The hypocrisy, inconsistency and general idiocy of our age — a “liberal” age — knows no limits. Consider liberal/socialist outrage over Walmart. Walmart, liberals argue, is greedy and exploits its workers by not paying them what they consider enough. How much is enough? This is never specified. However, the definition is clear: “Enough” consists of more than workers are currently making at any given time. It will never be enough.
The issue is profit. Liberals hate profit and success, especially when it occurs in the free market. What does the “free market” actually mean? It means that everyone involved is doing what he or she is doing voluntarily. Workers at Walmart are working there by choice. They’re free to work elsewhere, or even to not work at all and instead draw unemployment or Social Security disability (something liberals would frankly prefer). Liberals and socialists cannot stand the idea of anyone doing anything voluntarily, because (1) this means government is not involved, and (2) this means they (liberals) are not needed.
When hapless conservatives argue that Walmart is “giving tons of food to the poor” it has no impact at all on liberal rage against capitalism. This is interesting, because liberals and socialists claim to care about the poor, most of all. Yet when Walmart gives to the poor, liberals are not even a little bit happier. This is because they’re not in favor of the poor so much as against Walmart. Translation: They’re not concerned with reducing poverty so much as eradicating capitalism and self-interest, for the poor as well as the rich.
In some contexts, liberals don’t mind profit at all. In fact, they champion it. Consider insane lawsuits. The latest is the case of the woman who’s suing a shopping mall because she tripped and fell while texting. She and her lawyers will argue that the mall is responsible for her fall because they didn’t post a sign telling her that texting could be hazardous to her health. They’ll also hold the mall liable for shame and embarrassment due to millions seeing the whole thing posted on you tube. After all, if the mall had never been built, there would be no physical danger or emotional shame. It’s all the mall’s fault.
The shopping mall will probably settle the case out of court, as most such cases are settled. Why? Because it would cost them much more in legal expenses to take the issue to court, where they probably would win — but be a lot poorer for it, because of legal bills. Now that’s interesting. I don’t hear liberals complaining about the legal profits of lawyers who blackmail businesses (including small businesses, whom liberals claim to like) into surrendering money for ridiculous and unjust claims.
Imagine what would happen to such lawsuits if plaintiffs were required to pay all legal expenses when they lose a case. This will never happen, because liberals (whose best friends are in Congress and the White House) will never permit it.
Liberals and socialists in Hollywood, Washington DC and academia howl against profit and “big business” on a daily basis. Nothing whatsoever can appease them. If you were an alien from another (more advanced) planet, you’d think that these liberals really do hate money. But if you looked closer, you’d find that they’re just fine with money in certain cases. They support lawyers getting rich, they support career politicians voting themselves six-figures in salaries, they support Hollywood celebrities (so long as they’re liberal) getting rich, and they love the fact that people like Al Gore, George Soros and Warren Buffet are rich (since these men are influential socialists). At this point the alien would have to ask himself, “What gives? What is it that these people are really after?”
The answer is plain and simple: Liberals and socialists hate success. They tolerate it in people like George Soros and Warren Buffet, because these people use their money to actually advance the cause of socialism. When someone who doesn’t necessarily support socialism (such as Bill Gates, at least earlier in his career) tries to win over liberals by giving even millions to the poor and the downtrodden, it has no effect. This is because it’s not the poor and the downtrodden that liberals care about. It’s power and control that they want. The poor and the downtrodden — real or alleged depending on the particular case — are a means to the end for liberals. Their end is power. It always has been, and it always will be.
For some liberals, the power is personal. Liberal socialists such as Nancy Pelosi surely crave and want their power. It’s personal and pathological, as well as ideological. For others, it’s more abstract and intellectual. They might not want power personally, but they want mankind to be ruled. The ones they want to be ruled the most of all are the successful and the competent. They like the idea of great and successful individuals — people who would have done well no matter what — having to kowtow to the whims and powers of government authorities. They love to see the best and the brightest of mankind humbled, because it satisfies some sick and dark feeling within them.
This is why America has become, I’m sad to say, a sick country. I don’t want to think that most Americans are as sick as these liberals. But these liberals and socialists — these excellence-hating miscreants — are the ones who run essentially all of our government and academic institutions. Even some self-made successes in business have become sick, going against all the values and strengths which made their initial success possible.
If America is to be well again, it has to become a place where people who hold these beliefs, attitudes and contradictions are exposed for the idiotic and life-hating forces that they are.