Sunday, October 23, 2005

Why Radical Political Philosophy Harms Your Dog

When you see me criticize communism, socialism, left wing wacko ideas, and collectivists on this blog, you need to know why they are a danger to your dog.

These political philosophies all have one thing in common… they justify horrible acts of big government in the name of the public good.

Concrete Examples:

Nicholas Kristof is a major far left wing wacko columnist for the New York Times. The New York Times has a radical, left wing agenda. You have to read every article with the understanding that they are not just reporting the news, but are trying to influence public policy towards socialist/ communist ends. Want proof?

In a recent column, Kristof justifies why it was OK for Mao, the ultimate communist, to cause the deaths of about 70 million Chinese. Here is what Kristof knows, and yet also we see how he views these atrocities:

EVEN THOUGH MAO WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATH OF 70 MILLION OF HIS OWN PEOPLE:“Mao, however monstrous, also brought useful changes to China

EVEN THOUGH, LIKE ALL TYRANTS, MAO MURDERED HIS POLITICAL OPPONENTS: “He wrote to party headquarters that he had discovered 4,400 subversives in the army and had tortured them all and executed most of them.”

EVEN THOUGH MAO WAS A MEGALOMANIC: “At times, Mao seems nuts. He toyed with getting rid of people's names and replacing them with numbers”

QUIBBLING OVER WHETHER MAO’S INCOMPETENCE LED TO THE DEATHS OF 38 OR 28 MILLION PEOPLE: “Take the great famine from 1958 to 1961. The authors declare that "close to 38 million people died," and in a footnote they cite a Chinese population analysis of mortality figures in those years. Well, maybe. But there have been many expert estimates in scholarly books and journals of the death toll, ranging widely, and in reality no one really knows for sure - and certainly the mortality data are too crude to inspire confidence. The most meticulous estimates by demographers who have researched the famine toll are mostly lower than this book's: Judith Banister estimated 30 million; Basil Ashton also came up with 30 million; and Xizhe Peng suggested about 23 million. Simply plucking a high-end estimate out of an article and embracing it as the one true estimate worries me; if that is stretched, then what else is?”

THIS MASS MURDERER GETS CREDIT BY KRISTOF BECAUSE MAO PROMOTED SOME FAVORITE LIBERAL CAUSES, SO HE MUST HAVE BEEN AN OK GUY IN SOME RESPECTS: “I agree that Mao was a catastrophic ruler in many, many respects, and this book captures that side better than anything ever written. But Mao's legacy is not all bad. Land reform in China, like the land reform in Japan and Taiwan, helped lay the groundwork for prosperity today. The emancipation of women and end of child marriages moved China from one of the worst places in the world to be a girl to one where women have more equality than in, say, Japan or Korea. Indeed, Mao's entire assault on the old economic and social structure made it easier for China to emerge as the world's new economic dragon.”

HERE'S THE REAL TRUTH: Mao’s legacy is that we now have a country with a billion people, working feverously to build a massive military machine, threatening the US with nuclear war so they can engage in an unprovoked war and takeover of Taiwan, and still China is a brutal communist dictatorship (remember the Tiananmen Square protests against political oppression?). Gee… Mao… what a guy! What a great legacy.

Get my point?

This type of world viewpoint is psychopathic (see my previous post on psychopaths).

I guess we could say, if we thought like Kristof, “Hitler, however monstrous, also brought useful changes to Vichy France, Germany, Poland and Austria.” Or we could say, though Hitler murdered 6 million Jews, he at least kept the trains running on time (to efficiently deliver the Jews to the gas chambers). Remember your history? What were the Nazis? The were the National SOCIALIST Party. Socialist.

Using this logic, we could also say another great communist, Stalin , was a great guy. At least the great purges and building of the Gulags gave some folks a job to do.


This same mentality is what drives politicians to ban pit bulls in a city like Denver. They will say that even though they seized and killed hundreds of innocent dogs from innocent owners, it will all be justified if no pit bull ever bites another child. This is why I think breed bans, and unfair dog bite and barking laws constitute a Dog Holocaust.

Can you now see why you have to reject these types of political philosophies if you love your dog?

No comments: