Thursday, May 31, 2007

Of Degeneracy, Megalomania and other Anomalies

Today's range of current affairs subjects may differ wildly, but they have one thing in common: Culture War.

After failed attempts to establish a political party for pederasts, and the marketing of sex toys for Mother's Day (what can possibly be wrong with that?!), the Dutch broadcasting society that successfully brought televised sex and drug use education to the nation, is now pushing through a reality game show in which first prize is ... a kidney transplant! Wow, how progressive and liberal can a country possibly get without going to the dogs entirely? Answer: not very.

Let's put it in another way: this country is beyond immoral; it has long passed amoral; it has in effect become a moral black hole! As a consequence, and to make my point, ninety percent will have no idea what I'm on about!

The latest exercise in indifference and contempt for human life has resulted in the headlines "Baby suffocated in car", in two separate incidents of 'forgetfulness' in the Netherlands and in Belgium. Good night!

The good news is, Labour, the party we have to thank for furthering so much of the above, is on the brink of collapse! I could have told them that their boy wonder, Wouter Bos comes across as the cold-hearted, vain, unprincipled, technocrat that he is: a second Ad Melkert. People can sense fake even through the screen of a television. That's why the former Maoist competitor, Jan Marijnissen of the Socialist Party may be a totally misguided idealist, I'd buy a second hand car from him any day, as opposed to Bos whom I wouldn't even trust with the collection of my garbage.
CNN is reporting: Guantanamo detainee 'kills self'. Can anyone explain the function of these inverted commas, suggesting ... what ... foul play?

On to some more serious stuff now, as Venezuela requires our attention. The compassionate Leftist strongman of the proletariat, voted into power for a second time with some sixty percent of the vote as validated beyond doubt by the worst president in United States history, after the best of Marxist traditions is well on his way to megalomaniac totalitarianism. The choice for learning things the hard way seems to be a common human trait. Read here how key institutions have now been brought under Chávista control: ten of the twelve TV stations, the judiciary, the military.

John Allen of The National Catholic Reporter is having some fun with Chávez' "Cubanization policies" that are reflecting the spirit of "the greatest Socialist in history", viz. our Lord Jesus Christ. Apparently Pope Benedict's finer philosophical and theological points on Liberation Theology are lost on the Chávez' household, as might be expected. Enter the Second World War, Adolf Hitler and the Anti Christ, which just goes to show that even the saintly men in Rome can be sorely tested.

Asked Tomas Sancio of Venezuelan Politics Blog what we can do to help the situation in his country: "Write, write and write, that's what we can do, hoping that search engines and public opinion can read our opinions. Providing explanations on why we think totalitarianism is happening now. Opinions and arguments do count. The Venezuelan government pays people to lobby on its behalf (I know the name of one French man that was hired to do that job). Foreign press has for years given Chávez the benefit of the doubt. Hopefully, we can provide our grain of sand to overcome the propaganda."

Yes, the press from hell would be involved, wouldn't they? As they are in furthering the Marxist multicultural agenda as set out by the irrational, totalitarian Unholy Alliance of Islam and the Left in the boycott of Israel. After the 35,000 members of the British National Union of Journalists (NUJ) found it in themselves to declare a boycott against Israel, yesterday also Britain's largest professional body of lecturers (UCU) called upon its 120,000 members to join an international boycott of all Israeli academic institutions.

Israel is going the way of South Africa: singled out for boycott against Apartheid (the worst president in U.S. history has set the tone with a book title turned misnomer), while all measure of barbarism, suppression and crimes against humanity are apologized in the name of Marxist good intentions. Lately I'm having déjà vues from the 1970's.

Apart from the fact that we obviously have the Unholy Alliance here at work, I think we are getting beyond bias now, into the realms of open war fare on the part of Britain's multicultural bastions. Another way of seeing it, is an assault on an independent state by denying its right and first duty of protecting its citizens against terrorism. Put yet in another way: the 'right to commit insurgency' of a virulent minority outweighs the state's prime duty to protect the majority. How does this florid example fit into the transnational progressive agenda of undermining the legitimacy of the nation state?

Let's wrap this up with some good news, the U.N. Security Council has passed a resolution on the creation of an international tribunal to try suspects in the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri. If the Syrians hoped pressure could be exerted by unleashing the international band of marauders of Fatah Islam on Lebanon, these hopes are now truly dashed.

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Neo Totalitarianism (6): Liberty for Social Security

In the post "Treason IV: A Vast Left Wing Conspiracy?" I answered the question negatively. I've changed my mind ... I've discovered the trick ... Eurika! How do I know? Because it's logical but above all, it's dead Boring!

The peoples of the West are today living in a crypto, semi totalitarian situation in which taxation, and government provided social security are the linchpin of the Leftist social contract titled "Freedom for Cradle to Grave Social Security".

As Liberalism abandoned objectivism [1], the idea that all men are created equal and that consequently all should be treated the same way in similar cases, the Left - following Marx' dichotomy of the Oppressors versus the Oppressed - instead embraced subjectivism, meaning that perceived unequal groups must be compensated in proportion to their inequality. This had far reaching consequences, as we shall see.

The endless line of unequal 'victimized' groups were identified and subsequently compensated in proportion to their inequality by what usually goes under the category of 'nice things for Leftist people', the 'social hammock', or more parliamentary, social spending: welfare, grants, health care, social work, subsidized art, subsidies for politically correct pet projects, etc. For those who don't happen to belong to any unequal group (usually white men), the social contract means paying taxes in return for the benefit of living in a decent country.

In the meantime the primary, important problems - that are actually the result of the Leftist solution to Leftist problems caused by Leftist policies - are either swept under the carpet, out of sight of the voters and the general public, or are declared taboo, these days preserved to the point of ad hominem attacks in the absence of sound arguments.

This is, because the secondary, soft issues are vital to the Leftist vote. Were they no longer be able to finance subjectivism, this would ring in the end of Socialism, the Social Democracy, the Greens, the collectivist arm of the Christian Democracy, Leftist Liberals or whatever it is they call themselves these days. The news is, that is exactly what will happen if something pretty drastic isn't done very fast.

If the countries with Leftist governments didn't already belong to the most heavily tax burdened, raising rates might have been an option. But if the Left have learned one thing over the past decades, it is that Marxism must never be made applicable to the economy, hence the present concentration on social and cultural versions of Marxism (multiculturalism).

We have already established that requesting the Leftist constituency to cut down on their benefits would simply render Leftist politicians jobless in droves in no time: we have seen the angry reactions on the streets of Berlin, Paris and Amsterdam! So that's another non-starter!

Apart from subjectivism, Liberalism has championed a few other causes over the years: care for the environment being one, another one the 'liberation' of their unequal groups, among them women. Enabling women to stay in jobs longer, making the most of their subsidized higher education, the size of the family over the years tended from smaller to smallest - to the extent that, in some countries in Europe at least, even replacement levels touched danger levels.

Leftist governments could have opted for more family friendly policies, as Germany has belatedly done under Angela Merkel. But these policies are looked upon as Rightist: environmentalists hold the somewhat radical view that children are merely the polluters of the future; and larger families are seen as a phenomenon typical of the overly religious. Women would only be encouraged to become stay-at-home-mums - and that, would never do! Family friendly policies represent to the Left, all it considers anathema!

The Solution to the problem presented itself in the form of immigration, to make up for the rapidly diminishing numbers. Until quite recently - in the Netherlands for example - there was no official immigration policy, Europe being traditionally a contributor to emigration to Australia, the United States or Canada, rather than a magnet for immigrants themselves. All that changed with the arrival of guest workers in the sixties, but that was a brief spell which didn't attract much attention, the numbers still being relatively limited.

Later on, any policy that existed, was largely seen as a technical issue, best solved by multicultural technocrats in the various government ministries and departments. While immigration numbers grew exponentially - primarily through 'marriage and family re-union rights' - at no time were the voters given proper insight into the problem, allowing them a chance to make their own choice for either redefining family planning, or outside replenishment.

At present the problems are staggering. Never at any time after the colonization of the Wild West has any territory absorbed such biblical numbers of peoples! But instead of being straight about it, immigration is presented by the policy makers as a strength: it shows our capacity of 'tolerance' and flexibility; and as an act of God - as a wave coming over us, for which there happens to be no remedy. In the meantime the voters are being coaxed into accepting ever more colonization towards future broadening of the fiscal base, enabling social security spending for unequal groups to remain in tact so the Left can stay in power.

In the series "Treason", for example in the second instalment "Crimes against Europe's Indigenous Peoples" we saw how deep governments stooped in selling out their own peoples. The often lauded Swedish model fairly takes the cake by denying - through an Act of Parliament - Swedes the right to their own land: "The Act implicitly states that Sweden doesn't have a history, only the various ethnic groups that live there. Native Swedes have been reduced to just another ethnic group in Sweden, with no more claim to the country than the Somalis who arrived there last Thursday. As Friedman puts it: "In Sweden, it's almost as if the state has sided with the immigrants against the Swedish working class."

In the same post we read how the treason against the native populations works on the level of city politics, as pointed out by sacked Antwerp social worker Marij Uit Den Bogaard.

One way of cloaking the fact that it is a policy of choice, is by re-framing the issue. For example in the messages: "Get used to it - immigrants aren't going to go away!" and "We live in a multicultural society now", are pieces of public manipulation, deserving of the term demagogy. It carries the message of the accomplished fact as a result of an outside cause, received by the public as a well meant appeal to be nice and tolerant towards immigrants, the issue by now far removed from the actual issue of willful design!

While the above explains the future demographic problems in the West, the most important aspect is that entire populations, either through taxation or by claiming benefits, have become loyal, dependent clients of their governments who know every personal detail, from how you raise your children to the number of surgeries. All jump through hoops, at least if you want to claim what's rightfully yours, where you've paid your taxes for.

For Europeans the news is even worse: the E.U. is presently undertaking steps to usurp yet another national prerogative: immigration policy. So forget petitioning the national governments about their treacherous policies: the E.U. is bailing the national Leftists out, shifting the entire concept of "Freedom for Cradle to Grave Social Security" to a transnational scale. See for example "Treason III: Cultural versus National Borders".

And so we see, that what is on a international level Transnational Progressivism, the locking in of nation-states in large federations to ensure stability by interdependence, is on a national level the social contract, as long as you can ensure the broad tax paying base, that is.

~ To be continued with Red Flags: what are the danger signs to watch out for? ~

Sunday, May 27, 2007

Neo Totalitarianism (5): the Transnational State

Nation: c.1300, from O.Fr. nacion, from L. nationem (nom. natio) "nation, stock, race," lit. "that which has been born," from natus, pp. of nasci "be born" (see native).

Meet the transnational state of the future: Kosovo. It is roughly 100 square miles or 140km2 of highly rugged territory, sandwiched between Serbia and Albania, and Montenegro and - courtesy of the Greeks who for the time being object to the story of their nation being hijacked by historical upstarts, the diplomatic entity going by the elegant acronym of FYROM.

The Balkan Peninsula, being traditionally one of the world's highly inflammable tender spots, is an NGO paradise come true for experiments in international social engineering (multiculturalism and transnationalism: see also "Yes, to an Islamic State in the Balkans" and "Some Darned Thing in the Balkans"). Like bringing democracy to the Middle East it is a high stakes gamble, akin to lighting a cigarette in a kerosene depot. The last time I opened a history book the local buzz words were self-determination and autonomy. The Balkans ever have been the living proof of the futility of multiculturalism. So it is a bit of a challenge to The Construction Team but the pay-off will be well worth the effort. And the international community will boast yet another peace producing export product after the completion of the E.U.

The Balkans - like the Middle East - is awash with cloak and dagger stories. One documented conspiracy theory of Serbian origin is based on the Yugoslav wars of the late last century and the planned Albanian Macedonian Bulgarian Oil Corporation (AMBO) pipeline, carrying Russian Caspian oil via the Bulgarian port of Burgas to the Albanian port of Vlore. As the joint venture is registered in the U.S. - the beating heart of Capitalism - and Germany is seen to have rang in the first Yugoslav war by adexterous diplomatic maneuvering, this has given rise to theories about outside economic interests and the wars of independence having been willfully caused to break up the happy national-socialistic unity under the late President Slobodan Milosevic.

The same mechanism is at work from all sides in respect of the U.N. protectorate of Kosovo. NGOs are accused of gross favouritism towards Albania and the Albanian Kosovars, ostensibly because they need their cooperation with regard to the pipeline. It is an area rife with conspiracy theories, reason for me to stay away from these aspects of the case: remember 'oil' conspiracies in the earlier stages of the Iraq war - a subject now dead ...? I'm still waiting for the apologies ...

It is certain however that diplomatically and politically something is afoot. The U.N. does not have the legal power to declare countries independent; nevertheless, if Security Council member and Serb ally Russia doesn't veto the transnational plan, drawn up by the U.N. Secretary General's special envoy Martti Ahtisaari, de facto the U.N. will have done exactly that.

It will provide a precedent for any other area in the world with separatist aspirations or with an axe to grind, to go the same route. But perhaps this is exactly what the Transnational Progressive community have in mind: supporting the breaking up of nation-states, thereby creating a faithful future clientele in the "NGO community of free nations", and the gradual end to the monocultural remnants of the era of "sectarian war after war, and wave after wave of ethic cleansing", as the latest postmodern propaganda slogan goes. Reason for a game of international hypocrisy: while the plan doesn't use the i-word, all parties understand it allows the protectorate E.U. supervised independence and all the trappings of statehood - in the Balkans still articles of reverence: a flag, an anthem, but also a parliament, a constitution and citizenship, moreover the ability to contract and join membership of international "communities of free nations".

