Wow. Just wow. This post starts the "Quid Gehenna?" tag, where I will put sundry issues that make me look like this:
I just read a rather discomfiting article over at Crisis Magazine. Take a sec, go read it so that we're on the same page, then get back over here for some musings.
Back already? Fantastic. Let's go.
So, I'm confused. Those accursed moderns have gone and befuddled me again. Apparently, voting against Barack Obama (The Promised One©®™) clearly means you must be racist (because he's black, and you noticed, didn't you, you racist, hate-mongering such and such!), but encouraging the entirety of Africa to curb its population (because apparently there are too many Africans? Or something? What?) is totally A-Okay.
Because that makes sense.
What's the real reason, New York Times (Hell's Bible©®™)?
Oh what's that you say? It's illegal immigration? It's that their are ~400,000 undocumented Africans living in America?
Whoa whoa whoa... Hold up. Aren't these the same people who are calling Republicans racist for having the audacity to believe that only citizens of the United States should be allowed to vote in elections of the self same constitutional, federated republic? Aren't these the same people who accuse anyone who even talks about having secure borders or any reform of immigration laws that aren't just amnesty racist hate mongers? The same people who don't bat an eyelash at over 11 million estimated undocumented immigrants already here from places other than Africa?
Just to recap our math, 11 million is 27.5 times 400,000.
Now, to clarify, you should really read what I think about immigration (legal and not) here. But the thing is, I don't think that this is really an immigration problem, and I don't think that the New York Times thinks it is either.
I can't help but feel that the article in question is a creepy revival of Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal for Preventing the Children of Poor People From Being a Burden on Their Parents or Country, and for Making Them Beneficial to the Publick (a.k.a. A Modest Proposal), except that they forgot that Swift's work was a satire.
For those of you unfamiliar with the work, Swift's (modest) proposal was that to free themselves of economic woe, the Irish should sell their children as food for the upper classes. After all, there are too many mouths to feed, and not enough food. Makes sense, right?
Which brings us back to the New York Times article in question. The problem with satire, is that some poor fool will inevitably take you at face value and think to themselves, Say, I think he's on to something there...
I guess the only way to eliminate poverty and make sure that we don't overpopulate the planet is to get rid of the poor, right?
It takes a special kind of mental dishonesty to on the one hand criticize America and the West for its intrusion into other regions and countries, while on the other hand doing exactly the same thing in an effort to prevent... wait, what are we preventing? Oh that's right, non-white, "third world" babies who may grow up to be poor. Oh well, I guess I should be happy that the New York Times isn't suggesting we eat them.