, supposedly everyone knows rightists need killing, hence supposedly nothing controversial about saying so. And so, the use of the term by Sarah Palin and numerous bloggers and commentators seems to them ludicrously inappropriate.
Since Sarah Palin supposedly knows how peaceful and benevolent the left is, the fact that she used such a term supposedly proves she cannot possibly know what it means. That she implies that the wonderfully peaceful left is violent and murderous is surely an accident, and proves how stupid she must be.
To progressives, who can see no violence or threats coming from anyone progressive, the term seems obviously inappropriate. Sometimes they say it is inappropriate in mild, civilized, and reasonable language, sometimes in language so incendiary as to prove the term is entirely appropriate.
In considering the entire screaming match, one must keep in mind that we are approaching a crisis in the next decade or two in which political violence is possible, likely, and may well be necessary. Someone is going to get defunded, and they will likely resist it.
So, as Sarah Palin said, keep your powder dry.