Pertinent to our investigation in Transnationalism are the comments in an article written by one the Three-fold Kings of the Multicultural Borg ("Resistance is Futile"), Timothy Carton Ash in his pamphlet of preference, Al-Guardian on 15th February, carrying the revealing title "Why Kosovo should become the 33rd (E.U.) member - and Serbia the 34th (E.U. member)": "The way forward for Kosovo is not nation-building or even state-building, but member-state-building. And for Serbia too. This means European leaders having the courage and vision to say that we actually want a further enlargement of the E.U., because only then will peace be secured in the Balkans and Europe be whole and free."

For all Garton Ashes' glorying of transnational entities and disdain for the nation-state, he doesn't lack a sense of symbolism: he sees the entire Balkan to join the union, "as proposed a few years ago by a commission chaired by Giuliano Amato, on the 100th anniversary of the outbreak of the first world war, the Sarajevo summit of 2014 should celebrate this achievement"

Kosovo moreover provides a chance of experimenting in the development of a moderate, liberal, European, form of Islam, long seen as The Solution to the problems of integrating a large Muslim population into Europe. It proves to the Turks and Eurabia that the E.U. isn't a Christian club (God forbid!) and it may be an important asset in isolating Jihadism. If a beautiful Utopian thought, as is usual with the ideologues it doesn't reckon with the Wahhabi type assertively in seeking world Islamic dissemination: it has already been reported that Saudi financed mosques and madrassas are being built on the territory of Kosovo. In this chilling Front Page article it transpires that even some Jews are taken in by the propaganda.

It is rarely mentioned as such, but in the mainstream press, in the international community and in the eyes of common citizens in the West it is often Serbia that is seen as the jingoistic culprit, held responsible for the anachronistic goings-on in the Balkans during the 1990's, ruining postmodern and middle class appetites night after night, watching the news reports on television.This common wisdom is made easy by the guilt attached to the roles played in the wars by N.A.T.O. and the U.S., but above all by the cowardice of the E.U. and the pathetic, immoral attempts at 'field marshaling' by the U.N.

The whole confounded thing came crashing down with the proclamation of strategically counter-instinctive enclaves, the so-called 'Muslim safe havens' by a sentimental, if single-minded French general with a conscience and a misplaced sense of chivalry. But after nobody appeared to be willing or able to preserve the neutrality of the enclaves, and Muslim fighters launched daily attacks on Serbian forces out of the safe havens, the Serbs in the person of General Mladic decided to put an end to this unsustainable situation.

The U.N. declined to defend the safe havens that were created in its name, resulting in the execution of thousands of Muslim civilians (or fighters, as the case may have been - in any case they were all men), and Dutch U.N. troops at Srebrenica - whom the U.N. had seen fit to arm in conformance with the Boys' Handbook of Scouting so as not to 'provoke any violence' in the war zone - had the heroic task of overseeing the dismantling of one of the monstrosities.

"We never want to do this again", a N.A.T.O. Defence Minister is held to have said. "This" being conducting a war by committee, making moral and military issues subservient to legal U.N. niceties, resulting in the U.S. going it alone in Iraq without U.N. green light later on in history.

One thing and another seems to have caused blindness and disinterest for the facts and the Serbian side of the story. The Front Page article already mentioned also reveals that the late reporter Daniel Pearl as early as 1999 made a case for - gross exaggeration at best, or a war of propaganda at worst - on the part of the Albanian UCK (or Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA)) against Serbia. I remember at a time having the unsettling feeling of watching a film production rather than a journalistic news report; I dismissed it of course as unwarranted suspicion on my part.

What fills me with apprehension is the ease displayed by the international community to give in to Albanian threats, who see independence as "the only acceptable outcome", in the words of Kosovo President Fatmir Sejdiu. It is said that tensions could plunge the turbulent region back into violence.

More curious - what to think of a passage in a recent report produced by the International Crisis Group, an independent NGO, that by the way effortlessly reproduces a link to Garton Ash' biased article on Al-Guardian.
"Kosovo's Status: Difficult Months Ahead" states, and please note the emphatic imperative:

"The Contact Group should not permit further delay in Ahtisaari’s proposals after Serbia’s January elections and should not dilute them ... The E.U. Council should give its preparations and requirements for assuming post-status responsibilities in Kosovo more prominence, both for European public opinion and the Security Council. The incoming German Presidency should make uniting member states behind the Ahtisaari proposals a top priority. The Security Council should act promptly and positively when it receives Ahtisaari’s proposals, recognising that delay would likely mean a return of Kosovo to its agenda soon in crisis circumstances." Alex Anderson, Crisis Group’s Kosovo Project Director adding: "If Kosovo is to graduate to independence in 2007 - as it should - it must at the same time grow up."

No pretence of any neutrality there. The fear (or threat) for a new crisis by denying Kosovo independence doesn't convey any credibility in the face of the future crises that will follow the Kosovo precedent, which may cause entire regions to break away from nation-states. It makes no sense if the goal is stability!

Remarkable is Fourth Generation War theorist William Lind's comment in an article "That Flapping Sound you Hear": "... I want to state it as plainly as I can: in a Fourth Generation world, multiculturalism is the death of states ... cultural loyalties super-cede state loyalties."

While some nation-states will inevitably fall prey to the separatist Kosovo precedent, the international community's will on the other hand, as witnessed by the break away of Bosnia (and also witnessed in Iraq) want multicultural and multi-ethnic entities bound firmly together in federations and other umbrella unions. Huge semi democratic constructs are built as seen in yesterday's post, proportional power-sharing among unequal groups to replace traditional voting systems: the transnational version of democracy.

Serbia is being punished for misbehaving towards minorities by losing a large chunk of what it considers to be its heartland, conveying the message to the world at large, that multicultural or multi-ethnic states had better behave towards their minorities - even if it is the minorities that start causing trouble in a quest for independence - under the subjective principle that unequal groups must be compensated in proportion to their inequality. That the nation-state is seen to be losing legitimacy fast, is simply part of the message: you don't abide by transnational principles, you stop to exist.

As different groups and peoples are locked into multicultural states by social contract as we shall see in the last instalment, states themselves are locked into larger umbrella systems of interdependency, so as to ensure politically correct transnational behaviour amongst states, thus making the possibility of future wars virtually impossible.

Let's take a look at "The Ahtisaari Plan - what's inside?" "Ahtisaari's proposal is first and foremost a document designed to make Kosovo a multi-ethnic society. This means that the non-Albanian communities have been granted substantial powers. With more than 90% of Kosovo made up of Albanians, the minority Serb, Roma, Ashkali, Gorani, Egyptian, Turk and Bosniak communities are given tremendous influence in all sectors. In brief, Ahtisaari has designed an asymmetric state." The finer details, such as parliamentary seating arrangements and how in some areas one can only have heart by-pass surgery, in say - an Orthodox hospital, can be read in the full article.

