Tuesday, August 19, 2008

The Humanitarians' Greatest Trick

After Russian bombings that killed thousands of civilians and after Russian tanks trod their way across sovereign Georgian territory, most of the usual suspects who had wailed about the American violation of "Iraq's Sovereignty" and Israeli bombings in Lebanon had little to say on the subject, when they weren't actively taking Russia's side.

But that's only to be expected. These self-proclaimed guardians of international morality aren't out to save lives or protect peoples, if they did they might elevate Darfur somewhere above the bottom of a long list headed by Palestine, Iraq and Lebanon.

Like the rest of us they've picked a side, and if the greatest trick of the devil was to convince the world that he doesn't exist, the greatest trick of these freelance humanitarians is to convince the world that they haven't picked a side, despite the blatantly obvious fact that they have.

Such people of course resist awkward labels such as "Anti-American" or "Anti-Israel" let alone "Pro-Terrorist." As far as they would have you believe their hearts bleed for all the peoples of the world, so long as the peoples in question are pointing the business end of an AK-47 at Americans or American allies.

It's sad to say, but it used to be that these sort of people had standards. And by standards I mean that they reserved their support for any mass murderer or terrorist group with socialist and progressive credentials, or at least official backing by the USSR. Today all it takes is a few dead Americans, Europeans or Israelis and the humanitarians will line up on their side.

The obvious observation is that it isn't justice or even suffering that attracts the Birkenstock crowd, but death. The death of the sort of people they'd like to kill themselves if only training to blow up US bases didn't interfere with finishing their masters thesis on the sociology of the subcultures surrounding the Grateful Dead.

If their parents cared deeply about the fate of Africa, they care about the "Conflict Regions" and the successors to Che and the PLO. It isn't about rescue, but about resistance to some nebulous American occupation of the world and admiration for anyone who shoots an American soldier.

As the official Humanitarian to the Terrorists, former President Jimmy Carter ably embodies the hypocrisies and compromises of the breed, dallying with the worst of the terrorists while threatening anyone willing to stand in their way and using whatever media attention he can garner to promote fraudulent peacekeeping efforts that serve the aims of terrorists and totalitarian regimes.

In this skewed morality, North Korea and Saddam's Iraq are preferable to Japan and Israel, and Venezuela easily trumps Columbia, Pakistan would be just swell if they put the ISI back in charge of the task of blowing up Americans and beating women. But it isn't morality or social justice that they're after, but killing daddy, who happens to compromise major chunks of the Northern part of the globe.

Cloaking their love for atrocities in humanitarianism gives them the freedom to go anywhere and aid any terrorists and posture as injured lovers of humanity whenever they get into legal trouble. Gaining the best of both worlds, the thrill of mingling with killers and the whitewashed moral facade of secular humanitarian saints, they get to play Mother Theresa and Che in one, before updating the playlist on their iPhone and heading home for a job at daddy's law firm, specializing of course in environmental law in between the occasional Obama Meetups.

And their greatest trick is convincing the world that they haven't picked a side. Yeah right.


Lemon said...

This crowd hates "the man" and yes he is their own fathers whom they loathe.
Jimmy doesn't care about Darfur because he thinks all blacks should be shucking peanuts on his farm.

Post a Comment