Monday, November 24, 2008

Why I'm not a liberal

A fellow contributor touched on one of my favourite subjects, my utter disdain for leftist thinking. Man, don't get me started.

In the post, an eminent doctor describes liberal thinking as a mental disorder which I wholeheartedly agree with. Read the article below to understand why these people should be shunned.


Half the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important. They don't mean t
o do harm -- but the harm does not interest them. Or they do not see it, or they justify it because they are absorbed in the endless struggle to think well of themselves. -- T.S. Eliot, 1950


Nothing made liberals feel more self-satisfied than their opposition to American involvement in Vietnam. Not only did they force evil "Amerika" out of the war, but they cut off military support to South Vietnam, so that when - surprise - the North broke the peace treaty and invaded the South, it had no chance.

North Vietnam invaded with more tanks than the Nazis used to conquer France in 1940. Cambodia fell to the Communists as well, and the Khmer Rogue murdered a quarter of the population. In South Vietnam, tens of thousands died in "re-education camps." Millions fled the country, with many thousands of "boat people" drowning, or being raped and murdered (estimated 3 million killed). It's been claimed that twice as many people were murdered in SE Asia by the Communists in the first two years after the war ended, than died in the course of the eight-year war.

Vietnam became a permanent one-party state, without freedom of the press or speech. The Montagnards being slowly exterminated. Liberals didn't want these people to suffer and die, it just didn't interest them. It was more important they think well of themselves. If that means a few million yellow-skinned people have to die, so what?

Liberals fought to end evil white rule in Zimbabwe (then Rhodesia), imposing economic sanctions until in 1978 a black-majority government, headed by Robert Mugabe, was installed.

Farms were taken from the evil white farmers and given to black supporters of Mugabe—unfortunately, farming skills were not included in the transfer. Today, Zimbabwe, which once exported food, is starving. Life expectancy has declined from 60 to 37 for males, and to 34 for females. Infant mortality has gone from 53 to 81 deaths per 1,000.

But if millions of black people have to suffer and die so white liberals can think well of themselves, that's a small price.

Unfortunately, South Africa is on the same path.

Liberals fought apartheid until black rule was establish there as well. Since then soaring crime has driven out those who can afford to flee. According to the South African Institute of Race Relations, 800,000 or more whites out of four million plus have emigrated since apartheid ended. Skilled blacks who have the financial resources are bolting as well. They take with them the knowledge to run an economy and government.

But the disintegration of South Africa isn't a suitable topic for the Brie and white wine set in wealthy liberal neighbourhoods like Chicago's Hyde Park. They feel so good about having established black rule, that the suffering of millions of blacks people is of no consequence.

Another liberal triumph was bringing down the evil, pro-American Shah of Iran. Since then, Iran has hanged gays, stoned women for adultery, engaged in a war with Iraq that slaughtered millions, and started work on an atomic bomb to create a new holocaust in Israel. No matter to liberals as long as they can feel self-satisfied about opposing the Shah.

Liberals all read Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, and fought to ban DDT, to save the birds. That banning DDT resulted in the deaths of millions of third world children from Malaria doesn't intrude on their self-congratulations.

Liberals fought to force the evil banks to make loans to poor people through the community reinvestment act and developed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to create "Affordable Housing." The collapse of those institutions is of no concern to them. It was the greedy Wall Street investors who created the current economic meltdown, not them, don't you know?

Liberals reading this will be enraged. Their intentions were good, and for liberals, intentions are far more important than outcomes.

Now they have elected the most liberal, inexperienced president in America's history, because voting for a black man will make them feel so good about themselves. And they won't take any responsibility for what comes next.

Because being a liberal means never having to say you're sorry.

3 Opinion(s):

Stupid said...

I hate liberals just as much as you do and you’ve sum up my own sentiments pretty well. However, I do believe it was necessary to ban DDT. I’ve seen first hand how a small tropical volcanic island’s aquatic ecosystem has been decimated by DDT. Imagine the disappointment of finding a underwater aquatic landscape that has been deserted and turned into a lifeless void, similar to that of a newly formed quarry. The real scare though is that it is a landscape that stretches miles and miles without end.

It’s no good saving people from malaria but destroying their food source at the same time. The negative impact of DDT is long term.

Anonymous said...

Summed up well. I do however agree that DDT had to go as it caused genetic disorders in the end.

Doberman said...

Well put both comments above. I try not to edit articles for obvious reasons. It leaves a gap for people to like/dislike some of the points made. It's interesting to see people's views.

For what it's worth, you are both right, DDT was bad news.