The Safety of Collectivism

The German cultural English language site Signandsite recently dealt with an interview, published in Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung am Sonntag with sociologist Wolfgang Sofsky, "who, in his coming book defends the private sphere in Germany against ever greater infringements in the name of terrorism control and tries to explain Germans' resignation to these constraints on their freedom."

"There's something missing in Germany: anti-totalitarian consciousness. We've had anti-communism, we've had anti-fascism on command, but we've had no clear-sighted anti-totalitarianism. While totalitarian regimes have existed on both German soils, there is no fully-developed sensitivity for the threat to freedom."

I posit that Sofsky's "sensitivity for the threat to freedom" comes with the Enlightenment's philosophy of Libertarianism, that was - at heart - an Anglo-Saxon project. It brought with it the blessings and accomplishments of human autonomy, the individual as operative unit, limited government, free market and a laissez faire attitude towards economy, and all what comes with reason and the right of free enquiry: technology, mechanization, and the scientific method.

Germany, upon shedding feudalism - instead of embracing Libertarianism, became home to the collectivist Counter-Enlightenment movement as started by Rousseau; thereafter - to its later chagrin - it adopted from that collectivist movement, both its political branches: Right Collectivism, National Socialism, and after its defeat, Left Collectivism, Communism. Germany's Libertarian Party, is until this moment, a marginal affair.

From the above may be concluded that Germany just doesn't seem to like individualism very much, preferring instead big government, the state as the embodiment of the collective spirit of the people. As a consequence Germans simply cannot be bothered with "ever greater infringements in the name of terrorism control" and "these constraints on their freedom."

I suspect, that the sociologist's sudden concerns over the people's privacy have more to do with the psychological projection known as Bush Derangement Syndrome and the American war on terrorism, in Leftist eyes seen as an excuse for a power grab, rather than the freedoms of the German people.

And it's not just the Germans who prefer to swap freedom for state control. It is true for most parts of Europe, as we shall see. Perhaps feudalism has made its way into the European psyche, predisposing it for the safety of Collectivism and the immaturity of never really having to grow up. Father State Will Provide is - according to psychiatrist Lyle H. Rossiter Jr in "The Liberal Mind, The Psychological Causes of Political Madness" - to blame for much of today's Narcissistic pathology (I'll come back about it in some detail). The chaos and responsibility that come with freedom can indeed be frightening, as adolescents know.

In social-economics there's the light weight Anglo-Saxon model, and the so-called 'Rhineland' variety. The continent - having adopted the latter, and Scandinavian countries an even weightier version of it, sees the Anglo-Saxon model as predator capitalism and - like the Germans - fail to see that they themselves have traded their freedom for a collectivist government that redistributes people's wealth as it sees fit: not free citizens, but all dependents of the state, from cradle to grave. They have even managed to turn Liberalism into Socialism Redux by the colpo of usurp, pervert, destroy.

While the French may be irritating the rest of the known world to bits by their obnoxious chauvinism, and the Germans - in view of recent history - temporarily don't talk so loud about The Goodies At Home, the Swedes somehow have persuaded themselves of the idea that they are the envy of the cosmos. Europeans misinterpret American patriotism in a similar vein.

But Americans don't pride themselves of their (heavily mixed) blood, or the beauty of their soil! They are proud of the Idea that is America, the human spirit that has shed the mentality of serfdom: the symbols of the government of the people, by the people and for the people. Europeans completely fail to understand the Americans' right to bear arms. They miss the connection, that those arms stand symbol for the guarantee of the principle, that the government exists at the people's pleasure, and not the other way around.

Fjordman has again produced what he knows best, another article on the inherent totalitarianism of the European Union: "... The European Union is basically an attempt – a rather successful one so far – by the elites in European nation states to cooperate on usurping power, bypassing and eventually abolishing the democratic system, a slow-motion coup d'état. Ideas such as 'promoting peace' are used as a pretext for this, a bone to fool the gullible masses and veil what is essentially a naked power grab. It works because the national parliaments still appear to be functioning as before."

"This is perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the EU: it is increasingly dictatorial, but it is a stealth dictatorship ... [it] has a lot more in common with totalitarian regimes such as Nazi Germany - and the Soviet Union - than the supposedly evil nation states it seeks to replace, especially its tendency to suppress freedom of speech, indoctrinate school children with blatantly false information and impose decisions upon its subjects without their consent."

Fjordman goes on a bit about the E.U. 'glossocracy', the Orwellian new speak, and government spokespersons' media guidelines regarding idiom and self-censorship: political correctness with a view to control mind and free flow of speech. Certainly also in evidence in the U.S. as promoted by the Democrats, it defies comprehension, but it now transpires that this phenomenon is an attempt by Pomo (Postmodernism: see Chart I: The Straight Red Line) to redistribute the right of free speech: a totalitarian effort to compensate unequal groups in proportion to their inequality. Pomo logic: the more elements of The White Patriarch a particular group has, the less unequal it is, the less entitled it is to free speech.

It is the same source that keeps on hyping the message, that we should loath ourselves on account of our imperialistic past: that waive after waive of ethnic cleansing, the enslavement of peoples other than powerful, rich, white, Christian males. I'll come back very shortly on the curious and fatal relationship of Pomo and language in general.

Building the Case of the Left's Culpability

When posting "Of Political Entertainment and Slumber" a few days ago, on the ludicrous dithers and slithers taken by the U.S. Democrats, so as to convince the anti-war grassroots of the Democrat defeatist credentials, in an update I linked to the latest Works and Days article by Victor Davis Hanson "Defeat and Flight from Iraq". His comments and outline of the inevitable, long term, geopolitical consequences of white-flagging the Iraq war, are very ominous indeed.

Going through the entire article again I stumbled upon two 'angry' letters he received - otherwise known as hate mail - that are quite revealing. One is from a 23 year old postmodern who in a quite unreasonable tone, based on his exploits in Chinese, claims to be more capable of reasoning than the accomplished writer himself: it is of course typical of people in certain stage of development to make such miscalculations.

Both letters are from recent arrivals in the United States. In the one case his parents probably took considerable risk to illegally move from Mexico, so that their children would have better opportunities in the U.S. He's now a orthopedic who cannot spell, so that was probably the right career move on his part.

The 23 year old postmodern with Bush Derangement Syndrome, apart from the mastery of Chinese and his obvious accomplishments in Marxist Critical Theory, suffers from a whole lot besides, but that is not the point I'd like to make.

Both letters simply ooze envious hatred, for the author, towards white culture, for America in general, and by extension towards - what I would like to term by now, The White Patriarch paradigm: the archetypal Counter-Enlightenment Oppressor, the litany well known by regular readers of present pages: white, rich, powerful, Christian males and all they stand for.

That's when it hit me that - while these two crass examples are probably new Americans of Hispanic descent, and Europe has similar experiences with Muslims of any part of the Dar-al-Islam - these immigrants don't come to their adoptive country out of admiration for customs, people or culture, but out of sheer hatred with a view of milking it for what it is worth.

Their objective isn't integration into these societies as proud new citizens, taking thankful advantage of all the opportunities that free, liberal, Western societies have to offer, they come as conquerors who hate the people that made the West what it is today. If they didn't set out as such, I'm sure there are quite a few indigenous, postmodern adherents to Marx' and Rousseau's narratives of Oppressed versus Oppressor, to brief them on the subject.

If all this sounds like stating the politically incorrect obvious, then why - for crying out loud - are we pretending it isn't the case, convincing ourselves instead that immigrants come with all the good intentions? This, with the usual caveats and disclaimers about obvious heaps of well intentioned, sincere ...... etc.

Frontpage relays an article by Ed West in The Catholic Herald of 18th July, "Jihad Will Destroy Us If We Don't Act Now". It is an interview West had with Robert Spencer, author of "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (And the Crusades)" and blogger on the recently censored Jihad Watch.

Contrary to the predictable prejudice from the multicultural Left, the author has a broad and thorough background studying Christian heritage, as well as Islamic scripture. He too noticed the reasons why the cooperation of broadly The Left and Radical Islamism in the Unholy Alliance isn't strange or even a coincidence!

While I call my argument of the Straight Red Line, based on the brilliant analysis of Stephen Hicks into recollection (here's the chart and here's a link to the first part of the series), in Spencer's words:

"There is a deep ideological affinity between the Left and the jihadists. Whenever the hard Left gained power they instituted a reign of terror in order to create what they envisage as a just society, brought about by force. Islamic law works in much the same way: utopia created by force."

What they share is of course - for starters - the subjectivist, primacy of consciousness base [1] of the Counter-Enlightenment, which basks in the cruel sun of Rousseau's and Marx' political justification of violence to bring about social change.

Spencer too mentions the numbers game - the disastrous demographics which the Left has reframed into the tired 'advancing geriatrics' excuse instead of facing the truth, viz. the exceedingly low birthrates, the result of problems created by Socialist policies: the gradual and deliberate destruction of the family as the operative unit, and other advancing forms of social engineering (see also Neo Totalitarianism (6): Liberty for Social Security and Chart II: The Subversion Program).

Spencer is spot on in his perception of the widening gap between on the one hand the persistent push of the postmodern multicultural elite for Western society's integration into an "Eurabian" culture (see recent remarks by a Dutch senior government minister to that avail), a goal shared and propagated by both the mainstream national political parties and the boys in Brussels, and on the other hand the actual situation in the streets of cities and towns all over the West, the growing discontent of the voters.

Any attempt of as much as naming the taboo, causes the mainstream to break out in knee-jerk apoplectic shock, recalling visions of Nazi Germany and pictures of the holocaust - which by the way doesn't keep the Left from currently developing nasty cases of unadulterated antisemitism, a reminder of the Collectivist common necessity of a scapegoat, to blame the negative effects of otherwise picture perfect policies on.

Psychologist Dr Sanity is also at work on above article by Victor Davis Hanson, but leaves the hate mail for what it is and moves on to a similar case of the Left's responsibility for Spenser's cataclysmic vista of civil war: in "Without a Blink" she observes correctly:

"Interesting to note that what 'gives the pre-modern fascist killers a pass' is the post-modern rhetoric and dogma of the left. It is precisely this inherently psychologically dysfunctional cognitive strategy that is able to shift, 'without a blink' from one subjective conviction to its exact opposite without a shred of self-awareness or mental dissonance."

She draws a comparison of Radical Islam with a malicious physical condition: likewise it "has manifested itself today and is spreading rapidly for pretty much the same reason, having been given an ideological carte blanche by the political Left ... with its political correctness and relativistic multicultural fantasies have managed to suppress and otherwise short-circuit the natural defense mechanisms of Western civilization."

"Radical Islamic ideology is itself an unexpected combination of several toxic memes ... which has been carefully synchronized with the failed totalitarian ideologies of the last century ... the remaining outposts of communism and socialism in the world are thriving in academic and "intellectual" circles in the West; together with the Islamic fanatics of the world, they have created a postmodern symphony whose cacophonous music only facilitates the descent into emotionalism, hysteria and murderous suicidality. Without a blink, the left switched from their lip-service championing human life and liberty to championing those whose main desire is to suppress it and bring all of humanity into submission."

A truly ugly picture is gradually emerging of how the role of Bezmenev's de-moral-ized generations that are currently in power, is costing the West its future, its culture and its freedom. The totalitarian Left to date has got away with 110 million victims. I - for one - have no intention of letting them add to that - Liberal moral hatred laws or not.

Of Empire and Metacultural Kitch

For a number of reasons I don't really want to do this post. The first item fills me with nostalgia of a world now definitely gone (and good riddance to it, as some would surely exclaim); the second subject is too stupid to exist, but it keeps an entire continent abuzz for weeks on end.

The first subject concerns the unveiling by Baroness Thatcher of a commemorative arch for the soldiers who fought during the Falklands War, when during the 1982 crisis, Argentina invaded the islands.

Needless to say I'm an admirer of Margaret Thatcher, who is not just one of the last generation of great statesmen, but also the Prime Minister who saved Britain from the stranglehold in which the unions kept the country. I personally was too young to remember very well, but my father assured me the country was on the verge of total collapse when she took over. Baroness Thatcher has thus left us the wonderful expression which to this day governments can take to heart: "to do a Maggy".

The costly defense of the barren, windy Falklands is something we wouldn't bother with today. So much do we desire peace in our time at any price, that we wouldn't think twice of turning the entire Falklands population as an imperialist remnant over to Argentine rule - to a murderous military junta or to a benevolent democratically elected government, is immaterial.

For fun I have purposely taken out a RSS subscription to the comment section of this article, just to see how the postmoderns' predictable reaction will be. The first one is already in: "A Great display of Imperialism!" Postmodernism is all about an imbecile's sense of justice, isn't it.

As a blog to which cultural issues are are all important, we simply have to 'deal' with that lovely, miserable piece of European metacultural bling bling that is the annual Eurovision Festival of Crimes against Culture. Year after year I swear a solemn oath never, ever to watch that piece of Euro junk again; year after year I forget my dire vow and tune in to it.

Sometimes I find myself bitterly complaining that it cannot possibly sink any lower and the whole thing is destined to become dog breakfast; in other years I have the distinct impression that the quality is actually improving somewhat, until the next performance tells me that this was merely wishful thinking on my part.

This year was of the latter category. Some countries converted to metacultural kitch, as a Baltic country performed an above average song in Italian; others are still deeply entrenched in multiculturalism. Like the Danes who had the gall to choose an illuminated Disneyland mosque as background to their jury presentation! It is only to be expected that some barbarian adherent to Operation Western Auto-Destruct at some point will call for the E.U. flags that bear cross symbolism, to be abolished as offensive to Muslims!

In many respects I thought I had passed the stage of substitutional shame long ago, yet I can't help the feeling of simply being sunk by embarrassment at some performances. Another thing one is always assured of, is that the best acts remain at the bottom end of the voting scale, while the most outrageous 'camp camp' ends up in the top ten. Yesterday was no exception. As Germany, Romania and the Baltic states produced some real quality music that remained dangling somewhere around the middle to lower sections of the popular vote; the cheap, bizarre nightmares of the Farther East came up trumps.

This phenomenon has given rise to Western complaints about an unbridgeable taste gap and even signs of open warfare on the festival as a whole. Personally I switched off the set half way through the night, entirely persuaded that the age-old rumours about political vote rigging must definitely be true! How else can you account for the advance of the Far Eastern 'bad taste' advance at the expense of the 'quality' Further West? Where's Monaco, where's Switzerland, Italy? Who's policing the popular televoting system? We don't know, do we?

Noteworthy last night was also the truly undeserved high vote received by Turkey, which must be due to multicultural positive action emanating from the P.C. West, and/or the Turkish diaspora using every phone appliance available, to ensure the homeland receives as many votes as possible. How else can the vulgar piece of ostentatious gender bending that was the Turkish contribution, end up at the very top?

I can now definitely cast some light on the Greek-Cyprus mutual admiration mechanism that the Western hemisphere is almost eagerly awaiting each year with some traditional hilarity. I can presently personally attest to the fact that the Athens commentators were sincerely surprised at so much unexpected benevolence on the part of the sister island! Thanks very much for the douze points, guys - we'll return the compliment next year!

Dutch jury anchor Paul de Leeuw still doesn't get that his particular brand of cynical gay humor simply isn't understood beyond the confines of the narrow Dutch borders! His blatant meant to shock gayness doesn't even come across as such: the Athens commentators called him an equivalent Greek colloquial term for a macho! Stop shaming the country before an international audience, Paul, and for Narcissus' sake, next year make a stop-over at the powder puff's prior to going on air, dear!


I can say I'm glad Serbia's Marija Serifovic won the contest as the ballad, entitled 'prayer' was above average and the performance was within the limits of propriety. But in good Eurovision tradition I can't say I have no suspicions.

To be quite, quite, Marija is a bit too diky - which is of course an officially E.U. recognized minority that must be compensated in proportion to their inequality. Likewise the E.U. seeks to rehabilitate Serbia as a politically correct nation, with the upcoming Kosovo independence deserving of some compensation, as for example re-instatement into polite European society. One way of doing that is winning and hosting Eurovision. Or am I simply too much giving in to the conspirational tradition?

As for the countries that make up the British Isles, they simply haven't got enough neighbours to ever win another Eurovision again! Cheerio, Johnny Logan!

Glad we got that out of the way. Perhaps the whole thing will finally blow up over the East-West taste divide, enabling us to revert to the more serious E.U. conspiracies.

E Pluribus Unum, All of Them Together (I)

Today's blegosphere harvest offers us a juxtaposition of two dualistic versions over the present situation, meaning and potential consequences of immigration in general, and the influx of Muslims into Western society in particular. While immigration is not entirely made up of Muslims by any means, the two positions have statehood and unity - or lack thereof - in common: both quote "E Pluribus Unum" in the case of the former, and a free translation to that effect in the case of the latter: "All of them together".

The position of Victor Davis Hanson and former Democratic Governor of Colorado, Dick Lamm primarily centres on the views and politics of the Liberal Leftists and multiculturalists on migration in general. The other is a romanticized, if not entirely well informed vision of Dutch author, Margriet de Moor with regard to Muslim immigration specifically, which in the Dutch context, is almost synonymous.

We will top that up with shattering advice and clarification from Indian quarters and a conclusion from an American on Townhall, Tony Blankley who served as press secretary to former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, Newt Gingrich and is the author of "The West's Last Chance: Will We Win the Clash of Civilizations?"

For proper understanding it must be said that where America, Europe or any E.U. compositing country are mentioned, these are virtually mutually interchangeable. I habitually use the term 'the West' in these pages.

In a post titled "How to destroy America" on TechPowerUp Forum a participant in last week's immigration-overpopulation conference in Washington, DC, describes the view of Victor Davis Hanson and Dick Lamm's, which states that America does exactly those things which it should, had it decided to commit suicide. Again, under influence of Leftist Liberal and multicultural political views, it is precisely what most E.U. member states - egged on by the harmonization boys in Brussels, are also up to.

On the German culture site Signandsight Dutch author Margriet de Moor published an article yesterday with the enigmatic title "Alarm Bells in Muslim Hearts". In contrast to myself - I didn't know how fast to get out of there - Mrs de Moor seems to be enjoying herself thoroughly 'in that remarkable country'. I give her that, remarkable it is, but the same could be said of Atilla the Hun!

She rightly connects the dots that respect and tolerance go hand in hand. Her conclusion that the perceived and rather famous Dutch tolerance is non-existant, and is mere contempt, is justified. It is a misnomer and the attitude has more in common with the Soviet concept of 'peaceful coexistence' as a result of mutual non-interference, than with tolerance in the true sense of the word. It is cold shouldering at best.

Regretfully she goes off the rails in equating the Hispano-Dutch Eighty Years' War of Independence (1568-1648) with Jihad. It is a common Western fallacy, reminiscent of the infantile equations that are fashionable among relativist quasi philosophers: for example, brick and cement are both building materials, brick and cement are identical. Likewise when searching for guidance over Islamic intricacies one goes for reference to the Christian context. In the assumption that Jihad simply means 'religious war', in a desire for proper understanding we hunt for a Christian equivalent and come up with a war of independence, that had as much to do with religion as the more recent Irish Troubles: one combattant was of another religious persuasion than the opponent, but the essence of the conflict was of a political nature.

~ To be continued: "Apart from the simplicity of the fallacy, it also underscores a lamentable and potentially fatal lack of knowledge and understanding of Islam." ~

Treason (IV): a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy?

