Why is that the Left always (without exception) vocally outraged over imaginary injustices, but never (also without exception) voice any outrage over real outrages?
If the Left were stupid or insane, they would sometimes, by sheer statistical random chance, sometimes voice real outrage over a real injustice, or dismiss as unreal a complaint that actually was, for once, unreal. But they are always silent over real outrages and injustices, except when they applaud them (as when Ward Churchill applauded the destruction of the World Trade Center by calling the busboys and secretaries working the tower “Little Eichmanns”). And they are always outraged over imaginary outrages (look in today’s newspaper for any number of examples).
The only way to get a nearly perfect score of absolute unreality and absolute injustice in each and every stance voiced by countless people over countless years is if three things are true:
- They all share, openly or tacitly, the same assumption
- That assumption influences, informs, or controls each and every stance
- That assumption, either directly or indirectly, substitutes justice for injustice in their thinking, reality for unreality.
I submit that the one assumption all Leftists share in order to be Leftists is this: all unfairness in life is manmade.
This has several implications. If all unfairness is manmade, it all springs from the laws and customs, institutions and habits of mankind. There is no fair success. All success is victimization and exploitation of the oppressed, theft from some common store of happiness which was meant to be shared equally.
–Ergo any man, church or nation who is successful won its success under the crooked rules and corrupt practices of these same unfair laws and practices;
–Ergo the successful are in the wrong always, and the more successful they are, the more wrong;
–Ergo again the only way their victims can be made right is for the successful to give away the ill-gotten fruits of success to the victims, and the laws and practices of man shall and must change to prevent the unfairness from happening again.
That assumption controls their every stance.
Real story published in the Washington PostFor the Marxist, the assumption is that wealthy classes or nations prosper due to an unfair set of laws and practices, namely, the institution of private property, which victimizes the impoverished class or impoverished nation for the benefit of the successful. For the feminist, the assumption is that men prosper at the expense of women, due to the unfair institution of marriage and romance, and the subtle influence of grammar and tee-shirts, and the ever present threat of rape; for the race-hustler, the assumption is that Caucasians prosper due to racism and exploitation of lesser races, due to the freedom of association and freedom of hiring practices, which must be abolished and replaced with quota systems based on skin color.
Now, in any case where the successful are successful not for the reasons claimed by the Left, that is, the success is due to merit, their remedies of abolishing freedom, abolishing marriage, and abolishing private property are counterproductive to the stated goal. Race-hustling and quotas create more friction between the races and less success for the unsuccessful; abolishing romance and marriage removed the traditional protections women enjoyed against cads and cuckoos who leave their eggs for other men to raise, or Uncle Sam; abolishing private property abolishes even the possibility of success for anyone except the Nomenklatura and other pirates, monsters, and wild beasts.
Please note that if there were cases where the successful were actually ‘the exploiters’ as the Left describes, let us say, the Stalinists in Russia or the Muslim slavers abducting nubile Christian girls in Africa, it is the Rightwing Americans and the Christian gentlemen of the Western World who take the steps needed to abolish the evil laws and practices which allow for the injustice to continue, as when, for example, the Republicans fought the Civil War at disastrous and heartbreaking costs to free the slaves from their Democrat masters, only to receive feckless ingratitude in return (which is, sadly, how it must be, whenever true evil is abolished).
In all such cases of real outrages, the Left have nothing to do. When the problem is either an ongoing battle and being fought by the Right, or is already solved by the Right, the Left are throwing hysterical fits to prevent the problem from being solved, on the grounds that the Stalinists or Oil Sheiks are in the ‘oppressed victim’ category.
And when the problem is solved, as, for example, the overthrow of Saddam or fending off the communists attacking South Vietnam, the Left takes all possible steps to undo the victory, and turn the newly freed state over to the enemy, as the Democrat Party successfully did in my youth after the Viet Nam war, and, today, with Barack Obama’s successful creation of Isis in the wreckage he made of Bush’s victory in the Middle East.
