Liberals are champions of moral relativism, which says that moral standards are culturally based and we mustn't judge another person or country based on their morals (or moral decay). America and the West must be idealistic in all things. In other words, the socialist press jumps on anyone or anything in the West that isn't perfect. All the while, Arabs, Africans, and others with barbaric cultures (female genital mutilation, wife beating, hanging homosexuals, and stoning pregnant women to death) are fine. I look at this as sideways moral relativism (in other words, the "X" part of the graph). I call this X-MR. "X" is the present day.
At the same time, liberals have no problems applying modern morals to past history, even ancient history. For instance, I've heard countless liberals lambast the USA for its treatment of American Indians, even though morals of the day, generally speaking, considered poor treatment of the Indians acceptable. The prevalent thought about Indians, in the minds of English colonialists in America, is written straight into the Declaration of Independence ("savages" who don't distinguish between combatants and innocent civilians, including children, in warfare). Liberals like to use the American Indian experience to make themselves feel guilty. I view this as the "Y" part of the moral relativism graph, where "Y" is time. Liberals are unwilling to apply their current morals to cultures across the world right now, but looking into the past, it's a useful tool to make America look like a nation of obscene barbarians. I call this Y-MR.
Other examples of Y-MR:
Nuclear bombs dropped on Japan during WWII
Internment of Japanese Americans during WWII
Slavery in 18th and 19th centuries
McCarthyism
Interestingly enough, as a practical libertarian who leans right and supports the Iraq War, I'm a total moral relativist. I'm a "Y" moral relativist, but not an "X" moral relativist. This is the opposite of leftists. I don't give Muslims a pass for beating their wives, for instance, where leftists do. I don't search for alternate translations when Iran's "president" says Israel must be wiped off the map, where leftists do. I don't want to elevate school children to the next grade before they're academically qualified, where leftists do. I blame the Muslim pilots for killing 3,000 innocent civilians on 9/11, where leftists don't. I stand firmly against the persecution of homosexuals anywhere in the world, where leftists don't.
Fighting back
Here's why combatting these liberals is a challenge: killing hundreds of thousands of civilians with two bombs in WWII was bad. It can't be denied. Same with the others on the list. To unravel the peculiar liberal thinking, one must consider the context and prevailing thought at the time of the events. For instance, for most of WWII, the prevailing thought (on both sides, by the by) was that the war must be stopped as soon as possible, and this view was stronger at times than the desire to fight a chivalrous war. More civilians were killed in the bombing of more than a dozen German cities, all designed to kill civilians, and London, and many other cities, than at Nagasaki and Hiroshima combined. Leftists ignore all of this because it weakens their cause.
When a liberal says America is bad because of the atomic weapons used in WWII, he is either a) ignorant of history, b) knowingly misconstruing history to support his dislike of America, or c) has lost his grip on reality. I give liberals a lot of credit, placing most of them in the "b" category. Consider that minimum estimates, by all sides and biases, begin at 1 million dead for an invasion of the main Japanese islands. Also consider that the atomic bombs were dropped specifically to avoid this deadly scenario. Truman's choice was one of the most difficult of WWII, but the choice was easy, and for that he's a hero.
Also, the US didn't enter the war in any seriousness until Dec. 7, 1941, after the Pearl Harbor attack. The most enlightened among the liberals say that we deserved that attack because of the oil blockade on the Japanese. These liberals avoid using the correct term for "Japanese", which was Japanese Empire. And they ignore the fact that Japan entered the war in 1937 by invading china. Are liberals not familiar with the Rape of Nankin? Do they really not know what the Japanese did to civilians and POWs? Perhaps I'm wrong about this, but I think they do, and therefore they know that the oil blockade against the "Japanese" was designed to stifle the murderous, bloodlust of the Japanese Empire. The blockade was an attempt to stop the empire without bloodshed.
The readiness with which liberals practice Y-MR and refuse to practice X-MR is so strange that I'd feel comfortable saying that even they know this isn't rational. If that's true, then there's a more sinister motive, such as a bitter hatred of strength (USA) and a worship of weakness (contemporary barbaric cultures). This is a central tenet of socialism: strength is bad, weakness is good. This accurately portrays liberal thinking in America, and leftists everywhere. Whether you apply that to Washington liberals, British teacher's unions, or French opposition to the Iraq War, it all fits.
As far as WWII goes, I'll throw in one more tidbit: worldwide leftists learned the wrong lesson from WWII. Based on the lethality and destructiveness of WWII, all wars must be avoided no matter what. If Churchill could come back to life for 24 hours, I think he'd tell us that the correct lesson to learn from WWII is to stop tyrants intent on death and destruction early, not late. Sometimes that means war. See Iraq...
No comments:
Post a Comment