Yet Another Sign

THAT YOU CAN’T TRUST the Left with anything requiring rigor — particularly anything to do with numbers — is this formulation that’s come about since the communists hollowed out the Left and took it over back in the ’60s*: First World, Second World, Third World. Except, they never say “Second” or (more properly) “New” World to refer to the Americas, because that kind of throws their … call it calculus, for all its lack of rigor … throws their calculus into a cocked hat. (Like a raw egg which, when the hat is put on, breaks and runs all down their face, but never mind that.)

For those of you who attended government schools since the teachers’ unions were stripped of their outlaw status and took ownership (albeit not responsibility) of the public education system in this country, the formulation refers to the fact that explorers in the Western Hemisphere referred to their home civilization — roughly Europe and the Mediterranean — as the Old World and the Americas as the New World. It was just a geographic thing, one step beyond “here” and “over there” and carried no socio-political-economic freight to speak of, although the Old World was generally perceived to be established, civilized, sophisticated, and refined, while the New World was seen as new, rough, vulgar, crude, and a little rude — not at all “our sort.” Until New Worlders got filthy rich and that became a schism between the :”nouveau riche” who generally earned it and “old money” who got it through various species of looting. But never mind that, either.

Come the revolution — or at least the would-be revolutionaries, who, in order for their program to work, need to lump people together in groups — relevant or not, but it must be groups, can’t have no pesky individuals running around mucking things up — and then set the groups against each other.

Used to be if you asked a fisherman from Irian Jaya and a llama herder from the high sierras of Equador what they had in common, you’d get a blank look and at least one of them would walk away from the crazy person shaking his head. The revolutionaries fixed that. Ask the same question today and… Well, you’d probably get the same answer directly from the people involved, but you can bet their lords and masters know that they’re both from the Third World.

But don’t you dare ever ask a revolutionary, “Why third?” Because it would knock their worldview into a cocked hat — or a billed cap or one of those trendy berets with the red cloisonne stars pinned to them that all the too-cool-for-school red diaper babies sport to show that they’re down with the struggle — for them to have to admit that the U.S. is a New World country, not Old World, and that First World is a designation with no meaning whatsoever, and that Third World is a tag hung on people with little in common other than that Marxist — scorn quotes — “community organizers” see them as rabble to be roused, revolted, and ruled. Especially considering that the Third World designation subsumes the world’s oldest extant civilization, which is currently ruled by communists struggling with that ideology’s internal cognitive dissonances.

But if you really want to see their heads essplode, ask them why Israel is considered First World when it was founded nearly after the end of the age of colonialism — yes, it lasted until the ’60s, but it was really over at the end of WWII — by UN mandate on the former colony of the Grandmother of colonial powers, from a largely refugee population of persons displaced by a war started by a fascist regime.

No, leftists have no shame, nor are they capable of acknowledging the inconsistencies in their worldviews. If they did, they’d no longer be leftists.

* I know, I know. They started a lot earlier — practically right from the birth of the Left. But they pretty much accomplished their ends by the 1960s.

Comments are closed.