Free achorbaby, Ti’z Nazi USA
Mediernes og oppositionens igangværende hysteri over opretholdelsen af loven er et udtryk for desperation over at det endnu ikke er lykkedes at etablere en substantiel kritik af Trumps foreløbige præsidentperiode. Økonomien går godt, tåbelige internationale aftaler ophæves, en fredsproces er sat igang med Nordkorea. Talkshow værten Bill Maherønskede derfor en økonomisk recession, hvis det kunne tvinge Trump fra magten. Andre frygtede gode nyheder fra topmødet mellem Nordkorea og USA/Sydkorea, da det ville gavne præsidentens popularitet, hvilket er værre end udsigten til et ‘nuclear showdown’. Som de gode nyheder fortsætter blev Trumps fresproces anklaget for at normalisere det nordkoreanske regime og glemt var Obamas fremstrakte hænder mod Iran og Cuba, som blot bed tilbage. Hadet til Trump trumfer virkeligheden. For medierne og venstrefløjen handlede valget ikke om, hvem man mente kunne gavne landet og dets indbyggere mest, men om ren æstetik.
Time havde en dramatisk forside, hvor en nådesløs Trump betragtede et grædende barn hans stormtropper havde reddet ud af armene på sin desperate mor. Men faktisk var pigen, Yanela, stadig i armene på sin mor, der tidligere var blevet udvist fra USA efter at have krydset grænsen illegalt (jævnfør retsforfølgelsen), og begge havde det efter omstændighederne fint, fortalte hendes mand til pressen, hjemme i Honduras. Og, hæftede manden sig ved, så var de nu i sikkerhed, hvad de ikke havde været på den lange tur, som bl.a indeholdt at krydse Rio Grande på en tømmerflåde. Moderen havde længe drømt om at udleve den ‘amerikanske drøm’ selvom manden sagde at “things back home were fine” og nu skulle det være - uden hendes mands vidende. Eller andre af de yderligere tre børns fra 6 til 14 år, som moderen efterlod med sin far efter at have betalt en menneskesmugler 6.000$ og rejst de 2.500 km.
(billedet kan være bearbejdet)
Time stod ved deres historie, som selv CNN fik kvaler med fordi dens essens var sand, nemlig at Trumps politik betød grædende børn. Talsmand for Det Hvide Hus Sarah Huckabee Sanders sagde derimod, at historien var blevet adskilt fra fakta. Det er der meget der er.
Det Hvide Hus talsmand Sarah Huckerbee Sanders blev, sammen med sin familie, nægtet betjening på en restaurant, skriver Breitbart, der samtidig ironiserer over at det har været venstrefløjen så meget for, at tvinge bagerier til at udsmykke kager med budskaber, der strider imod bageriets værdier. En gruppe aktivister havde sat sig for, at chikanere chefen for Homeland Security, Kirstjen Nielsen, som de beskylder for at være “a modern-day Nazi” der, ved at opretholde den af Demokraterne vedtagne lov, begår forbrydelser imod menneskeheden, skriver Think Progress. Ved at forfølge hende og skabe et venstrefløjs spetakel hvorend hun bevæger sig er det deres håb at udskamme hende (som den første i rækken) til underkastelse. Og en Demokrat afspillede en optagelse af grædende børn i Kongressen i håbet om at udskamme det republikanske flertal. Hans kollega fra Kongressen, Maxine Waters, uartikulerede sin foragt således for åben mikrofon
“I have no sympathy for these people that are in this administration who know it’s wrong for what they’re doing on so many fronts. They tend to not want to confront this president or even leave, but they know what they’re doing is wrong. I want to tell you, these members of his cabinet who remain and try to defend him, they won’t be able to go to a restaurant, they won’t be able to stop at a gas station, they’re not going to be able to shop at a department store. The people are going to turn on them. They’re going to protest. They’re absolutely going to harass them until they decide that they’re going to tell the president, ‘No, I can’t hang with you.’ This is wrong. This is unconscionable. We can’t keep doing this to children.”
Dickens kaldte omsorgen for det fremmede andet på bekostning af omsorgen for det nære for ‘teleskop filantropi’, skriver Bruce Thornton i Frontpage Magazine. Og efter en hurtig litteraturhistorisk gennemgang af begrebet, skriver han videre
So too today, with those beating their breasts over sloppily vetted illegal aliens who endanger their children by bringing them across the border or sending them off with “coyotes.” They can’t seem to summon similar compassion for the victims of the criminals allowed into the country and kept here despite serial felonies. And remember the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth over the terrorist murderers held in Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib? And how about the “Palestinians” who use their own children as shields behind which to launch lethal attacks on Israelis? When do we hear the same lamentations over innocent Israeli children and families murdered by homicide-bombers, scud missiles, and knife-wielding terrorists?
Then there is today’s favorite venue for politicized conspicuous compassion––the postcolonial Third World. Our morbid fascination with the misery and suffering there serves both our need to signal our superior virtue, and the leftist melodrama of the Western colonial and imperialist oppression allegedly responsible for that suffering.
This combination of conspicuous compassion and ostentatious self-loathing is the essence of Third-Worldism, that idealization of the non-Western “other” combined with self-flagellation over the original sins of imperialism and colonialism. French philosopher Pascal Bruckner wrote a brilliant analysis of this cultural neurosis in Tears of the White Man. Bruckner describes how Third-World suffering has become a lucrative commodity for the modern media, who provide the images that we consume in order to enjoy cost-free pathos and smug superiority about our righteous compassion. In this way, we compensate for our “certain essential evil,” as Bruckner calls the West’s original sin, “that must be atoned for.”
Which is to say, conspicuous compassion is about political power, since this neurosis empowers the foreign policy favored by globalists and leftists alike –– foreign aid and “development” even if they’re not in our national interest and don’t help to protect our security. Domestically, for decades, including during George W. Bush’s bout of “compassionate conservatism,” the progressives have slandered conservatives as heartless and ruthless racists, bigots, and xenophobes who fear the dark-skinned “other” and seek to “roll back the clock” to the time when their “white male hetero-normative privilege” was unchallenged.
That caricature reinforces as well progressives’ self-image as more enlightened and tolerant, more caring about the suffering victims of conservatism’s crimes. Both caricatures serve political theater by giving us a melodrama in which good and evil, white hats and black hats, are easily recognizable without having to think too much about, say, the long track-record of progressivism’s failures, both at home and abroad, to improve the lives of those they have so much compassion for.
En hel politisk fløj går og dens medier går fuld Helen Lovejoy.