Earlier instalments: Part I, Part II, and Part III

Criticism of the E.U. isn't encouraged by liberal politicians: such would only place the organization in an unfavourable light and create an atmosphere against it. If we do, we mustn't be surprised about the return of a majority of No votes against the adoption of the E.U. Constitution - as was the case in The Netherlands and France. The German chairman is at present looking for Clintonian options around this problem, to get it ratified nevertheless - such is the worth of E.U. legality. Invasive, E.U.-wide policies can hence become a reality by a simple majority vote: no more Maggies about "I want my money back!".

Gradually it becomes apparent how the clever saboteur operates. A clue is provided by Pim Fortuyn's green animal rights assassin. This activist (no doubt government sponsored on the grounds of something or other beneficial to society) made an entire region of Holland a living hell for poultry farmers: law book in the one hand - note book in the other, checking every single piece of fine print against the reality on the ground, and prosecuting any discrepancy, however minor, upto the European Court of Law, if necessary.
It is therefore very important to keep a close eye on the legislators. The more they produce, the more there is to prosecute. Big, bureaucracy producing government is the enemy!

A further example of judicial terrorism is found in the following quote from an American commentator on The Brussels Journal: "It seems we share this trend of the breakdown in trust, especially as some of our own institutions are cleverly used against us; for example, six imams are suing an airline after they started praying and acting like they were going to hijack the plane, and so were thrown off the flight. Not only is the airline being sued, but so are the passengers that reported the suspicious behavior. The meaning of this couldn't be more clear: if you report a Muslim who's acting suspiciously on an airplane, you face a lawsuit. This is leading to an increasing feeling of powerlessness (but, at least we can still own guns)."

The Swedes cloaked their multicultural aspirations in an official Act of Parliament: a horror story of culture assassination of the first order. See here how the state has turned into an enemy of the very population it is supposed to protect. One wonders how we ever got ourselves into such a mess? On the other hand, it's not as if nobody was ever forewarned. It's what you get when you cut yourself off, by the root.

Then why do we accept this treason of the people, by our own elected governments? I think, because we are still prosperous nations. Also we are comparatively free within the constraints of the law: after all, I can still write this, whereas bloggers in Egypt go to jail for insulting Islam, and the head of state. Others have suggested it is, because we are at heart such law abiding citizens? In that case we'd be advised to refer ourselves back to Karl's early work on the revolution, in re of victory, sentimentality, the bourgeoisie, and all that.

And, strange as it may seem: anything becomes normality at some point. Just as Londoners during World War II got used to being bombarded night after night, and Iraqis adjust to IEDs and exploding chlorine trucks, so our minds are set to accept big government, their intrusion into our lives and the 'normality' of political correctness: to express ourselves and act in accordance with the prevailing ideology that is fed by the Unholy Alliance of urban jihadies and the Left, their shared glorification of victim-hood and constructed social identities, their shared love of the collective and 'irrational logic'.

All of the above may make us liable to accept the treason cloaked as political correctness, but circumstances change. Something dramatic may happen. Tensions are rising, so much is apparent. And it looks like the Left is doing some fundamentalism of their own, harking back to the early works of socialism, as it was supposed to be before it was hijacked by Uncle Joe c.s., who are blamed for the Soviet mess - not the ideology, not the inspirators, nor the earlier apostles. Heaven knows what that may produce!

Or can we just not imagine there's a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy happening in this place and time - against us and by our own representatives? The generations born in the free world after World War II have known only democracy and steadily increasing prosperity. It's next to impossible to imagine other circumstances. That mind-set, combined with the lack of proper history education, and the postmodern arrogance with regard to all that came before us, makes it hard to see the signs and patterns that Wladimir Bukovsky does recognize, and that sometimes emerge when we read books like The Orientalist, about which I hope to write more soon.

Let me deny the reverse of Hildebeast's product of sleepless, paranoid night sweats: no, I don't think there's a Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy, no Protocols of KGB Elders, but I do believe there is a Vast Totalitarian Pattern becoming apparent!

Note: Just had the afterthought that since treason as a crime seems to have been abolished, or suspended, or whatever it is they've done to it, these heathens currently in charge of our parliaments and governments in all likelyhood haven't the foggiest idea they're committing it, or what the concept is in the first place. Conversely, they'll also have no inkling of the meaning of loyalty.

