Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient: Victoria University of Wellington Students' Newspaper. Vol. 32, No. 15. 1969.

Self Delusion

Self Delusion

One is also reminded when considering the capacity for self-delusion which mingles with the selective indignation inherent in the liberal protestor's motivations, of the cartoon which appeared in a recent issue of the London Evening Standard.

It showed the Nigerian delegate to the United Nations, surrounded by a pile of human bodies; presumably some of the decimated Biafrans. The caption reads: "Mind your own business, let's talk about Rhodesia!"

This attitude has penetrated, without any protest, into the higher echelons of the United Nations. No one could accuse the Anti-Slavery Society of racialism or fascism, or indeed of anything other than the wish to protect human rights, But when the Society's invited observer sought to raise at a conference in Dakar the question of the Southern Sudanese, the secretary (a senior official in the U.N. Human Rights Division) told him that if he attempted to do so, he would at once advise the chairman to send him packing.

The same blindness prevails in attitudes on Viet Nam. Liberals everywhere "expose" the government of South Viet Nam: corruption, censorship and totalitarianism are the normal charges. In contrast. North Viet Nam is presented as a friendly peasant democracy, under the benign leadership of Ho Chi Minh, whose smiling "Uncle Ho" image is continually peddled, and whose poems are required fillers in almost any liberal magazine.

Yet how many liberals—especially the ones who think it chic to wear those little enamel Viet Cong badges—remember that only last year the North Vietnamese government passed a law punishing any criticism of the war, or of the country's leaders, with death?

How many remember the methods by which Ho established himself in power? His treatment of the North Vietnamese National Assembly is typical, of the 444 members elected in January 1946, only 291 remained on October 28, of whom only 37 were opposed to Ho Chi Minh.

Further weeding-out ensured that, by the end of the year, there were only two delegates left to criticise the regime. Those who were elected to oppose were "missing", or were arrested on trumped-up charges of common-law crimes—despite their technical parliamentary immunity from arrest.

It is not surprising that there was little difficulty in securing the adoption of the Constitution of the Democratic Republic of Viet Nam on November 8, 1948.

With that business done, the North Vietnamese assembly had no need to meet again for another seven years—and then only did so for one day's sitting?

Yet this is the country that out liberals champion.

Perhaps, just occasionally, it is the liberal who has his values mixed?

Instances of the use of selective indignation by liberals could fill this article. It might be a little unfair to look too closely at the words find actions of that senile doyen of liberalism, Bertrand Russell, but how many of those who revere him would care to be reminded of his earlier attitudes on the uses of preventive nuclear war?

Which of our ex-Cnd liberals, with the walls of their rooms adorned with talismanic photographs of the decrepit philosopher, would admit to remembering him slating: "Either we must have a war against Russia before she has the atom bomb or we will have to lie down and let them govern us ..."

"Anything is better than submission".

Better "dead than Red." Lord Russell?

Dr Strangelove is not really so far distant from the liberal mind as that film's director would have had us believe.

One could consider the liberal faith in the United Nations as a power for world peace— a faith that persists despite the fact that troops operating under the U.N. flag brought more misery to the Congo than did fifty years of colonial "exploitation".

Their faith remains, even after it has become apparent that as a body the U.N. can never preserve peace, because so many of its members are interested in fomenting "wars of liberation"—the new jargon which replaces "holy war" in the liberal lexicon.

Typical liberal-supported groups such as the U.N. Associations throughout the world, ignore the incredible failings of the parent body, while praising many of the actions that have contributed to world tension and unrest.

The "Committee of 24", dealing with colonial and trusteeship territories, exhibits the qualities that liberals find little difficulty in supporting. With one voice they slate that the interests of the inhabitants of various countries should be paramount—and with another they condemn the people of Gibraltar and West Irian to incorporation under the rule of fascist and neo-fascist regimes.

The liberal mind is everywhere. Spouting its ill-formed opinions, waving its banners, it arrogantly asserts its right to dominate free thought everywhere. International organisations around the world, especially student organisations, are full of them.

An obvious example is ISMUN (the International Student Movement for the United Nations) whose Secretary-General said in an NZSPA interview that he saw right-wing views as needing to be excluded from his organisation. These views, he said, might include racial discrimination. When asked whether ISMUN would be likely to apply the same rules against the left, in considering Poland's anti-Semetic racial policies, he made it clear that situations automatically lost their connotations of racialism when practiced by the left.

It is not often that even a liberal will state such hypocritical views in to direct a manner.

Then we can look at Isc, the now disbanded non-communist international student organisation, which recently published a handbook for student journalists. Throughout the handbook (edited by David Robertson) are the usual liberal re Terences to "censorship" practices in South Africa—but never a mention of such practices in communist countries.

It is indeed Ironic, as well as tragic, that one of the contributors to the handbook. Rajat Neogy, formerly editor of the Kampala magazine Transition, is now in prison. Where? Not in South Africa, but in Uganda. The offence? Criticising the government.

Religion is often considered to be one of the fountainheads of modern liberalism. Everywhere today pious clerics persist in giving their foolish advice, which if followed, would result in death and extermination for millions. How has religion developed in this way?

Christianity is today thought to be a liberal religion. Its foundations are in the more authoritarian aspects of the Jewish faith, and its survival has been ensured by the fact that very few of its proponents have actually followed the liberal side of its leaching.

