Media Darlings

One thing I still haven't figured out about the left-wing media, and the left-wing in general, is why they pick on certain countries to be their darling causes. Before I knew that they were left-wing, I wondered why they thought that South Africa, ruled by a "dictatorship" comprising millions of whites, was more of an issue than all the other dictators in the world, where the rule was by one man. In hindsight it made sense - they wanted a Marxist government in place in South Africa.

But why is Sudan an issue when black Muslims are being killed, but was never an issue when black Christians were being killed in much larger numbers? Ok, maybe in the twisted left-wing mindset they think they can ally with Muslims to bring down capitalism. The anti-westernism is appealing. Don't bother about side-effects like female genetlia mutilation. Let's get our priorities right! First capitalism, then mayhem, then socialist paradise (ie overachievers in gulags), then back to capitalism.

Why is Burma singled out? Is it more brutal than the various African dictatorships? It certainly isn't more brutal than Saddam was. Maybe the left-wing just likes social experiments, and so Saddam's brutality was OK, but not Burma's. Or maybe they're racist against Arabs. But why be against Arabs but in favour of Burmese?

Tibet's another one. Why is independence for Tibet more sexy than freedom (not the same as independence - Americans please take note) for all Chinese?

And the latest is Zimbabwe. What's so special about this country? It at least allows political opposition. In Iraq, Tsvangirai would have had his family raped, tortured and murdered for the political opposition he musters.

In the 2002 presidential elections, after the victimization of whites, I was hoping that I could have faith in the vast majority of blacks to be abhorred at racism, including racism against whites, and give Mugabe the boot. They didn't. Even though there was electoral malpractice in urban areas, there was no doubt that around half of Zimbabwe had no problem with whites being targetted by their own government because of their skin colour. Nor did any other African countries give a damn about racism against whites. This was one of the lowlights of my life. My hopes for protection of human rights for all people, including whites, into the future, were dashed. That was actually the main bit of data I was interested in. Basically my own human rights are not going to be protected by blacks due to rampant racism. It's very sad to live in such a world.

Now we're up to 2008, and Mugabe has actually been responsible for elections that gave him a minority of the vote. That's a major feat. I can't think of another thug who would allow elections that would produce such a result. Wrong. I can think of two. Fatah apparently didn't rig the elections that Hamas won, and the Polish communists didn't rig the ones that Solidarity won. But anyway, having any sort of political opposition and competition is a giant step from none at all like the Chinese, Syrians etc have.

Anyway, I certainly don't want military action in Zimbabwe before the runoff poll. Let Mugabe be properly discredited before taking any action. I really want that data point. What will Mugabe do and let's get the record set for what the other African countries do. Make sure there's no excuses about "oh, I didn't know Mugabe was a dictator". Even after the elections, and assuming Mugabe sets up a true dictatorship, I still don't want unilateral military action. If the UN Security Council authorizes it, that would be great. I'd be happy to liberate every country in the world, immediately. However, without UN approval we have to play a very careful game.

We haven't won the ideological war against places like Russia and China. Both are works in progress. So we need to spread our ideology without getting into a nuclear exchange with these countries, or spooking everyone into a hostile alliance. So each target needs to be carefully chosen as to what the state of the world will look like after invasion.

If we invade Zimbabwe, what we'll end up with is an existing failed state now under the free world's responsibility. We had a similar situation in Iraq. No-one cares about failed states before the West invades them, but 10 seconds after liberation, if it doesn't resemble Switzerland, the West is entirely to blame. Ok, there are a long list of reasons why we have to wear that responsibility in Iraq, which I have already outlined. No such reasons exist for Zimbabwe. We already know that a minimum of half the country are anti-white racists. The figure is probably more like 90%, and MDC supporters are just opposed to Mugabe for reasons other than his racism. Zimbabwe will suck resources from the West, and a lot of resources are required to counter Mugabe's mismanagement, and the resources will be squandered by racists and the free world as a whole will only be marginally better off.

Compare this to Iran. There we get to free 70 million people. They are also Muslims who have spent a lot of time living under a theocracy. I can guess what their opinion on Islamic paradises is, but we need to hear it from them. And people in the West who claim that the Iranians are all radicals (didn't you see the video from 1979?) need to be put in their place too. We ensure that an anti-western dictatorship never gets nukes. And they have oil which means that they can easily fund their own regrowth along normal secular capitalist lines instead of permanently sucking on the West's teat. In addition, they're probably going to be as enthusiastic about freedom as the Baltics and will hopefully lead the charge against the remaining dictators. Also, Iraq will stop being the odd one out in the Middle East. Also we get further evidence of "good Muslims" (ie Muslims in Name Only) which are what are part of the battle against Islamofascism. Also, if they do it my way, we get to further test "Wars of Liberation" theory. ie how will an enemy react when being invaded by someone they believe will give them democracy? Results in Afghanistan and Iraq were very interesting, but we really need about 20 liberations in order to be able to start categorizing reaction in order to understand it (and if you really understand it you'll be able to predict the result of the 21st liberation). All predictions about Iraq, including my own, were wrong. No-one predicted Iraqis would embark on terrorism against random Iraqis as a way of defeating the infidels!

So, it is with great interest that I await the results of the Zimbabwe elections and the hunt for water on Mars and feedback on brexx for MVS which I just ported.


This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?