Belmont Club & Samizdata are having a little fun with the appointment of Zimbabwe, now head of the Commission on Sustainable Development at the United Nations. Samizdat quotes an American spokesman: “We don’t think that Zimbabwe would be a particularly effective leader of this body”. Belmont observes “The UN can do little harm as long as it is universally understood that it operates according to the principles of magical realism.” On the other hand, the first comment at Samizdat makes a sensible observation: “In terms of taking the world back to a bleak, pre-industrial existence (which is what many people in favour of “sustainable development” seemingly want) the government of Zimababwe is doing a good job of leading by example.” Of course, this wryness would be a good deal funnier if there weren’t real people with real needs ill served by a government that now is in a position to suggest others follow its disastrous policies.
1 thought on “Minor Aggregation – 3”
The tranzi community has cut itself loose from any allegiences to mere nations, or the type of parochial morality that cites non-Zim standards for Mugabe’s regime, or, indeed, any sort of ethical standards at all, except for the two fundamental tenets of international politics: 1)Israel is always wrong; and 2) the US may be criticized for anything it does or doesn’t do, but may not criticize anyone else without committing “cultural imperialism”.
This is the “Bizarro world” of international politics. Once you grasp the total inversion of any common rules of ethics, values, standards, reality, and even scientific and mathematical principles, esp. accounting, it is much easier to understand these seemingly nonsensical decisions.
Zimbabwe is just another nation-state, equivalent to any other, (keeping rules one and two, above, in mind). Its ruling party is no more or less legitimate, its policies no more or less reasonable, its problems no more or less the fault of the leaders than any other. I mean, just look at the coincidental droughts that always seem to strike a certain amount of time after a socialist regime confiscates all the farms. N. Korea has had one for decades, and it’s certainly not their fault, and Venezuela will have some version of its own soon enough, but, heaven forbid, we couldn’t blame that on the Chavez regime and its policies.
Why, actually examining policies and their consequences might lead us to some very dangerous ground, like that quicksand when effects are tied back to certain causes. Everyone knows social and political situations are much too complicated and nuanced to be understood as simple matters of “doing A causes B”. Why, any self-respecting tranzi would just get the vapors trying to imagine using such obsolescent thinking when dealing with “political realities”.
If you had you consciousness raised sufficiently to understand this, you would never write such critical comments regarding a progressive regime like Mugabe’s little heaven-on-earth.
Just because you see four lights doesn’t mean there might not be five, if you looked closely enough. (Extra credit for catching that obscure little TNG reference)
Comments are closed.