The New Clarion

The New Clarion header image 2

Defined By Our Differences

September 28th, 2009 by Myrhaf · 2 Comments · Uncategorized

Mark Steyn focuses on a telling statement President Obama made at the UN:

“I have been in office for just nine months — though some days it seems a lot longer. I am well aware of the expectations that accompany my presidency around the world. These expectations are not about me. Rather, they are rooted, I believe, in a discontent with a status quo that has allowed us to be increasingly defined by our differences … .”

Forget the first part: That’s just his usual narcissistic “But enough about me, let’s talk about what the world thinks of me” shtick. But the second is dangerous in its cowardly evasiveness: For better or worse, we are defined by our differences — and, if Barack Obama doesn’t understand this when he’s at the podium addressing a room filled with representatives of Iran, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Venezuela and other unlovely polities, the TV audience certainly did when Col. Gadhafi took to the podium immediately afterward.

(Isn’t all of reality defined by differences? A is not B because it is different.)

If Obama wants to blur the distinctions between free countries and dictatorships, he was speaking at the right place. The purpose of the UN is to undefine the differences. Some countries happen to be free, some happen to be totalitarian dictatorships — they are all on equal standing at the UN. A rational American president speaking before an audience of dictators and thugs would have emphasized the differences between America and tyranny. Justice demands no less.

This is entirely consistent with Obama’s statement concerning Iran:

Reid: Thank you Mr. President, you just mentioned sanctions that have bite, what kinds of sanction, and I know you can’t get into details but what kind of sanctions at all would have bite with Iran, do you really think that any kind of sanctions would have any effect on somebody like Ahmadinejad, secondly some of your advisers today said that this announcement was a victory, do you consider it a victory and if so why didn’t you announce it earlier since you have known since you were President elect?..

Obama: You know, this isn’t a football game. So, I’m not interested in victory. I’m interested in resolving the problem.

He’s being honest here. Never mind any distracting differences the US and Iran might have, such as the fact that we want to live and they want us to die. That’s not important. Obama is solving the problem of Iran’s nuclear capabilities without regard to any larger context.

At the base of both the UN and Obama’s foreign policy is egalitarianism, an idea that is all about eliminating differences. Egalitarianism can only level reality at the expense of the strong, the powerful, the rich, the good. It can never raise the weak, the powerless, the poor and the bad to the level of the best, but it can destroy the best. It can take money from the rich and redistribute it to the poor. Egalitarianism can never turn a non-value into a value, but it can destroy values that exist. It can’t turn a zero into something, but it can destroy something so that it is nothing.

You can’t turn an imbecile into Albert Einstein, but you can control, monitor, enslave and kill the Albert Einsteins among us.

Look at what the communists did when they conquered South Vietnam. Did they give everyone a college education to make everyone equal? No, they threw everyone with a college education in concentration camps. It made the rest of the country more equal at much less cost.

The hidden purpose of egalitarianism is not fairness, but the destruction of the good for being the good. It works most insidiously by destroying standards. Once the standard, the concept of what is good, is lowered, then the results in reality follow. Lower expectations for high school students, and their achievement will decline. (This is why every aspect of our culture needs to be rethought, and our standards raised.)

The scary thing is that if Obama has his way on domestic policy, unimpeded by the American people (known to Democrats as the “racist mob”), then the differences between America and the two-bit, socialist hellholes of the world will be less. Won’t it be a happy world when we’re all equal?

2 Comments so far ↓

  • Lionell Griffith

    “The hidden purpose of egalitarianism is not fairness, but the destruction of the good for being the good.”

    I suggest its a deeper and more malignant purpose than that. They hate reality for being real and intend to blank out any aspect of it that impresses its reality upon them. They resent the fact that their wishes are not automatically granted, that their commandments are not immediately implemented, and, most of all, they resent the fact they can’t have their cake and eat it too. In other words, that reality is real.

    When young, each has a choice to be reality focused or other focused. They have chosen to be other focused. This means that the consciousness of others take the place of reality in their minds. It follows that reality is something accessible only by others and only others have the secret to make reality stand and deliver. Hence, they choose to use force to cause others to make reality meet their whims.

    This works as long as there exist “cooperative” victims. When the last “cooperative” victim is gone, they parish. Which was what they were seeking all along – the universal equality of non-existence.

  • Myrhaf

    Good point, Lionell.