Sunday, March 22, 2009

What's Wrong With This Statement?

The following piece was originally published March 9, 2004 on my primary blog:

From an interview with Comrade Kerry in Time magazine:

TIME: Obviously it's good that Saddam is out of power. Was bringing him down worth the cost?

KERRY: If there are no weapons of mass destruction— and we may yet find some—then this is a war that was fought on false pretenses, because that was the justification to the American people, to the Congress, to the world, and that was clearly the frame of my vote of consent. I said it as clearly as you can in my speech. I suggested that all the evils of Saddam Hussein alone were not a cause to go to war.

Ayn Rand once said that because dictatorships in general, and Soviet Union in particular, did not recognize and respect the rights of its subjects they could have no sovereign rights that would be recognized and respected by any free nation such as the United States. In her view, if I understood it correctly, the hunting season on dictatorships was always open.

But to those like John Kerry, who claim to be caring, compassionate, and progressive, it is somehow wrong to depose a despot who uses his political apparatus to subjugate, plunder, and murder his subjects. Kerry and his fellow party members claim to be “democrats” but are presently screaming bloody murder at the top of their lungs when a tyrant is toppled and replaced with a democratic government that answers to the citizen body of that nation.

What the hell is wrong with these people?

Even though they don’t care about the citizens of Iraq they do care about their own constituents, right?

Well I certainly don’t think so.

Remember the Strategic Defense Initiative? Kerry and his comrades in the Congress opposed it even though their party’s primary base of support lived in close proximity to the industrial, transportation and military sites that were targeted by the Strategic Rocket Forces of the Soviet Army. The logically and morally correct course of action for Kerry and his political comrades was to implement the full SDI program as soon as possible for the benefit of their constituents.

But they didn’t, did they?

In fact, not only did Kerry and fellow party members oppose SDI they also fought to stop other programs to upgrade the American armed forces. Many members of Kerry’s party, such as Ron Dellums of California, were also a party membership card short of being proper Communists and were reasonably expected to have welcomed the Soviet Army not as the band of barbarians that they historically were, but as “liberators of the proletariat,” etcetera, etcetera.

But at least Kerry and his party would put the money stripped from the defense budget to a compassionate use, right?

Oh really? Well I certainly don’t think so.

Establishing a common defense against barbarian states such as National Socialist Germany and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as well as those despotic states that still exist, is a moral necessity. Anyone who refused to financially contribute to the common defense was a parasite and deserved to be dealt with as such. (As to active opponents of national defense, apart from those creatures who sexually molest children, I think there is no one more depraved or despicable than a politically active pacifist. But that’s a rant for another time.)

But Kerry and his political comrades not only attempted to loot the defense budget but they sought to levy progressively higher taxes on the more productive citizens in order to buy the votes of less productive and the outright non-producers. (I could go on about the ongoing corruption of the electorate but I want to keep this rant short.) Those, like Kerry and his political comrades, who rob Peter in order to pay off Paul, can usually count on the votes of Paul. However, this also has the effect of reducing Peter and his fellow productive citizens to the political status of cattle. Hominid livestock who are compelled to live in an enforced state of poverty but are expected to work as hard as before in order to support an ever growing class of parasites.

An example of the parasites that Kerry and his political comrades are funding with the tax monies taken from productive and rational citizens are the social agencies that actively and punitively interfere with the efforts of those citizens who try to raise their own children to be rational and productive adults. And if this wasn’t injury enough, at the same time tax monies are also being used to create the equivalent of an ecological niche for an irrational and destructive underclass that preys upon each other and on their social and moral betters.

Kerry and his political comrades call this compassion.

Well, if this is compassion, then I’d rather be an indifferent son-of-a-bitch.

But Kerry and his political comrades are using their legislative power to move society in a progressive direction, right?

No. Not only do I not think so, I truly believe that anyone who did think so would probably place a winning bid on a certain well-used suspension bridge between Brooklyn and Manhattan Island on ebay.

An intelligent reader should have noticed by now that I do not use the term “democrat” to describe John Kerry and his political comrades. I do not believe that they deserve to be called such.

The Democratic Political Tradition in Western Civilization began in the ancient Polis of Athens. In Athens the citizen body, the adult male members of the founding tribes, not made the laws of the polis but were also armed and were expected to enforce the laws of the polis and defend it against external aggressors. In adopting a more inclusive definition of the concept of citizen we could say that the American Republic has made verifiable progress.

But to John Kerry and his political comrades, progress consists of disarming the citizen body, of denying the rights of free citizens, and instead treating those rights as state granted privileges while imposing increasing restrictions on the acts of speech, peaceful assembly, association, commerce, and worship. The political state toward which Kerry and his political comrades, in both the Congress and the Courts, are propelling America is a form of despotism similar to that found in Communist states such as Cuba, North Korea, China, and Vietnam.

(And if you really want to have fun, try comparing the platform of Kerry’s party to the twenty-five point program of the National Socialist German Workers Party sans the aggressive military and race planks.)

Instead of being the party of democracy, Kerry and his political comrades are in fact the party of despotism. When they object to the overthrow of a foreign dictatorship, such as that of Saddam Hussein’s, they are simply showing that they care for and have compassion for their ideological kindred. If anything, the foundation of their political philosophy has not progressed beyond the moment when for the first time a wandering band of nomads came upon a community of farmers, and instead of learning to farm and settling down themselves, chose to subjugate the farmers and live off their labors.

Although the methods of predatory subjugation have improved over the millennia, John Kerry and his political comrades are in my view no more than stone age savages. They are hazards to us, our families, and our nation. And it's about time that they are dealt with as such.

No comments: