It is impossible for Americans to do anything (and I do mean ANYthing) without some antiamerican knee-jerk reaction in the German media. Yes, we will never forgive them that they had the temerity to free us from ourselves, back in 1945. But this little bit of writing about Sarah Palin is particularly vile. Lawrence Auster posted my remarks in an entry from August 29, 2008:
I am not sure whether this is topical enough for the discussion at VfR. But I am so angry that I better share this before I'm bursting with suppressed rage.Now, more than three weeks later, I find that particular bit of writing even more mind-boggling. Why? I seem to have finally understood why the oh-so-tolerant liberal left gets particularly agitated and aggressive when it's about the right to murder one's unborn child, as proven by vile Mr. Pitzke. Again: why?
Spiegel Online, the website of the leading German newsmagazine Der Spiegel, lets one Marc Pitzke tear Palin to shreds to finish (see the last three paragraphs):But that [the image of the "I can do it all" working mother] is, of course, just one side of the lady [in this context, "lady" is meant to be a gross insult], who looks like a living image of the TV-comedian Tina Fey. Under closer scrutiny, Palin emerges as an arch-conservative, specifically in social matters.According to that logic from hell, cynicism is not to abort a child with Down syndrome (or just diagnosed with Down syndrome) because parents are too lazy and weak to cope with such a child, cynicism is not, either, to assume that Mrs. Palin had that child to further her political career, cynicism is to give birth to, to hold and to love such a child.
So she doesn't just oppose abortion. She is against abortion in cases of rape or incest. Or -- as it happened with her own son Trig, born in April -- in case of a handicap that was already diagnosed during the embryonic stage. Trig, so the results of early genetic tests showed, is suffering from Down syndrome. Palin gave birth to him nevertheless -- and hold him in his arms yesterday.
This was a first whiff of the cynicism with which the Republicans will stage-manage themselves next week for the voters. Who thought now after the success of Denver that the Democrats own the political showbiz will be surprised: At staging sentiments, the other side [i.e. the Republicans] have been always better.
Notabene that I do not approve of working mothers of small children and that Mrs. Palin and her other merits or the lack thereof are beyond my ken. This is just about an all-time low of antiamerican- and leftist journalism, not about this specific politician.
In an entry from August 16, "35 years of one-note 'conservatism'", Lawrence Auster asks the question "Why is it that the evangelicals fulminate about abortion ... but say nothing about homosexual marriage?" As this is a question that doesn't really concerns me beyond the fact that I am mightily relieved that evangelical Christians play no role in Germany, I only joined the discussion when an aspect crept in insinuating that, as abortion is legal for a long time now and would be very hard to undo, that that was that and the anti-abortion argument has thus become of secondary importance. So I answered the question:
What about: Because the horrors of abortion (i.e. a living, feeling human chopped into pieces, liquefied and vacuumed out or executed with a lethal injection while in the process of passing the birth canal) are rather more imminent and disgusting than two old queens holding hands?Lawrence Auster replied in turn:
And since when is the fact that something "is already legal and will be very hard to undo" a principled argument against an ethical abomination?
Nota bene: The above is NOT an endorsement of homosexual "marriage."
Nor were the reader's and my comments endorsements of abortion. The question did not concern whether abortion should be opposed, but why, 35 years after Roe v. Wade, there is still this entire "conservative" movement that essentially just focuses on ONE issue and ignores others?Which is only too true. However, abortion rights are not just ONE issue among other leftist issues and goals. A notable feminist mantra tells us that "the hand that rocks the cradle rules the world." True! So does the brain attached to the cradle-rocking hand, a brain that decides who is going to be allowed to live and who isn't and that makes "the right to choose" a tad more important a target than, say, homosexual "marriage" or at least so I think.
Wherever you look in the American conservative universe--whether we're talking about the neoconservatives, or the paleoconservatives, or the pro-life movement, or the anti-big government, pro-Constitutionalism movement, all of which once made good and useful contributions--they've either stopped making good and useful contributions or have become actively harmful. Why? In my view, it's because none of them had a view of the whole--a whole view of the liberalism that must be opposed, and a whole view of the good society which we need to restore.
In the comment section of Terry Morris' Webster's Blogspot, following an excellent entry headed "Sarah Palin, Down's Syndrome, and Traditionalism", I was given the opportunity to explain my point further:
Vanishing American said...To which the host replied:
Terry, thanks for your perspective on this.
I've been troubled in reading on many 'conservative' blogs that some think abortion is a reasonable, or in fact the preferable choice if a 'defective' child is expected to be born. I suppose we are seeing the results of the growing post-Christian influence in America. Many people who consider themselves conservative or libertarian don't share the basically Christian value system which shaped our traditional America.
I do not think that those conservatives intend to do willingly and consciously away with the concept of sacredness of life. My theory is that we are dealing with a rather involved and dangerous psychological mechanism here. Dangerous, because people are not aware of it and thus never discuss, let alone tackle, it. It is, I think, wrong to assume that women want abortions because they are weak or in a predicament. It is because women had all through history the control over which child was going to live and which wasn't, a practice that got somewhat curbed by the advent of the rule of law. If they are demanding the "right to choose" now, they want their traditional power position back, not more, not less. I think that the conscious knowledge of this has been lost at some point in time, but it is still there, alive and kicking and, as I said, even more dangerous because we are not aware of it.
The German penal code of 1871 (which is basically still valid) excluded capital punishment for women who killed their newborn child within a limited period of time the details of which I have forgotten. I do not think that this was due to some early advanced knowledge of postpartum depression, I think it was a recognition of this fact.
Did you know that the figures for "crib death" cases grew when the figures for other causes of infant death declined? Did you know the gruesome estimations of unknown cases of infanticide that have been recorded as SIDS cases? You can hardly be blamed if you don't because it needs some in-depth research in the Internet before one comes across some substantial information because it is – you've guessed it – not all that frequent- or openly discussed.
Now America! The position to which American women have been elevated will never cease to amaze me. There is a wedding industry of stunning proportions, unknown, I dare say, anywhere in Europe. I do not know a single woman who decisively EXPECTED (!) a diamond ring delivered at betrothal. In America, couples cripple themselves financially by a budget, of which the wedding dress is very often the biggest item, so that She can have her grand entrance in white. (And don't you dare telling me that the husbands-to-be want anything like that as well!) Or the obscene prom-cult, or the even more obscene beauty pageant cult, where teenagers look like seasoned expensive hookers and little girls just grown out of their nappies like cheap hookers. Anybody who says that fathers want anything like that for their daughters needs his head examined.
And the women behind all this are the same who stridently demand "equal rights" including the right to legally kill their children, because they seriously think that they are disadvantaged because of their sex.
My other theory (which, of course, may be wrong) is that during the frontier and colonization past of early America women had an extraordinary importance and that somewhere along the path of history somebody has forgotten to remind them that those days are over. The only civilized country subject to the rule of law where somebody like Marybeth Tinning was able to kill several (how many? 8?) of her children and wasn't even suspected because – you know – women are always victims and never perpetrators or because they are naturally good and nurturing (Choose your reason, it's free!) is America.
Feminism has done more damage to Western society (and probably irrevocably harmed your country) than leftism, illegal immigration, libertinism or whatever together and the fact that not even dyed-in-the-wool conservatives dare to BASICALLY challenge feminism proves my point. Some "excrescences" – yes. Feminism as such? You must be joking.
Another theory of mine, one that tries to explain why feminism is exempt from any serious challenge, is, that feminism is, literally, closer to home for all of us than any other damaging ideology or "-ism". Even a conservative woman doesn't want to have HER OWN absolute freedom curbed and even a conservative man wants peace and quiet at home and will do anything but muster up the nerve to speak out against it. Not even against an abomination like abortion.
Well, let me say that I couldn't agree more with a lot of what you wrote. Is feminism the root cause of America's problems? I don't know. I do tend to believe that feminism and leftism, multiculturalism and all the other isms that are destroying America are all closely connected. Did feminism (the empowerment of women) kick it all off? Quite possibly.The rest of the discussion at "Webster's" deserves (and will get) a separate entry.