Seeing - as in some recent cases, for example in Bosnia which rigidly kept Croats, Serbs and Muslims, separated together in one country, with no apparent benefit but hating each other to the core from up close - one wonders what the objection against the creation of a monocultural, or mono-ethnic nation-state exactly is?

Read 'Jurist' guest columnist Antony D'Amato of Northwestern University School of Law who says that creating an independent multi-ethnic state in Kosovo would almost certainly be a human rights disaster for the 200,000 Serbs living there, making up some ten percent of the total population. Nota bene: this is what you get if you lose the numbers game! D'Amato asks: "What about partitioning Kosovo into a Serbian and an Albanian territory?

The short answer is, that it wouldn't be conform the multicultural and transnational ideology. If Transnational Progressivism is seen as a method towards a conflict-free future, we will see the encouragement of the breaking up of states with a leading culture by way of the Kosovo precedent, while the interlocking into multicultural and multi-ethnic constructs under the benevolent management of democratically unaccountable NGOs, will be the favoured form of Empire for the future.

Since it conforms with the ideology (read: is politically correct), it is not expected that blood shed of any significance - caused by a heightened sense of nation, religious fervor or cultural differences - is likely in the transnational state of the future.

Thursday, May 24, 2007

Neo Totalitarianism (4): Transnational Progressivism

Fjordman in his refutation "A Great Conversation" of what must have been devastating criticism from Helsinki University to his article "Communism for the 21st Century", brought us up to speed with the chilling 2001 article written by Hudson Institute Fellow John Fonte, "The Ideological War Within the West" in which Fonte foresees the emergence in a few decades hence, of an ideology described as Transnational Progressivism: "post-liberal democratic, and - in the American context, post-Constitutional and post-American ... a universal and modern world view that challenges both the liberal democratic nation-state in general and the American regime in particular."

He describes what I have termed till this day, a borderless, multi-ethnic and multicultural Empire without an Emperor, but ruled by a democratically unaccountable meritocracy. Hence I will take the liberty of adopting Fonte's term as an apt definition and description. Transnational progressivism involves the following:

- Instead of negative individual rights, the emphasis is on mostly, positive rights of unequal groups (racial, ethnic, gender), proportionate to their perceived inequality (see the Easter Egg series);

- The Marxist dichotomy of oppressor (the state, the majority) versus the oppressed (groups, immigrants) has lost nothing of its validity and is supreme;

- Group's proportionalism and representation across the board; no underrepresentation in institutions;

- Democracy means proportional power-sharing among groups (examples are today's trouble spots like Northern Ireland, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq, and their political and democratic constructs). These are to take the place of traditional voting systems, as one man, one vote, majority rule, and plurality voting systems like first past the post or winner-takes-all;

- The values of important institutions (governmental and NGOs) must reflect the world perspectives of the minority groups, as opposed to the Western, white, male ethnocentric narrative that is currently taken as universally valid;

- Gradual deconstruction of national narratives: re-writing of history (a recent affair of the re-writing of a Greek history school book to conform with E.U. politically correct non-offensive requirements, comes to mind), abolishing of national symbols, and in time dismantling of national borders, sovereignty, and the national state;

- The promotion of world citizenship, as opposed to national citizenship: severance of the relation between place of birth and the national identity, between blood and soil, or in bogey Third Reich lingo "Blut und Boden" by postmodern messages about "people having boots, not roots!"; dual passports and analogous national loyalties are not perceived as a problem, the crime of treason being already somewhat of an anachronism.

- For the time being the concept of Transnationalism can be used as a tool: providing elites with both an empirical tool (a plausible analysis of what is) and an ideological framework (a vision of what should be).

Transnational Progressivism is basically the next step in global multiculturalism gone berserk, with radical subjectivism as its political ideology (read: the politically correct).

A characteristic of Progressivism is, that it is realized at a snail's pace (about E.U. speed), so that implementation is hardly noticed so as not to be too disturbing. It is a very long-term and gradual project. The dichotomy is steered away from globalism versus anti-globalism, to transnational versus international. For an example of this discourse, see this article on Eurozine.

According to Fonte, "Transnationalism is the next stage of the multicultural ideology. The argument to watch out for, is "that 'globalization requires some form of 'global governance' as the national state and the idea of national citizenship are are unable to deal with the global problems of the future.' The same scholars who touted multiculturalism now herald the coming transnational age."

Add to that the social, economical and monetary implications we will come to speak of in a later part of this series, and voila, Neo-totalitarianism! It's what you get if you allow the Left to lodge itself in all the strategic positions, decade after decade: all levels of teaching and education, liberal arts, humanities, journalism (which is seen as an extension of teaching), advisory boards, all levels of governmental institutions and non-governmental organizations, including the lumpen intelligentsia.

A good example of what transnationals see as wrong with the world are those straight lines in the sand that can be found in any place where history took place, but Africa is a case in point. Those straight borders are perceived as unnatural remnants of a colonial and imperialistic past, blamed for everything from drought and poverty, to tribal warfare and genocide. An example of how the map should look in the transnational view - how all continents ought to be, is shown in the second picture. As it happens this idea of geological order coincides very happily with the Islamist view of the Caliphate. In any case, the lines in the sand, or clay, are set to go into history's dustbin.

One last word about a matter which pops up regularly: the perceived hand of the corporate Right (which by the way is nowadays frequently the corporate Left) in the promotion of globalization and multiculturalism. It is argued that capitalism views people solely as a combination of a labour resource and a consumer market. Western culture is seen as imposed from the top down by global businesses on innocent nations around the globe. What is less often brought up, is that it is frequently Leftist government policies that force corporations to take their employment opportunities off-shore, where the optimum combination of best resources versus lowest overhead is available. Thank heaven that the raison d'être of businesses isn't global social engineering by way of the pay-roll, but the infamous bottom line, which is still the single source of economic wealth, that is so abhorred by nice Leftist people who wallow in materialism.

It seems suitable to wrap up this part of the series with remarks from John Fonte's article that "... in the twentieth century the Bolshevik Revolution, the National Socialist revolution, the New Deal, the Reagan Revolution, the Gaullist national reconstruction in France, and the creation of the E.U. were not inevitable, but were the result of the exercise of political will by elites."

In the same vein are the Musings by Maddocks on "Le Québécois Libre" on this same subject: "Just like 'diversity' and 'multiculturalism', transnationalism and global governance aren't the forces of history, but simply ideological tools advocated by the activist elites."

To the conceptual framework of international politics can be added a fourth dimension, as follows:

1. competition and conflict between nation-states (and the E.U. entity);
2. competition between civilizations;
3. democratic versus undemocratic;
4. conflict between liberal democracies and transnational progressivism.