Update: In this post I answered the question - if we're experiencing today a renewed onslaught of Marxism, or Neo Communism, or whatever you want to call it, 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 >>>

Treason (III): Cultural versus National Borders

Earlier instalments: Part I, and Part II

Although thought up in Canada, multiculturalism makes the perfect ideology for the E.U., as it already deals with the various (nation) states and ethnicities. If the ideology hadn't already existed, Brussels would have invented it. The artificial witch' brew that is produced in the melting pot makes the E.U. highly allergic to patriotic expressions; it breaks out in a rash each time something occurs that so much as smells like nationalism. But not to worry: such outbreaks are usually swiftly dealt with - preferably by blackmail, nebulous promises, bribes (commonly called financial aid) or a combination of all of the above.

It may not be said overtly, but it is the nature of all, corporations or bureaucracies alike: grow or die. The continent of Europe has few geographical boundaries. Technically it can expand up to the eastern and western shores of both America and Canada. The number one export product of the E.U., is the E.U.: its formation is a trick worthy of repetition elsewhere: after all, what is comes down to, is not just a simple free trade zone like any other, but one huge social contract: the voluntary abolishion of the state in lieu for 'peaceful coexistence' (another anachronistic Soviet remnant) within the Pax Europea.

The E.U. ideally cast the net wide for potential new membership: all Balkan countries, if not already a member - starting with an independent Kosovo (which is a scandal of major proportions and worth a post in itself, currently under production); Turkey; parts of Northern Africa: certainly Morocco and Tunisia; all of Eastern Europe, including Ukraine and at some point in time Belarus ("the last European dictatorship"), and dare I say the Caucasus nations: Georgia, Armenia and oil-rich Azerbaijan and who knows Russia, duly 'reformed' and no longer an economical pauper: we now know the E.U. after all was fine-tuned to converge with the Soviet Union; Israel has obviously been dropped to facilitate dealings with Muslim states, also a story in itself.

There is a breed of E.U. supporter who - like communism before it (and also a formidable success) - seeks to obliterate the existing nation-states and create an artificial, new, historic, and borderless entity with an artificial ethnicity, the Europeans, just as politically and socially engineered as that other non-existing race, the Macedonians. All ingredients for a phony European statehood are in place: flag, anthem, capitol, passport, driving licence, currency, mint, manufacturer's labels: "Made in the E.U.", administration, raising taxes and the redistribution of funds.

On a micro level populations have been made state-dependent, if at least they want to enjoy the benefits and pension plans they have paid for. On a macro level we see a similar mechanism in place: the member states are dependent on Brussels to reap the benefits of what the respective citizens already paid for: commonly in the form of farm subsidies (CAP), export grants, subsidies for underdeveloped regions (cohesion funds), etc. If you'd like to enjoy the freedom of falling off the European administrative radar screen, you'll have to forfeit pensions, medical cover, etc. But as long as people have a reasonable amount of freedom within such limits, and prosperity is high, this isn't experienced as a problem (the social contract).

On the longer term the present isn't a practical state of affairs. Most borders being artificially and rather arbitrarily drawn in the first place - the last great re-arrangements having taken place after World Wars I and II - aberrations came into existence like ethnic and linguistic entities ending up on two sides of the artificial boundery.
So instead we'll strive for a Europe of the regions, for now limited to cultural, civic and economic cooperation between border areas.

But in time, new administrative units will be formed, possibly called Provinces or Departments, that are more culturally and linguistically driven: for example the Department of Limburg will comprise Dutch speaking parts of what is presently Belgium and The Netherlands. The Treaty of Schengen already foresees in free roaming, free trade, etc. This is why asylum seekers entering one Schengen signatory country have in principle free access to all other Schengen member countries. So much for general amnesties of illegal immigrants.

