Furious anger and righteous indignation

A tale of two maps
The prostitution principle

I came upon this statistic above and got angry. Then I watched this video about the numbers behind Black Lives Matter and got even angrier. Then I remembered my hopeless conversations about the damage we cause with our handling of gender dysphoria and got………. You get the picture.

The total of the confirmed fatalities on the Mediterranean for 2016 was 5,098. Again, that’s just the confirmed number. None of that would have happened, if the first few thousand migrants were promptly shipped back to their point of embarkation. None of that would have happened if the EU leaders made it clear, just like the Australians did a few years hence, that the ONLY way to enter is through legal means.

I don’t know what angers me more: the harm that leftist policies and ideas cause, or the self-congratulating, virtue signaling righteous immorality of the people advocating them.

The people of the political left don’t seem to have any problem with over ten thousand drowned refugees, tens of thousands of young black men killed by other young black men or the transgendered committing suicide 20 times the rate of the rest of the population.

  • Since Angela Merkel threw the doors open, people are dying by the thousands in the Mediterranean.
  • Since the left declared refugees welcome or better yet:
    …rape statistics exploded all over Europe.
    They got even more than what they asked for: they got racist Muslim rapists.
  • Since we started glamorizing gender dysphoria, there is an explosion in the prevalence of the condition.
  • Since the “Black Lives Matter” movement started, black crime rate, and as a result the number of black murder victims went up significantly.

Policies the left supports kill, rape and maim, but the people of the left don’t give a damn about the harm they cause, about the people they kill, about the lives they destroy. Nothing is high enough of a cost when it comes to congratulating and feeling good about themselves. They don’t care about the extra eleven people who could be helped for the cost of helping one refugee in the developed world. They don’t care about the crime victims that number more in Chicago alone than the victims of the Afghan and Iraq war put together, they don’t care about the rape victims or about the children whose life may be irreversibly harmed by preventing the natural progress of puberty.

And they do this while pointing a finger at their opponents as the wrong-doers. They are pointing a finger at those who want to lessen the harm, protect people from it and help in a sensible way.

It offends me more and more that fundamentally immoral people sneer at those with genuine concerns.
It pisses me of seeing idiots lecturing those whose arguments they cannot even comprehend.
It irritates me to see the dismissal of real solutions to problems the leftist ‘solutions’ created in the first place.
I am getting furious about the moral posturing, the virtue signaling, the touchy-feely tribalism of leftist politics.

Stefan Molyneux made the point in one of his videos that “Blind support of delusion is not kindness, but a cowardly form of sadism”.
Ignoring the demonstrable consequences of one’s actions is immoral at best, criminal at worst. Electrocuting you child by leaving live wires in their room to play with would land you in jail for involuntary manslaughter.
How is encouraging thousands to risk their lives at sea different?
How is increasing twenty-fold the likelihood of suicide for some people different?
How is the political fight to reduce policing in crime ridden areas different?
How is openly advocating a political system that is responsible for the death of 80 million innocent people different? (Just take a close look at the communist flag in the picture above: One solution – Revolution)

The supressed conspiracy theorist in me has some nagging questions.
If Angela Merkel wanted a million immigrants, all she had to do was to issue a million visas. Is it possible, that the virtue signaling pretension of compassion was not the real reason? Is it possible that this was just an expedient way to get around some rules? Is it possible that the social division this issue created was planned with the assumption that it will unify and strengthen the left?
Can’t the same logic be applied to Black Lives Matter? Isn’t it possible that the ‘movement’ was started to improve the chances of victory for the Democrats? To make people feel guilty and compensate for that guilt by voting for the left?

The people of the left are fundamentally immoral, sleazy and evil, yet we keep blaming them only for being stupid, naïve and irresponsible. In other words, we keep giving them the benefit of the doubt. We keep believing (or pretending) that their intentions, their beliefs, their motivations are sincere and honorable. We keep telling to ourselves that they may be wrong, but they mean well.

What would it take to stand up to them? What would it take for us to demand that they own the consequences of their policies? What would it take to put Angela Merkel on trial for the thousands of unnecessary deaths her policies resulted in? What would it take to demand an investigation of George Soros and his whole mafia of front organizations for their role in the fight against law and order?
What would it take to put on trial a doctor who advised the hormone treatment of a child who later changed his/her mind about her/his gender identity?

What would it take for decent people to stop excusing the left for the harm they cause with their policies?
What would it take to stand up and say that their good intentions are irrelevant if their results are consistently, uniformly and predictably BAD?
What would it take to finally declare that leftists are not just naïve, misguided, ill-informed, irresponsible, yet well-meaning idiots, but irredeemably immoral, selfish scum?

What would it take to finally make all decent people angry?

…and if you don’t know the answer, share this post with everybody you know.
Maybe somebody will have the answer.

2 replies on “Furious anger and righteous indignation”

  1. zgh says:

    E-mail comment on this post:

    Zork, as a scientist I am very sensitive about having proper controls in an experiment before we could conclude.
    You have to have the number of dead if they did not try to go Europe but stay where they were originally. Without this data your anger does not have ground.
    = = ==================
    The short answer is a Hungarian idiom: ……….. if my grandmother had wheels, she would have been the streetcar. But seriously, your objection cannot be serious.
    1. This is not a scientific paper but a highly subjective opinion piece.
    2. The actual numbers do not change in any way the fact that they were needless deaths that could have been easily prevented by offering them legal means to travel.
    3. But let’s suppose that we could determine the alternative fatality rate.
    What would you find to be an acceptable fatality rate?
    How many avoidable deaths are YOU comfortable with?
    I say one is too many. What is your number between zero and 5,098?
    4. To step back: the answer is: ZERO. Nobody’s life was in any danger in any of the countries where the migrants who died on their trip embarked on their trip. ALL OF THEM got onto boats from countries that were deemed SAFE by the United Nations.
    5. There is a control experiment, described in an earlier post of mine:
    “The Australians had a serious boat people problem a few years ago which they solved by changing their policy in 2013, making it absolutely clear to everybody that if they try to enter the country through illegal means they will not be accepted. Hundreds of lives have been saved as the number of drowning victims went from hundreds per year to zero because the attempts of illegal entry went close to zero.”
    6. I made three points (four if you include communism) to substantiate my arguments. The numbers are far shakier behind the other two – BLM and the effects of pre-pubescent hormone treatment, but my post is not about the numbers.
    Do you realize that by haggling over numbers you recognize the validity of the argument?
    …and the moment you do that, you have no argument.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.