Fat Steve's Blatherings

Tuesday, January 04, 2005

The Face of Evil

      One of the greatest problems of the modern world is the inability to see evil when it's right in front of you.  It devastated the 20th Century.

      For instance, there was never anything more clearly evil than V. I. Lenin's regime. Whether it was overturning the only democratic election in Russia's history, because he'd lost, or encouraging the mass murder of landlords (he told Bertrand Russell he'd done this -- and laughed as he remembered it), or blocking food aid to the starving because the areas in question weren't sufficiently obsequious, this was an evil regime headed by a monstrously evil man.  Yet people managed to blind themselves, and see things 'as they ought to be, rather than as they are.'

      Today, I'm informed of another person who's right down there, morally, with Lenin.  Her name is Margaret Short, and she's a former Cabinet Minister in Britain.  That this person could ever, under any circumstance, be thought to be fit for decent society, much less hold a position in the Cabinet, speaks volumes about what's wrong in Britain and the West today.

      Ms. Short is mad at the U.S. for saving the lives of Asians.  I am not making that up.  She wants people to die rather than be helped by the U.S.

      The U.S., you see, announced that it would co-ordinate humanitarian relief to the tsunami victims, in association with India, Australia, and Japan.  These are the four countries that have significant military force projection in the area, and can thus fly in supplies quickly, get water systems restored, etc.  Short doesn't want us to do this.

      What Short wants is for everything to be left in the hands of the UN.  Again, I'm not making that up.  The UN sends "peacekeepers" to war-torn countries that help genocide take place, and at best don't stop it, while looting and raping the locals.  It ran the "oil-for-bribes-and-Saddam's-toys" program while Iraqi children died.  Short describes this cesspool of corruption and ally of oppression as
the best system we have got and the one that needs building up," she said.

"Only really the UN can do that job," she told BBC Radio Four's PM programme.

"It is the only body that has the moral authority. But it can only do it well if it is backed up by the authority of the great powers. . . .

"I don't know what that is about but it sounds very much, I am afraid, like the US trying to have a separate operation and not work with the rest of the world through the UN system," she added.

      In any sane world, Short would be spat upon publicly in her own country.  She'd also be unable to escape such treatment by going abroad, because she'd be less welcome that a rabid dog.  Instead interviewed by the BBC, a former cabinet minister "resigned as international development secretary over the Iraq war."

      Pardon me please, I need to go vomit.

(Hat tips to Mark Steyn via the Blogfather)

      UPDATE, Jan. 5th, 3:54 AM: Glenn Reynolds points to a Tim Blair post discussing BBC reporter Matthew Parris, who is guiltily thrilled at the death and destruction.  He is not nearly as evil as Short, but Parris is at the beginning of the psychological road that Short has traveled almost to the end of.

      It's interesting that Parris notes he is "an avowed atheist."  He ends his article by saying:
As we banish disease, seed the clouds for rain, and learn even to clone ourselves, scientific progress only deepens this discomfort, this inchoate shrinking back from mastery. We yearn for a sign from the cosmos of our fragility. We have just received such a sign. Thus β€” and I am sorry to say it and mean no cruelty or offence β€” the thrill.

      I'd put it a little differently.  When you reject a God of love, you're likely to end up worshiping a God of hate.  Parris knows he's in the wrong, but part of him just gets off on the thought of mass death.  It just goes to show [again] that G. K. Chesterton was right when he said that β€œThe doctrine of original sin is the only philosophy empirically validated.”



  • "The Sauds must be destroyed"?

    Then what? Give OBL keys to Mecca? Occupy Arabia and pump the oil ourselves? Come on, don't just throw out an incomplete thought!

    By Blogger Solomon2, at 6:42 PM  

  • Forget Solomon, it makes perfect sense given your post.

    I would be a little more artful. Like: Saudi delenda est. Nothing like Latin to make you seem high brow.


    By Blogger Bill C, at 5:15 AM  

  • Solomon2:
          The House of Saud is our enemy.  Many of the Royal Parasites approve of bin Laden, and many rich Saudi Arabians support him.  We need to take down all the supporters of terrorism, but our false "friends" the Sauds are the worst.

          Actually, I started out with "Delenda Est Saudi Arabia," but a friend who knows more Latin than I told me the proper form for future tense is "Delendam Esse Saudi Arabia."  I still sign my letter that way, but for the blog, I thought English is preferable.

          But no matter how you say it, they've got to go.


    By Blogger Stephen M. St. Onge, at 3:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home