Dear Friends,
It seems to me, for a person to start a homestead, he must cut the trees, pull the stumps, kill anything that ventures on his land to take his vegetables, and fence in new animals that are alien to the area. He must do this else die; that is the nature of life. Moreover the immorality of it is lost on those displaced who are incapable of understanding the most basic moral concept. So to say that it is wrong for a human to live as a human must live is to say that morality should be eliminated from the world. To argue that morality requires the elimination of morality, is an absurdity because it in itself is immoral, but If someone intends to eliminate morality from the World, then we all are involved.
This is based on a similar quote from Einstein. He was speaking to the fact that humanity must survive and that our survival harms other creatures, just as the survival of a lion depends on the destruction of gazelles, or a beaver’s survival depends on it’s destroying a meadow and turning it into a marsh, we change the landscape to meet our needs. But our survival means the survival of the ability to make moral distinctions. It is in that, that we as a species, are singularly entitled to survive.
If our entitlement to survival, at cost to other species on the planet, is because of our ability to make moral distinctions, as Einstein averred, then to throw away the ability, for some political reason, would be utter insanity, wouldn’t it? Say for example if some extremely deluded person said we should hold all societies as equal, murdering a child is a choice, or that we should abandon our entire moral foundation and simply become a Brave New World?
The point being that if we eliminate our individual sense of moral consideration then we are lowered to the status of mere animal. Which is the goal of the anti capitalist, to lower mankind to animals, controlled animals to be sure… but animals none the less. The form they see as perfection is the ant. No sense of individuality and willing to die simply to be a footstool, that is what the anti capitalist wants for humanity. Us and our children but not them and theirs.
History is rife with examples of anti capitalist tyrants of the past trying to lower men to beasts. Lenin with his savagery in the years after the revolution, Stalin with his purges and famines, Mao with his cultural revolutions and imposed famines, in some cases, overtly, to turn the people’s belief away from God. Che and Fidel praised the willingness of youth to murder. They reveled in the blood they caused to be spilled.
The rhetoric that the anti capitalist uses whenever anyone stands up for liberty and freedom is freighting. They call such people war criminals and butchers. The unbiased media agree wholeheartedly with the anti capitalists, until they too are attacked, but by that time there is no one who can stand up for the duplicit fools. Venezuela is one such example of duplicit fools collecting their wages.
Since an anti capitalist cannot stand logically toe to toe with a pro capitalist, in logic, they must personally destroy their opponent, ad homonym, so they never have to argue, logically, their goals and means. Because who would agree that people should be lowered to the state of animals? Unless they too are deluded fools who seek the same wages as the unbiased media. Even though, they themselves may deny it, even to themselves.
In the end, if the anti capitalists win, and they create a Brave new World for us and our children to live in and we are actually lowered to the level of mere animal, then by what right, do we destroy and change such large swaths of the planet? Maybe, most of us, once reduced thusly, will simply be rounded up and eliminated. After all, don’t the anti capitalists always complain about population of us being too high (not them). If the population of deer become too high we just hunt them until their population is sufficiently lowered. An animal is an animal… right?
The only question really is… are you and your children animals, with all that entails, or human beings capable of making moral distinctions?