A typical building bloc of transnational progressivism would be the proposed - for the time being semi autonomous - independent state of Kosovo in the European Balkan heartland, of which more in a separate post in this series.

Further reading on Transnational Progressivism by Ralph Maddocks on Le Québécois Libre: Part I and Part II.

~ To be continued ~

Wednesday, May 23, 2007

Neo Totalitarianism (3): Indoctrination

"…through schools of the world we shall disseminate a new conception of government - one that will embrace all of the collective activities of men; one that will postulate the need for scientific control and operation of economic activities in the interests of all people."

Harold Rugg, student of psychology and
a disciple of John Dewey, considered to be
a founding father of multiculturalism
Dr Sanity provides us with a wonderful if shocking piece on the history of totalitarian education. Needless to say that indoctrination is the appropriate description. The collection of historical quotes on the site of her colleagues, psychologists Sigmund, Carl and Alfred's is exemplary of what we are dealing with in respect of the totalitarian indoctrination of entire generations of students. What stands out is the shameless arrogance and the heartless brutality which at times, borders the pathological.

Noteworthy is how the source of this educational and pedagogical disaster, who is identified as Johann Gottlieb Fichte (1762-1814) "was instrumental in creating the 'climate of collectivism' in philosophy (as (philosopher) Stephen Hicks has referred to it) that prevailed in Germany during the late 18th and throughout the 19th century. In this counter-enlightenment climate, the state was worshipped as the source of all reality ... Hegel, building on Kant, Rousseau and Fichte, would go on to write, "It must be further understood that all the worth which the human being possesses - all the spiritual reality, he possesses only through the State." Some Europeans find it bizarre that Americans have the constitutional right to bear arms - well, here's their answer!

"Hegel's heirs went on to divide into left- and right-wing camps. The charge of the left was led by leftists like Karl Marx ... the right-wing Hegelians tended to stress the omnipotence of the state ... Both Hegelian offshoots summarily dispensed with free will and human freedom; and between them, they brought forth the philosophical abomination that we now call 'postmodernism'."

"The 20th century was the battleground where the two totalitarian branches of the collectivist philosophers vied for spiritual and physical control over humanity. The amount of death, destruction and misery they ushered in is perhaps unprecedented in human history."

"The goal for the last several decades has been nothing less than to undermine mankind's perception of reality itself. They have been most successful in this goal at all levels of education - elementary, high school and college."

"If you can convince children that objective reality is an illusion; that A does not equal A; that black is white; and that good is bad; if you can make them accept that everything is subjective and relative; then you have successfully breathed new life into doctrines that by all objective measures and standards led to the death and misery of millions of people. Through the careful manipulation of language, everything can be distorted, without the messy need to resort to facts, logic, or reason."

"For the children of postmodernism, what matters is not truth or falsity - only the effectiveness of the language used. Lies, distortions, ad hominem attacks; attempts to silence opposing views - all are strategies that are perfectly satisfactory if they achieve the desired effect - i.e., furthering the collectivist agenda. Ideas and reason make way for reification of feelings; and freedom is replaced by thought control and preservation of 'self-esteem' at all costs."

Is the phenomenon of dumbing down, the psychological immaturity and the distorted view of reality any wonder? A number of these distortions and errors in the processes of thought I've compiled in, which is at present, a list of 14 instances of postmodern fallacies (or the PMF, in short).

Those of you who think that English Departments still teach the finer points of Shakespeare's Midsummer Night's Dream had better think again. They are the unofficial faculties and laboratories of Postmodern Thought, i.e. Subjectivism (Relativism) [1], Positivism, Multiculturalism and Deconstructionism (Post-Structuralism). The founding father of the latter was Jacques Derrida, later a political aide to French Socialist leader Lionel Jospin.

Another case in point is Stuart Sim, Professor of Critical Theory - a strain of Marxist thought which can mean either this or that - at the University of Sunderland and author of "Empires of Belief" and "Fundamentalist World: The New Dark Age of Dogma".

Sim is a theorist who shudders at the mere thought of having to live in a mono culture (something which he has probably done most of his life ... and survived!) and who simply hates beliefs and dogmas, unless they happen to be his own. Recently I had the misfortune to try and fail 'fisking' an article of his hand, published on Signandsight, the description of which can be read in the post "Intellectual Flatulence!".

What postmodern thought is promoting and disseminating - in the Universities and into the world at large - is a species of sophistry which requires the suspension of the laws of nature, as described in the post "Post Postmodernism: What are the Options".

Hard to do? Not at all! Hoards of intelligent people have gone before. But a word of caution to those of robust physique, intrigued by the subject: don't go deeper into it than subsurface level if future cerebral activities of any significance are foreseen.

Dr Sanity's further produces some interesting thoughts on the ethics of capitalism (no, this isn't an oxymoron!). Very insightful is the idea, that since the essence of totalitarianism is the crushing of human free will - a requirement for making correct moral decisions - totalitarianism is fatal for morality. "The truth is that neither socialism nor communism nor any kind of religious fundamentalism is compatible with morality at all. Conduct may only be thought of as moral or immoral when it is freely chosen by the individual. It is only then that the moral significance of the action can be assessed." That one's for framing and hanging over the bed. By the way, this also proves the carelessness of equating Christianity with any form of totalitarianism: human free will is its core teaching.

"Conversely, how responsible for our moral choices are we, if living in a (semi) totalitarian world? In Western Europe since the 1960s the state has taken over the responsibilities, from parents and of physically mature individuals alike. In fact, this may be the reason people refuse to grow up into responsible citizens: attitudes and opinions on multiculturalism that are presently displayed, at times are nothing short of an irresponsible and immature intellectual game with people's lives!

But reverting to our educationers, it is of course the fact that these intellectual crimes are perpetrated on children which makes them so abhorrent. "Their total worth is only equivalent to their willingness to be fodder for the good the 'cause'." Yes, it is a totalitarian characteristic that all is subservient to The Cause and the end justifies the means, as we have seen.

And think about the havoc that in turn has brought on generations of people and on society in general! "Only those whose brains have been damaged by a defective educational system to begin with could adhere on the one hand to a philosophy advocating moral relativism and subjectivism, with (on the other) unapologetic dogmatic absolutism. What is outrageous is that anyone - anyone who is capable of thinking anyway - could take these postmodern, brain-damaged collectivists seriously." Now, there's a thought ....!

"The educational system should be a sieve, through which all the children of a country are passed. It is highly desirable that no child escape inspection."

Paul Popenoe, Behavioral Eugenist and co-author:
"Sterilization for Human Betterment"

~ To be continued: "The Ideological War Within the West", in which Fonte foresees the emergence in a few decades hence of an ideology described as transnational progressivism ... ~

Tuesday, May 22, 2007

Neo Totalitarianism (2): Multiculturalism and Beyond

Let us first turn to Fjordman and his buzz provoking article "Communism for the 21st Century", the University of Helsinki's critiques and Fjordman's subsequent rebuttal in "A Great Conversation", and various other commentators thereto.

