California Conservative

THERE IS an odd phenomenon revealing itself in the world today. It is particularly manifested within the anti-war movement. This phenomenon propagates the justification for able bodied entities (such as the United States, for example) to ignore the disadvantage or handicap of less fortunate entities (such as Iraq, for example). In fact, it promotes a global free for all, let’s-see-who’s-left-standing attitude which, if left unchallenged, would leave the world in utter chaos. This phenomenon is moral and political Darwinism.

Charles Darwin in his book, “The Origin of Species (by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life)” says, among many things,

“We cannot suppose that all the breeds were suddenly produced as perfect and as useful as we now see them; indeed, in several cases, we know that this has not been their history. The key is man’s power of accumulative selection: nature gives successive variations; man adds them up in certain directions useful to him. In this sense he may be said to make for himself useful breeds.”

While an attempt to assume the level of degree to which Darwin applied his theory to the human race would be inconsequential, the fact remains that it can be justified to support a host of inhumane activities. Issues such as abortion, euthanasia and Nazi persecution of Jews carry the same “natural selection/survival of the fittest” overture, and this also applies to the anti-war movement. There was a sarcastic sign authored by a brave war supporter a among a sea of war protesters in San Francisco, CA, in February of 2003 during the world wide “Peace Rally”. It read, “Saddam Only Kills His Own People: it’s none of our business.” That about sums it up.

The war protester claims the war in Iraq is “unjust and immoral,” but on what grounds? Darwinistic theory supports the “staying out of it, its none of our business”, but the basest level of humanity does not. Is it justifiable for a cruel and unstoppable dictator, Saddam Hussein, to kill arguably millions of people, yet unreasonable for far less casualties to be sustained in the stopping of those innumerable murders? This is only one of the areas in which hypocrisy seeks to slither into the argument.

Always consider the source. The majority of war protesters who took to the streets in violent “peace” protests overwhelmingly support abortion on demand. The are against drilling for oil in Alaska for the sake of the Spotted Owl’s preservation, for the saving of the whale and veneration of the environment (which are worthy causes), yet are against the liberating of Iraq in an attempt to force compliance to United Nations resolutions? Is it not hypocritical to adhere to Darwinistic theory regarding humans but not toward animals and the environment? Is it really “any of our business” if the Spotted Owl becomes disbursed or the whale hunted for blubber and food?

Even Darwin defined ABORTED this way: “An organ is said to be aborted, when its development has been arrested at a very early stage.” Although Darwin did not refer exclusively to the human abortion, many war dissenters are to the left of Darwin’s basic definition of abortion.

It is intellectually insincere to support abortion “rights” and be against the war in Iraq. Should not their ideology remain consistent, allowing them to say the war may be morally wrong, but far be it from them to tell the US Soldier what to do with his body? And does not their ideology enable the likes of Saddam Hussein to do what he wants with the bodies of his own citizens (which of course they seem to support anyway)? Does that not theoretically align the dissenter with Saddam Hussein?

When war protesters lament US casualty rates in Iraq, they’re being disingenuous. They don’t care about the US soldier or the Iraqi people. They care about their personal agenda which is a form of moral and political Darwinism, with a splash of hedonism mixed in for good measure. They cannot offer a rebuttal for the low casualty rate in Iraq, particularly compared to previous wars, except to chant, “Unjust war! Bush lied, people died!”

The reality is that this anti-war movement would have us still paying taxes to England; African-Americans would still be slaves in the South; and Nazism & Communism would have spread throughout the world. Although they would never admit to it, the logical conclusion is exactly the same.

Thank God for the US Soldier!

This entry was posted on Tuesday, June 14th, 2005 at 9:33 am and is filed under Activism, Articles, Author: Amy Proctor, Iraq, Liberals, Military, Patriotism. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.