In a debate Thursday, January 30th between Weather Underground founder Bill Ayers and Immigrant and scholar Dinesh D’Sousa, that was billed as The Ultimate Fight Between Left and Right, left me dumbfounded by the ignorance of Ayers and the shallowness of the audience’s questions.
It was almost as if the students needed a few more years of study under their belt before they would fully understand what was happening before them on the stage. Either that or the disease of liberal thinking had already seeped into their minds to such an extent that they were incapable of offering a cogent comment or question. Most of the questions were mere ramblings. Perhaps the audience was stacked with Ayers supporters. Maybe they were tired, perhaps they started drinking a night early, I don’t really know. But it wasn’t what I expected and fell far short of the fireworks I anticipated.
Dinesh was his usual brilliant self. Making historically accurate assertions and common sense arguments from start to finish.
Bill Ayers on the other hand repeatedly called America, “a contradiction.” A contradiction between reality and fiction. A contradiction of who we are versus who we should be. A contradiction between what was and what we claim what was. But in his typical leftist ideological way, he became the contradiction of the night.
Ayers, just like President Barack Obama, repeatedly made dualistic claims about almost every point that came out of his mouth and obviously fails to see that he is even doing it. Like Obama he both blames and then praises the same people for both being the problem and the agitators for change. Whether it is America in general or the American people specifically they are both to blame for what makes America so bad and for what makes America so good. He claims we a great people in a great and beautiful nation but we are also a terrible people in a nation full of flaws. We are great today because we fixed the institutionalized racism of our past. But we are wretched today because we impose a new type of racism on our black youth by both locking them up and taking away their rights to vote.
The problems facing black youth in America has zero to do with whites or racism and everything to do with morality and liberal social policy. The number of black youth in jail has a direct correlation to the amount of crime committed by that segment of the population. 3% of America, black males, commit upwards of 50% of all crime. A staggering statistic. No Bill, the black youth that are in jail are there because they deserve to be there. As Ted Nugent would say, if you act like an animal you deserve to be locked in a cage.
On one hand Ayers claims all people are precious and valuable, deserving of love and protection, rights, equality and freedom. He then rails against the oppressive state and the Pentagon specifically, the war machine that drops bombs on people in foreign lands, yet it was he who took it upon himself to use explosives to blow up his fellow Americans along with government buildings his neighbors helped to pay for through their taxes. It’s okay for him but it’s not okay for the government “of the people.” Talk about a contradiction!
What is good for Ayers isn’t good for his government? Even though what they do is protect him equally as his neighbor, from the same terrorists, invaders, or scads of other international and domestic enemies.
Ayers calls Halliburton a criminal enterprise taking millions, perhaps billions in taxpayers money — which is spent on thousands of well paying jobs — and that is somehow a crime, but to hand out the same money in the form of food stamps is noble?
Ayers took strong exception to the idea that the Constitution or it’s Founders were in any way abolitionists. He claimed several times that if you were alive one hundred and fifty years ago and against slavery, you would have been in a minority and against not only the Founders and the Constitution, but your preacher, the Bible and the law itself. Sorry Bill that is completely incorrect and a real pathetic misunderstanding of your own countries history. As a matter of fact it was the Christians, the churches, the preachers, the religious community, the Founders themselves who were the one’s most against slavery (some even as slave holders – unable to free them because of state law) they were the first and truist abolitionists. It was the Christian Bible preachers who railed against the institution of slavery. It was the Declaration and the Constitution that were the greatest anti-slavery documents in human history. Giving rise to the idea that every single human being was precious and should be free. Each had equal rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of virtue and happiness as their Creator gave to them. Ayers couldn’t have got it more wrong. And not only that he has the whole Constitution turned on its head — advocating for the right to pursue vulgar vices and indecencies which is exactly what the Founders detested.
Ayers also astonishingly asserted that America is stolen land and murdered 90% of the indigenous peoples in the process of the colonization of the continent. Both completely false claims. Not partially false, completely false. The fighting, the battles, the wars, the death was equally instigated by the Indians who themselves violated land and hunting treaties and killed men, women and children who families and whole villages indiscriminately. These were not gentle natives, at one with nature, many of them were often brutal warriors who killed for the sheer sake of it. Many of the Indian tribes were exactly as the colonists described them, uncivilized savages.
Ayers lives in a world of make believe, a world of woulda, coulda, and shoulda. None of those worlds exist. As D’Sousa rightly pointed out we can only compare America to all the other nations of the earth. Not to a make believe utopian vision, that is an impossible dream. But the dream non-the-less allows the dreamers to do evil, contemplate evil, accept evil, cheer for evil, advocate for evil, because, like all totalitarian socialist Marxists they live the contradiction. Their dualistic thinking informs them that the ends justifies the means. They will save humanity even if it means killing off hundreds of millions of them to achieve their glorious ends. The rule of law, the rights of men and morality do not apply to them, for they alone are on the ultimate humanitarian mission — so great in fact that it actually allows them to take the lives and property of those they claim to be saving and calling precious.
Ayers asked the audience if Nelson Mandela was someone they supported. A hero fighting against the apartheid state of a white minority governed South Africa. But Ayers fails to bring to the surface the contradiction that is Nelson Mandela. Mandela was a terrorist, like Ayers in his younger years and a fighter of equality later on that cannot simply be washed away like sins in a baptistry because he has seen the light. Having been convicted of terror and murder and sentenced to life in prison — Mandela was the benefactor of a world gone politically correct, that effectively ganged up on South Africa through sanctions and a globe campaign of shame, which brought an end to Apartheid which brought Mandela out of prison and onto the world stage.
But like the short-sightedness of Jimmy Carter removing the Shaw of Iran, what replaced it was even worse. Things in Iran are worse now, things in South Africa are worse now. But reality cannot compete with utopian visions of dreamers. Mandela’s success is only partially his own. While Mandela stood tall at the end of his life — he never paid his due to those he murdered, those precious lives he took while he played God and burned them alive in what became known as “necklacing.” He never paid for the price for being the one who chose who lived and who died in his angry quest for power and glory and yes equality. But in his pursuit of equality he denied those very same rights to others.
Lastly while Ayers rightly rails against intrusive government, against the marriage of government and big business, (conservatives and liberals agree) against the departments of government that fight wars and gather intelligence, he loves those parts of government that take from one citizen and hand it over to another. Those departments that gives to those who somehow deserves it more than the one who earned it. Those departments that impose upon children, or the elderly, or workers, or businesses, or homeowners, or investors, the liberal policies for which he advocates. He only hates the parts he dislikes. He is all for massive government — how can it be any other way for a Marxist.
Ayers professes that everyone has a right to schooling and health care (and I’m sure a whole host of other things not mentioned). I presume that extends to the right of a job and a livable wage, and every social hammock that can be filled with a lazy buttocks? But that America is not Dinesh’s America, that America is not my America, that America is not the America our Founders created when they declared that “ALL men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Ayers doesn’t understand that a right is what we all possess equally and at the same time. A right is not, can not be anything for which one man must pay on behalf of another man. For when one man must exchange his labor for the benefit of another — no matter the income disparity — you have unequivocally crossed the line into injustice. And injustice is where liberty ends and the contradictory ideology of Marxism begins.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by EagleRising.com