It would appear from the text of the article that the University has remarked, that communism is neither synonymous with multiculturalism, nor with unlimited migration. Fjordman obviously recognises this and underlines that by 'neo-Communism' [sic] he means the 'whole package deal': they aren't identical, but they frequently coincide.

The reviewers further pose the astonishing remark that the opponents of multiculturalism labour under the false impression that multiculturalists do not consider culture to be important: "On the contrary, they find culture so important for each and every person, that it is considered a human right to be able to maintain at least some of it, regardless of where one happens to live."

At which point I am seriously in danger of bursting a blood vessel! This confirms my opinion that multiculturalists are either liars and hypocrites, or that they've had their brain cells relativised out of existence ("having lobotomized themselves, having already forgotten their lobotomies", as the present metaphor goes).

They know full well you cannot preserve anything of value by exposing it to the raw forces of (cultural) Darwinism. Unless you want the contenders to fight it out and let the best one win of course, and never mind the bloody mess which presumably they'll clean up afterward! (Note also the hapless attempt to separate identity from the place of birth, or any other accidental place where one happens to find oneself by the forces of nature!)

Fjordman's rebuttal to this piece of hypocrisy is important: in the heat of the arguments it is easily forgotten that:

"... by settling in another country, you have indirectly admitted that this country has a superior culture and should thus be required to adjust yourself to this culture, i.e. to assimilate."

I heartily agree with Fjordman, and would add that postmodernism's lack of wisdom and philosophical insight is probably to blame for not understanding, that if you value all equally and love none in particular, in fact you love none. Especially if you don't declare your own dogmatic belief in Darwinism applicable when it comes to cultures: when none is superior and predatory ones are taken not to exist, except of course Western culture which is inherently and uniquely evil. Once removed, they take for granted no other will fight its way to the top of the cultural food chain! This is Marxism's grave error! As with individuals, now with cultures.

When chasing the philosophical tenets of multiculturalism, Fjordman hits the relativist totalitarian jackpot when coming to the unavoidable conclusion as I did, as described in the post "Conned by the Left, Again", that ...

"... There are those who claim that it was never supposed to be logically consistent and that we shouldn't look for any cohesive, rational arguments behind it because there are none. What little can be discerned from its ideas is sometimes quite disturbing, with elements of anti-Western hatred [sic], totalitarian impulses and Utopian ideas involving large-scale social engineering."

He poses the great rhetorical question: "But isn't this alarming? Multiculturalism is now official state policy in many countries ... millions of people are subject to a radical ideology that is almost impossible to comprehend, and thus to criticize? Many ... know that it cannot be rationally defended, which is why they simply shut critics down with charges of racism and shame them into silence whenever they sense some opposition. In fact, it is now more or less illegal in some countries to criticize it, although it could mean the most massive transformation of our countries in modern history."

I can go further than that: if multiculturalism gets its way we will see a feat of social engineering in the coming decades, the likes of which have not been seen in human history. I also want to stress again and I keep on repeating it, because it is key to understanding multiculturalism:

multiculturalism is based on the pseudo philosophy of relativism, because that is the only way one can maintain that all personal opinions, cultures, religions, countries are equally valid and of equal value, and there is no such thing as good or bad. This in turn depends on the obvious lie and oxymoron that objective truth doesn't exist, when they do claim the validity of the eternal truth of human rights!

Because it is a lie, this fallacy is riddled with unanswered contradictions and oxymora [2], but the proponents couldn't care less. To them, the end justifies the means. All is subservient to The Cause. The principles of the scientific method (a theory must be falsifiable, which btw also Darwinism fails to do), and the basic law of natural philosophy (to be), don't apply to them! But in an effort to make the nonsense marketable to rational society, they presently propose to drop the multicultural cuckoo's egg in the Liberal nest, that they reason "is all about freedom anyway" (see the Easter Egg cycle, starting here).

According to Fjordman's Finnish correspondent, the multicultural 'solution' to migrant problems is to declare a number of human rights valid across the board and for the rest we simply " ... allow immigrants the right to keep their culture provided that they adhere to the central core of our values and follow the rules in our legal system."

Brilliant! Why didn't anyone think of that before now?! As if there weren't the teachings of Judeo-Christianity, and there never was a U.N. Declaration of inalienable Universal Human Rights! Which makes one wonder if the source of the problems with multiculturalists doesn't simply lie in their arrogance, a basic lack of knowledge and a very poor education ... (we'll come to that in a later part of the series).

Apart from the obvious fact that Islam - which is basically the law of a jealous, intolerant God - is inconsistent and incompatible with any laws ever thought up by humans, we also have the minor matter of deciding which human rights should be adopted as universal: largely due to the Left's inability to curtail their urge of engineering, Positive Human Rights have proliferated over the years to the point of farce.

That mushrooming of positive rights alone has greatly undermined and devalued them, whereas they should be untouchable and cast in granite, out of reach of the fickleness and illusions of the day. Human Rights are at the core of Judeo-Christian beliefs and values: they are the beating heart of Western culture.

Leftist secularism has hijacked and perverted them to the point they have become virtually unworkable. For those unfamiliar with the concept of Positive and Negative Human Rights and the hierarchy of Rights, this would be a good place to start reading about them. Or enter the key word into the search box above - we have written frequently on the subject and there are texts with very interesting links to the subject matter.

Fjordman also sees the problems and has no other solution than giving the indigenous culture precedence over immigrating ones. I agree. Migrants come voluntarily (if they aren't refugees) and they do so because they think to have better lives in the Western world. Also it is illogical and unpractical to ask the host to conform to all the adjusting tastes of his guests. But here we touch reason - which, as we know - isn't a postmodern strong point.

Furthermore, even multiculturalists see that for a balanced society the separation of church and state (secularism, laity) is required (by which I do not mean a religiously sterile state). The source of this principle [1], is Christianity, which should be a reason to honour and maintain its existence. Postmoderns have the simplistic conviction that it doesn't matter which culture is leading! A trip to the Dar al-Islam should suffice to prove otherwise.

Fjordman goes on to bring up the chilling 2001 article written by Hudson Institute Fellow John Fonte, "The Ideological War Within the West", which warrants its own post.

~ To be continued: Dr Sanity provides us with a wonderful if shocking piece on the history of totalitarian education. Needless to say that indoctrination is the appropriate description. ~

Monday, May 21, 2007

Neo Totalitarianism (1): Introduction

Developments are such that we need to come back at length to the discussion on Neo-communism: Fjordman had his essay with the focus on multiculturalism [1] critiqued by the University of Helsinki and encloses a chilling article on the (non)future of the nation-state; the Sanity Squad have come out with a brilliant historical post on education and indoctrination; and a very interesting article on WSJ's Opinion Journal has appeared that sheds some very insightful light on the numbers aspect (demographics, socio-economics, fiscal).

