On the evilness of nations

What 'multiculturalism' boils down to is that you can praise any culture in the world except Western culture - and you cannot blame any culture in the world except Western culture.
- Thomas Sowell 

I subscribe to the Judeo-Christian ethic of 'Thou shalt not kill' but that's just me.
- Mike Myers as Charlie Mackenzie

Justin Bieber displayed the influence of progressive culture (pervasive in Canada) on the tone of discussion of values.  His values are as influenced by his progressive state as by his Christian upbringing.  He shocked America by coming out against abortion.  Perhaps it was his strong language:  "I really don't believe in abortion. I think [an embryo] is a human. It's like killing a baby."  It's his personal belief that abortion is wrong; it's like killing a baby, like, sort of, y'know.  (And it is an awful lot like killing a baby.)  However, he musters his moral authority on health care: "You guys [Americans] are evil." He goes on to explain that Canada is the least evil country; one example: they not only take care of your premature baby, they do it for free.

Now, in America (and presumably Canada as well) if your would-be preemie has the lack of foresight to get out of the womb early, he/she may be terminated for the crime of being inconvenient up to and including the ninth month.  Obama (as senator) not only fought for this right for women not to be in chains, but also fought for the "right" to not have doctors/nurses care for or otherwise treat survivors of failed abortions.  You see, it is only the mother that decides life or death, and once the criminal is sentenced, sentence must be carried out.

This doesn't make anybody evil; it's just Bieber's personal belief versus your own.  He believes it's wrong to kill human beings in the womb; perhaps you think it's ok.  Live and let live.  Different strokes.  But if you don't think national health care is the way to take care of the needy, well, you're evil, bub.  That's wrong.  How dare you do that to an innocent human being!  How dare you have a gospel without socialism!! You evil son of a bitch.

This is the political climate where Nancy Pelosi can talk about socialized medicine as a mandate of the gospel, but anybody who is pro-life (including atheist Christopher Hitchens, I presume) is a religious nut imposing his religion on the rest of us.  Meanwhile the crusade goes on against the moral depravity of being insufficiently environmentalist, of not caring sufficiently how food animals are treated, of not being sufficiently collectivist, of believing that there is probably a good reason why cultures around the world have gone for ages without homosexual marriages and that it's a little arrogant to experiment with it, of using violent means to protect against violent threats, of believing that free markets of imperfect people can do less harm than government interventions by imperfect people.  And various other moral depravities.  The crusade demands that children be innoculated early on against the conservative venom of their parents.  The crusade demands that journalist ignore outrageous, violent outbursts by the moral crusaders and publicize anything that will put their evil antagonists in a bad light.

Morality may only be legislated (preferably by judicial means) by what Thomas Sowell has called the "anointed elite."  The moral Ubermensch will lead the way, if we will only follow.  And if we don't follow, well, as Hitler once said, "They've already lost; we have their children."  They, as G.K. Chesterton warned, will make our children in their image, or as Woodrow Wilson boasted,  "as different from their fathers as possible."

Click to Enlarge

Doing some class-related work on human trafficking, I found some references that as countries go, on some international rating criteria, Canada has rated poorly in their attention to and concern about human trafficking.  Canada's reputation hasn't been good.  And no, this wasn't some conservative site.  Maybe the criteria were questionable, but Canada has a problem (noted by sites that track this problem), women being trafficked to and through Canada.  America, on the same scale rates highly.  Not all European countries did as well as America.  Women are trafficked to and from many countries in Eastern and Western Europe.

On another note, progressives have much evil to attribute to America regarding human rights and yet China (as well as the Soviet Union in its day) seems to get a lot of respect in spite of having a terrible record on human rights.  Not to mention the Arab nations.  Sharia law gets a lot of respect by various liberal academics in Europe and the U.S.; while liberal academics deride "socially conservative" Judaeo-Christian mores.   Palestine has only good intentions; Israel only bad.  America is a totalitarian state with its Patriot Act; Cuba is a model of democracy.  To some progressives, even Iran is  worthy of respect while America is not.

On yet another note, various progressives think America is evil because of its actual or pending immigration policies.  How do our immigration policies compare to European countries (esp. pre-EU, esp. policies toward extra-EU countries)?  How easy is it for just anyone to become a citizen of other countries, and what language do they expect you to speak?  How evil are they on that rating?

And America is apparently an evil place for not legitimizing homosexual marriage as equivalent to historical marriage.  How do we compare to other countries, especially countries outside of Europe in which homosexuality is a severe offense?  How many of these are countries that are in other respects lauded by our academic and journalistic elites?  How do all these countries rate on the progressive standard of "gender equality"?

I'm not against criticism of America by Americans.  But let's not be disengenuous about it.  Let's look at all these dimensions in which America deserves the "evil" label, and rate the countries across the board.  Let's compare and contrast.  Of course, holders of what Thomas Sowell calls the "tragic vision" may not see evil in every policy that progressives do, but at least the discussion can take place in something other than constantly shifting standards.

After 9/11 there was a lot of Progressive criticism against the Axis of Evil characterization.  SInce then, it seems to have become a decade's worth of tirade against the evils of conservatism.  The ostensible Progressive doctrine of non-demonization does not apply here.  We must be constantly told that terrorists are human, sometimes told they are not really dangerous, and often told that the difference between a terrorist and a freedomfighter is one of personal  perspective.  What's required here is to know the terrorist's personal story; he deserves to be understood.  On the other hand, all you need to know about conservatives is that they are ignorant, stupid, and morally repugnant.  That's all you need to know about fundamentalists, evengelicals, and Isaelis as well.  Muslims need understanding, you have to meet them on their terms; Christians must meet Progressives on their terms or they are obviously recalcitrant dogmatists.  This is selective multicutural relativism at it's finest.

If India is the most religious nation on the planet, and Sweden is the least religious, then America is a land of Indians ruled by Swedes.
  - Peter Bergson