Even if they had something to do, they could not do it. If they could fight a real injustice, then they would be heroes, and that would put them in the category of the successful. But, then, by their primary and axiomatic assumption, anyone who is successful is a cheat and an exploiter and a villain. So they cannot fight any real injustices.
That leaves only the imaginary injustices, things that cannot be solved because they are not problems to begin with. You cannot change something that does not exist. You cannot abolish the institutional racism in modern America because there is none. You cannot halt the conspiracy of men to keep womenfolk from studying science and math because there is no conspiracy: whether women could perform at the same average level as men or not is not an issue here. The conspiracy is an article of faith the Leftists MUST believe, because the alternative, the fact that women by their nature will not or cannot perform in the field at the same average level, is a possibility that leads to the conclusion that the institutions are not corrupt, but fair.
But if the institutions are not corrupt, and life is fair, then the failure of the losers in the contests of life is deserved and merited and earned. The loser is poorer than his neighbor because his neighbor works harder. He is dumber than his neighbor because he lost out on the Darwinian crapshoot when it came to genes, or perhaps the stars frowned on him in the hour he was born.
Or perhaps it merely is bad luck to be born to an unwed mother and sent to public school and have all love of learning beaten out of you by boredom, and be surrounded by gangs and drugpushers. But if the institutions of marriage, education, and legal systems have been systematically corrupted into continual malfunction by the Left over the series of years, the real answer for the lack of success of most losers in life is not the system under which we live, but the sabotage of the system.
But yet if I did not create my neighbor’s bad luck, if I did nothing to him to put him in the losing position, what right has he to call on me to put him in the winning position? He can beg me for volunteer charity out of kindness of my heart or my strong sense that the rich have a spiritual duty to help the poor, but once he claims that I owe him my success on the grounds that I somehow robbed him of his due, then all charity is lost.
It does not much matter what the answer is to the question of why some men prosper and others fail. Any answer that does not blame the Establishment or the Patriarchy or some other manmade injustice is equally unpalatable and unacceptable to the Leftist, because it directly contradicts the one assumption he must make in order to be a Leftist.
Any man who does not blame his fellow man for the injustices of nature is not a Leftist. He lacks the proper level of resentment to qualify.
The Leftist who is blessed by wealth and fame and power does not regard himself as a thief, but he does regard himself as the beneficiary of an unfair manmade system that rewards merit: and so he does not return his stolen wealth to those who earned it. That would be too logical and fair. Instead, out of guilt, he seeks to corrupt and dismantle the system that benefited him. It is not necessarily himself for which his pretend umbrage is assumed, but for some mascot class of race or sex or deviancy he regards as inferior.
Nothing is earned in the Leftist philosophy; nothing is merited; all is theft. Not just property but all forms of success, health, wellbeing, fame or honor is a theft.
Now, of course, no one actually believes all things are theft. The belief is illogical, self-contradictory: because if all things are theft there is no true owner from whom to steal them. The accusation exists to stir up resentment.
Leftism is politicized envy.
This envy applies not just to wealth, but to everything. The Leftists want stupid people to be thought smart; want people with no taste to be thought cultured; want selfishness and cowardice to be granted the palm leaf of martyrdom and the gold medal of heroism; but in no case are these things to be earned.
The whole joke at the end of the movie THE WIZARD OF OZ is that Oscar Diggs actually is fraud and a sideshow fake, so that when he gives the Scarecrow, the Tin Man, and the Cowardly Lion the diploma, the honorarium, and the medallion from his little black bag, he is not actually giving them anything we have not already seen that they possess. They already had the virtues they sought, but simply did not see themselves correctly.
The joke on the Left, and a much more bitter joke it is, too, is that they think that there is a Wizard, named Uncle Sam, who can reorganize the customs, laws, and institutions of mankind to make it so that the cowardly can be made courageous, the stawheaded made smart, and the empty hearted made compassionate, by giving them the outward signs of these things.
All they want is the black bag, the Wizard’s bag, which produces nothing but empty outward signs of honor and merit, but not the brains, heart, or nerve of real success.
The whole point of the story is that the Wizard is a fraud.
Originally posted here
English (US) · 