For some time I have been pondering whether to expand the following series, or start a new one:

- Neo-Communism Exposed: Part I, Part II, Part III, or
- Conned by the Left, Again: Part I, Part II, or
- Treason: Part I (The Natives are getting Restive), Part II (Crimes Against Europe's Indigenous Peoples), Part III (Cultural versus National Borders), Part IV (A Vast Left Wing Conspiracy?)

As we reached a new phase in the investigations I decided to re-title this series Neo Totalitarianism, because that is basically what it is. On a global scale of course, as this is yet another trait these systems have in common: the wish of expanding the vision of Utopia world wide.

Of all the wide definitions and dichotomies describing the two arch enemies of Left and Right - one other interesting theory can be found in the 'unconstrained view' versus the 'constrained view'. Another one, if I let my imagination run riot, would be The Constructors versus the protectors of The Natural Flow. Having the builders in, inevitably involves a certain amount of demolishing before the new folly can be build; the honorable task of the proponents of the natural flow, is keeping the builders at bay by applying the brakes and other defence strategies, performing the necessary damage limitation and reparation work whenever a visit of the (de)construction team has regretfully occurred.

The point of this argument is not, is the Communist International handing out newly laminated membership cards, or mystical red hankies soaked in the blood of the revolutionaries. Neither is it as much concentrated on centrally planned economics (irreparably discredited by the Soviets), but rather centres on governmental, cultural and sociological, and other soft aspects.

And although I must admit, if you look at the progression of events and developments in time, one could be excused for having the impression that the whole thing is somehow being orchestrated, perhaps by an organization like the Bilderbergers or the Trilaterial Commission. Of course these 'secretive' organizations are rather Leftist bogeys, and I suspect we owe it to them that things aren't any worse than they are. But if we picture an actual conspiracy at work, this is the type of club you might be looking for. If you hear the word 'interconnected', sound red alert and apply crash helmet!

But I do believe in Zeitgeist, causality, developments in time occurring in waves and cycles, persistent common error, and members of a nasty Leftist intelligentsia and a meritocratic elite who cannot stand, letting the natural flow of history take its course; and whose second nature it is, to turn against the culture to which they owe their existence.

This is the enemy within, who does not hesitate to use corporate, governmental institutions and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to turn against the status quo, which they see as a remnant of a useless history that needs deconstructing, to make place for Utopia. It creates an atmosphere by subtlely raising eyebrows at traditional symbols and tut-tutting other expressions of national unity. It disseminates myths, like "look at all the wars and misery that religion has caused" without blinking an eye at the millions and millions of victims of the last two world wars and counting, which have their roots firmly planted in the Enlightenment of Atheist Humanism.

The ceaseless Marxist dichotomy of oppressor versus the oppressed is alive and well. And there isn't a Socialist, Social-Democratic, Christian-Democratic or Left Liberal Party in the world that would include this very long term vista in their party political programs, or advertise it to the voters, but reflexes and specifically NGO activities betray them.

With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and Francis Fukuyama's thesis of the "end of history" [2] it was thought the fight against totalitarianism was over: the Right was beaten in 1945 and in the civil wars shortly after, never to appear again in any significant form. It was taken for granted that the fatal fallacy of communism and socialism was adequately proven with the demise of the Soviet Union.

The West happily set itself to the business of improving liberal democracy. Little did we know that in the deepest and darkest corners of higher eduction, NGOism and (semi) governmental institutions, the beast was still lurking. Since the turn of the century it has been moving again, somewhat tacitly at first, but by the year with more confidence, increasingly throwing its weight about but as yet hardly visible behind a curtain of undemocratic political practice, as we shall shortly see.

~ To be continued with Part I Multiculturalism and Transnational Progressivism: Let us first turn to Fjordman and his article "Communism for the 21st Century" ... ~

Sunday, May 20, 2007

Biding our Time

If things seem a little uninspired lately it's because we're working on an in-depth series of posts regarding the Neo-com story. We've dug out some insightful and at times disconcerting new information on the subject, which is to be the next main political development in postmodern history.
Therefore today again assorted news items:

- Ominous news is emerging from Pakistan, a Muslim country with a strong strain of the fundamental variety, a nuclear power, a country with uninhabitable mountain areas under Taliban rule, and a military strongman as President who seems to be losing it. An interesting article from Canada's National Post.

- CNN is reporting that the Lebanese security forces are doing battle with Sunni jihadist operatives near the Nahr al-Bared refugee camp: Islamic militants, security forces battle in Lebanon. Jerusalem Post is reporting the possibility of Syrian involvement, and thinks it knows why: Analysis: Why might Syria wish to sow chaos in Lebanon now?

Not reported by the Western media:

- Israeli Army vows to operate till Hamas surrenders
- Qassam hits house in Eshkol town
- Barrage continues: 16 Qassams hit western Negev

Friday, May 18, 2007

Orwell's Press from Hell

I may be one of a dying breed: call me peculiar, but I like to form an independent opinion, based on fullness of information, on my own - thank you very much!

Considering the postmodern press is doing our thinking for us by predigesting and preselecting the news as they see fit, I might as well open up a independent press agency here and make a day-job out of screening their omissions and censoring. I fear however I am already otherwise engaged.

I do however intend to nail Orwell's Infernal Journalism to the doorpost of hell whenever the opportunity presents itself! Such posts shall be announced, thus:

Israel and the P.A., already problem areas due to the overt anti Israeli media bias displayed by amongst others Britain's 35,000 strong membership of the National Union of Journalists (btw unheard of in the history of the press!), present today's focus. Here goes ...

... what the Western press didn't say:

- 20 Qassam rockets launched at Israel on Thursday
- Qassams ignored abroad
- 3 wounded as Qassam hits Sderot home
- Hamas blames world, Israel and Arabs

And it's not just "The Lighthouse" that's peculiar in that sense: here's yesterday's post from "Barking Moonbat Early Warning System"!

While we are on the subject of eccentricity, yesterday the world saw the first reports of a new digital application: cyber warfare, of Russia against "Soviet era ally", Estonia! It takes some getting used to by NATO: at present they don't consider it an Article 5 offence, which would normally kick the Musketeer Doctrine (all for one, one for all) into gear. Russia meanwhile, is peeved, denies as yet unpronounced charges, which it qualifies as "serious", calls for substantiation.

Thursday, May 17, 2007

Beliefs of Fear

Time for a few assorted news alerts with a commonality: the usefulness of fear!

Czech President and economist Vaclav Klaus today said that his new book "Blue, Not Green Planet" is to highlight the threatening and curtailing of freedom, which Klaus considers the key topic of the present era. The book is subtitled "What has been threatened: climate or freedom?". A good question.