The history of many of the Christian Churches of the world is a history of hypocrisy: a liberal facade with authoritarian enforcement. Times are changing, however.

Now that many of the religious leaders of the present day are moving towards a greater implementation of the ideals they have always professed, their churches are steadily declining in influence.

Clerical liberals exhibit the same kind of moral blindness in choosing subjects for condemnation as do their lay brothers. Classic examples can be seen in the World Council of Churches, which at a conference in Genoa issued the following statement: "We ask America to stop the fight against Communism."

If this incredible suggestion were acted upon the World Council of Churches would not survive more than a few years, for communism cannot allow religion to remain in any position of strength. In their blindness, they are attempting to cut their own throats.

Lenin wrote: "Every religious idea, every idea of God, even flirting with the idea of God is unutterable vileness of the most [unclear: ous] kind, contagion of the most abominable kind. Millions of sins, filthy deeds, acts of violence and physical contagion are far less dangerous than the subtle, spiritual idea of God."

Regardless of one's personal attitude or religious beliefs, it would seem somewhat pointless to ally oneself with the protagonists of the above statement, yet this is what the liberal leaders of the World Council of Churches have done. A case of the blind leading the lame?

The role of the news media in distorting the presentation of the facts is worth looking at briefly. Liberal journalists, and liberal subeditors, can do as much to swing the news in support of their beliefs as can the most rabid communist or fascist censor with his blue pencil.

In many ways their activities are the more insiduous, for the liberals are scarcely aware of the extent of their actions. Nearly everyone can recognise where the more dogmatic slantings of ideologically committed editors and censors have operated, while the liberal influence however, is so much harder to identify.

The danger becomes particularly great when the channels of news communication are limited, as in New Zealand. With each and one evening paper, and the only other source of news being the N.Z.B.C., we are, for a western country, very susceptible to any re-writing of the news.

Examples are plenty, for those who care to look. After the riots in Chicago during the Democratic Party's nominating convention, a commission was set up to report on the causes and effects of the violence, especially in view of the fact that the police had been extensively blamed for accentuating the riots, rattier than calming them.

The conclusions of the commission were that, while the police had over-reacted, they had done so in the face of strong physical attack. Instances were given of police being attacked with various weapons, and of them retaliating in an over-enthusiastic manner.

It can be proved that the wire services sent a full report of this to New Zealand. Yet when the story appeared in The Dominion, the only instances recorded were those showing police in an unfavourable light. Can it be that the sub-editors concerned had decided that the Wellington public should not be shocked by reports of good little liberal kids clubbing and razor-slashing police?

Whatever the reasons, it is painfully clear that a certain overall picture was established in the minds of readers of The Dominion: that of the Chicago police being entirely at fault, rather than the findings presented by the investigating commission, which suggested fault on both sides.

Much of the distortion that occurs is of a minor nature, but the effect is cumulative. In the course of a news—not feature—report in the Evening Post recently, the following sentence appeared.

"A strong white backlash vole kept Mayor Sam Yorty in office in Los Angeles." The rest of the report dealt with quite different matters.

The reader might well be forgiven for being left with the impression that the white citizens of Los Angeles had voted on racial lines— for a white candidate—and as there were more white than negro citizens. Mayor Yorty won.

An actual breakdown of the pool figures shows a different story. Precinct by precinct analysis indicates that over 95% of the negroes in predominantly negro areas voted for Thomas Bradley (the black candidate), while only 65% in the predominantly while areas voted for Yorty.

Who were then the race-minded voters? According to the news report in the Evening Post, the "strong white backlash" was responsible for Sam Yorty's win. But facts—conveniently omitted—tell another story.

The dubious role often played by the student press should not be forgotten. We have already looked briefly at the Omega affair, and noted the liberal postures enshrined in the Isc Handbook for Editors: it is worth zeroing in on the activities of one particular organ of the student press, Salient.

In particular, Salient's attempt at miniMcCarthyism, with all its nauseating insinuations, smears, and use of guilt by association, deserves to be remembered—with shame. In Salient 2 of this year, a from page article written by the editor alternated to victimise a Victoria University graduate employed by the External Affairs Department.

How many students would wish all their past activities paraded before their employers and the public activities that took place in their student days, without a thought to the future. Indeed, this was one of the main concerns of several participants in the Security teach-in held during Term II Victoria this year.

It is a principle, recognised in practice by courts of justice in New Zealand, that university students are particularly susceptible in their later years to the results of their youthful behaviour. For this reason, students obtain many concessions from the courts; suppression of names, and acquittals with costs are commonly used to protect those who would otherwise be prevented from entry into one of the professions by a criminal record.

Yet Salient deliberately set out, despite warnings tendered well in advance, to try and wreck a person's career, by dragging up a letter written by him as a student, and showing it to his employers. That it failed is due only to the level-headedness of a Government department in refusing to be panicked into unjust action.

I do not wish it to be thought that in any way I condone the attitudes expressed by the victim of Salient's attack. It should not be necessary to write this. But there are those —often liberals—who will carefully examine the political and moral beliefs espoused by a victim of circumstance before they decide to involve themselves. The moment they do this, their protestations of concern become a sham.

They have proved that they are only using general beliefs in the rights of the individual to further their own political ideals, under a mask of total hypocrisy. They are, of course, behaving like normal liberals.