One of the themes of my posts on this blog is that liberals hate America. I have provided significant evidence to support this proposition. This raises the question of why this is. Of course, there are things that can legitimately be criticized about America. But whatever the criticism is, it will be much worse amongst other people and other countries that liberals either ignore or praise. Why the double standard?
More fundamentally, what makes liberals tick? Why do liberals believe the things that they do, and act the ways that they act? What is the common denominator that explains liberalism? This seems to me to be a hugely important question that has gotten very little attention.
Some of the proposed explanations include self-interest, ignorance, stupidity, fear, narcissism, and guilt. While these may be contributing factors, I don't think they get to the root of the problem. I won't go into a detailed explanation, but suffice to say that if you look around you'll soon find liberal behavior that cannot be adequately explained.
In her indispensable book Treason, Ann Coulter spends 300 or so pages documenting liberal attacks on America. On the last page, she reveals what she believes is the reason that liberals hate America: they hate civilization. I think that this is closer to the truth, but it still fails to satisfy. After all, liberals weren't nearly as upset about the Soviet Union, which wasn't exactly anarchical.
I believe that the fundamental explanation for liberalism is that liberalism tries to destroy all good in the world. A necessary corollary of this is trying to destroy America. Of course, I should be careful to distinguish between liberalism and liberals. Liberals are people who are influenced by liberalism, but they may be otherwise nice and have other redeeming features. There is nothing redeeming about liberalism.
If you ask a liberal what explains liberalism, you'll probably get some bilge about liberals caring about poor people. At this point, I come to a must-read article by Gene Veith. He writes how recent liberal philosophy has become anti-human:
"Consider a recent speech by University of Texas biologist Eric Pianka. He was addressing the Texas Academy of Science, which had just named him the 2006 Distinguished Texas Scientist.
When people learn what is being taught in their tax-supported universities, they are often shocked. So before Mr. Pianka's talk, Academy officials threw out a TV cameraman who was videotaping the conference. Mr. Pianka explained that the public was not ready to hear what he was going to say. The old humanists used to believe in the freedom of the press and the free flow of ideas. But ordinary Texans might not approve of hearing that this Distinguished Texas Scientist wanted to kill them.
Mr. Pianka began by condemning "anthropocentrism," the idea that human beings have a privileged place in the universe. He told about a neighbor who once asked him what good are the lizards that he studies. Mr. Pianka replied, "What good are you?"
Mr. Pianka believes, in his words, "We're no better than bacteria!" and he has proposed an anti-bacterial course of hygiene. He said that, in order to save the planet, the human population should be reduced by 90 percent. War and famine are not efficient enough, he said, to kill the billions of people necessary. Disease would be the best population reducer. AIDS, though, works much too slowly."
Just as important was the audiences' reaction:
"The Academy gave Mr. Pianka a sustained ovation. In the Q&A that followed, Mr. Pianka said, "You know, the bird flu's good, too." He also suggested we "sterilize everybody on the Earth." He praised China with its forced-abortion laws "because they got a police state and they can force people to stop reproducing." "
Then there is this article by Eric Englund that I posted a while back, but which deserves more attention. The environmentalist movement has been particularly vocal about their plans for humanity:
"Jacques-Yves Cousteau, environmentalist and documentary maker: "ItÂs terrible to have to say this. World population must be stabilized, and to do that we must eliminate 350,000 people per day. This is so horrible to contemplate that we shouldn't even say it. But the general situation in which we are involved is lamentable."
John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal: "I suspect that eradicating smallpox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems."
Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University population biologist: "We're at 6 billion people on the Earth, and that's roughly three times what the planet should have. About 2 billion is optimal."
David Foreman, founder of Earth First!: "Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental."
David M. Graber, research biologist for the National Park Service: "It is cosmically unlikely that the developed world will choose to end its orgy of fossil-energy consumption, and the Third World its suicidal consumption of landscape. Until such time as Homo sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along."
Alexander King, founder of the Malthusian Club of Rome: "My own doubts came when DDT was introduced. In Guyana, within two years, it had almost eliminated malaria. So my chief quarrel with DDT, in hindsight, is that it has greatly added to the population problem."
Merton Lambert, former spokesman for the Rockefeller Foundation: "The world has a cancer, and that cancer is man."
John Muir, founder of the Sierra Club: "Honorable representatives of the great saurians of older creation, may you long enjoy your lilies and rushes, and be blessed now and then with a mouthful of terror-stricken man by way of a dainty!"
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh, leader of the World Wildlife Fund: "If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels."
Maurice Strong, U.N. environmental leader: "Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?"
Ted Turner, CNN founder, UN supporter, and environmentalist: "A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
Paul Watson, a founder of Greenpeace: "I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
There you have it. Liberals want you dead.