If we follow the Roman advice: Cui Bono?, or the American: Follow the Money!, we arrive at the subsidized global fear industry that has sprung up over the last decades, and at governments that are thus able to firm their grip on people's freedoms by regulating and soft engineering; above all it provides an opportunity - and moreover, a ligitimated excuse - to 'broaden the fiscal base'.

Price tag: a personal contribution of 225 Euros per year will release you of your guilt "and can prevent the earth from warming two degrees by the year 2030", the U.N.'s I.C.P.P. has calculated! Total cost: 1700 billion Euros.

Perhaps it is this what Klaus has in mind. The book isn't available yet on Amazon. When it is, we'll let you know and add it to The Lighthouse Library.

It is astounding how environmentalism - whose animistic Gaia theory, which borders irrational earth-goddess worship - is abusing science to ridicule the skeptics: their taunting 'Flat, Not Round Earth' in this case, is reminiscent of the Darwinism versus creation myth dualism, when the unproven and highly unlikely theory of evolution is called into question.

If you don't buy into the Leftist politically correct epistemologies, you are an medieval ignoramus, that's the idea. Yet nothing is less scientific than elevating theories to sacrosanct dogma, as the medieval Scholastics knew, and some postmodern relativist theorists would be happy to point out!

Surely this must be another one of the Sanity Squad's infamous psychological projections! There's nothing like fear and guilt for a prime mover!

On an entirely other topic, I woke up this morning with the Algerian genocide in mind, which occurred during the nineties of the last century. The 150,000 martyrs to Islamism appear to be all but forgotten. The inhabitants of entire villages had their throats scimitared, after the Algerian government made the mistake of allowing an undemocratic Islamist party (FIS) to participate in democratic elections. When they appeared to be winning, the elections were cancelled in the certainty that democracy would be abolished were the FIS come to power. This sparked a whole series of blood baths that lasted for years.

According to this BBC article the period is characterized as a 'civil war', and apparently the security forces had a hand in it. Not mentioned are the Jihadis of the FIS and other Islamist groups. The reason for this is likely to be found in the BBC's approach towards journalism, by which unequal groups are compensated in proportion to their inequality vis a vis the official government, which in this case means they don't get any attention drawn to their unspeakable sins.

But today Algeria goes to the polls. Let's hope they make it a good one! In the West - especially in Europe - we tend to forget that democracy and freedom aren't free!

Tuesday, May 15, 2007

Neo-communism exposed! (III)

Fjordman, with an article "Communism for the 21st Century" has the entire conservative blegosphere abuzz in sheer shock, with comments, quotes, cross-posts and re-posts. These pages had already come to the same conclusion some months ago through our own separate, well-documented investigations. The chances therefore, this is only a figment of the delusional, conservative mind - as doubtlessly some projecting Leftists would have it - is herewith narrowed down to practically zero, I posit!

We came to the same conclusion, because the founding fathers of the postmodern pseudo philosophies that underpin the whole miserable construct - positivism, subjectivism (relativism) [1], deconstructionism, multiculturalism and other related sophistries - all had their feet firmly planted in the same Marxist clay in one way or another. This is something that anyone, who's willing to put in a bit of reference work, can conclude for themselves. To read related posts, enter 'communism', 'totalitarian', 'soviet' and/or 'dictatorship' into the top search box).

Another give away are the terms used (intelligentsia, peaceful coexistence); their knee-jerk pathological reactions to concepts like authority, dogma and religion; the need for a common scapegoat to blame all the short-comings of an otherwise perfect ideology on (neo-cons, Christians, Israel); the fact that their ideals are only practically attainable under totalitarian circumstances (intolerance towards dissenters); that the basic unit is the group (as opposed to the individual); criminalization of dissent (crimes against the ideology: racism, Islamo/homophobia, etc.); a mentality in which the end, justifies the means (everything is secondary to the realisation of the ideal); science is seen as a means to 'prove' the scientific correctness of the ideology (Darwinism, suppression of theories that potentially disprove its tenets and underpinnings); transnationalism (a borderless, multi-ethnic and multicultural 'Empire', the Emperor being substituted by a democratically unaccountable meritocratic elite); anti-realism; subjectivism (not: all men are created equal and therefore treated equally in similar circumstances, but: unequal groups must be compensated in proportion to their inequality); collectivism (ditto); a socially constructed identity and victimhood (ditto).

The above also explains the mutual identification of the postmodern ideologies with the cause of Islamism and their cooperation in the Unholy Alliance. All totalitarian concepts have a lot is common. Hence the mutual admiration. I don't propose to repeat the whole argumentation here again, as these posts are readily available in this blog (enter 'unholy alliance' and/or 'Islamo-Nazism' into the top search box).

Commentary from a contributor identified as The Great Satan, and brought together in an easy readable post "The Long Game- Enlightened Commenters Reveal All" on weblog "Mr Smith's Refusal" has some additional insights into the matter on the basis of Darwinism (natural selection and survival of the fittest), worth quoting extensively.

On the postmodern version of 'democracy':

"An ideal democracy is a coalition where political power is allocated among groups in proportion to their numbers. It has nothing to do with voting or with individual citizens expressing opinions, and in fact it doesn't require elections at all. A 'winner take all' system, or one ruled by a majority, is profoundly repugnant because it disenfranchises minority groups of all kinds and deprives them of their proper share of power."

... and emphasizes that ...

"National identity is evil. We should try to think of ourselves as citizens of the world, not as citizens of the nations in which we live, and we should try to minimize the effects of national interests, especially our own if we live in powerful nations."

And concludes ominously that ...

"... basically, the government policy is to ethnically and culturally replace the current majority ethnicity/culture with a different majority ethnicity/culture (ed.: Latino and Muslim for the U.S. and the E.U. respectively). Sounds familiar? It should because that is defacto GENOCIDE - albeit soft genocide by stealth [sic]. I imagine in Europe the Muslims would then wipe out the remaining Westerners by traditional genocide which they are quite good at."

In other words:

"... 'my' supposedly democratic government and media has the nerve to simply inform me it will continue with policies that will replace my ethnic/cultural group as the major ethnic/cultural group in my own country in relatively very small number of years, and if I don't like that, I am racist? ...."

"Diabolically clever. Hitler failed in his genocide of European Jews. The political U.S. and E.U. elites are much closer to a successful genocide of a much more numerous ethnic group."

I firmly agree with the qualification 'diabolical': that term sums up the stealth with which this treacherous policy of global proportions is being executed upon the indigenous people. Diabolical is also the crypto Marxist pseudo philosophy that underpins it all: relativism, i.e. your senses are untrustworthy, objective truth does not exist, and each person/culture/country/religion is identical except Western ones which are inherently and uniquely bad.

If you can make people believe that - eventually with the assistance of the useful media - anything goes - even global Islamic crypto Marxism.