What fills me with suspicion is that the French Gaullists, while their staggering national chauvinism often surpasses that the Sun King - yet are staunch E.U. supporters: former French President Giscard d’Estaing plays a prominent role in the draughting of the infamous Constitution. As we have seen in Bukovsky's speech he was also the one who tipped off former Soviet president Gorbachov of the impending European Federal State.

This gives weight to the argument that Europe - far from being a United States partner - will rather become a U.S. counter-weight, the creation of yet a new bi or tri polar world of super powers. While I'm sure there are at present lots of misguided Europeans that would celebrate such a development, it would nevertheless be a historical drama and a grave mistake: a super-power cannot afford Utopian world views, reflected in almost non-existent defence spending, if surrounded by old-fashioned political power brokers.

In the meantime we forget that flexible international treaties concerning asylum and migration came into existence to facilitate those former Eastern Europeans who were lucky enough to make it over the Iron Curtain: the concrete, barbed wired wall that separated the Communist from the free world. These lenient conditions survive till this day, presently facilitating Europe tragically being overrun by immigrants, some of whom have no intention of integrating themselves, but on the contrary demand that Europeans conform to their specific cultural and religious persuasions, turning would-be member status into one of a unwelcome occupier.

In this they are aided and abetted by Europe's left-leaning multiculturalists who cannot bear the thought of having to live in a homogeneous culture and thus advocate we all follow their arrogant examples in enjoying the barbarian melting pot. In this way an entire continent changes its ethnic, cultural, and religious character, a phenomenon the likes of which not seen since Attila the Hun, Genghis Khan and Tamerlane.

It is a historical gamble for no good reason other than to realise their ideology of multiculturalism, which - as we have demonstrated in these pages - is based on irrationalities and lies. Considering what's at stake it isn't an exaggeration to state it constitutes treason against Europe's indigenous peoples, who feel left in the lurch by their own governing elites. What to think of the inner cities where the state isn't performing the very first duty: the protection of its citizens. It was to be expected: there are now people seriously calling for private militias, which brings Western Europe at least in entirely new territory, and one step closer to civil war.

To be continued: Part IV

Help! Can anybody just stop these heathens!

Help!

While in my absence - fifteen years ago - somebody in Holland proclaimed the Multicultural Society and pretended it to mean 'being nice to immigrants', some heathen or other - probably lurking within the government appointed Board of Governors of the BBC - has now proclaimed perfectly good Englishmen, Welsh and Scotsmen to be Indigenous Britons.

Its only a matter of time before we all become Native Europeans, Allochthon Americans or some other politically correct designation!

And this is all being done without any body's consent, any democratic process whatsoever, or so much as a by your leave through a simple public discourse.

Is this still a free continent (sort of) or are we all simply being sold out by the so-called leftist, relativised, multiculti, politically correct intelligentsia?!

Help! Can anybody just stop these heathens!!!

God in the Gutter, Allah at the Altar

Despite objections from the Liberal parties and requests not to go ahead with the exclusive meeting of the eighteen "Friends of the EU Constitution", called for by Luxemburg and Spain - the latter currently led by the political and cultural equivalent of Attila The Hun - in an opening speech in Madrid, Spain's Foreign Minister Miguel Angel Moratinos argued that any revised Constitution should be extended to include more European objectives (?), rather than pared down to just institutional reforms.

Delegates from the eighteen countries that have ratified the EU constitution, plus its strong supporters - Ireland and Portugal - gathered in Madrid to outline their positions on the future of the European treaty and to "help the German presidency to collect the positions, to help finding a way out" of the current limbo. In line with the motto of the meeting and the key idea to be highlighted in the forthcoming statement - "Por una Europa Mejor", for a better Europe - Mr Moratinos reiterated that the current treaty is an "excellent document".

Apart from the usual underhanded way of conducting EU business, the "excellent document" is a re-hash of the existing treaties and charters, plus lots of wool produced by a committee of political has-beens, minus the good proposals and ideas. How the EU deals with its own values is exemplified by the extra-curricular "meeting of the friends" and how they run roughshod over the French and Dutch vetoes. In an EU Observer article the word vetoes is indicated between inverted commas, as if these were not real, but only a sort of constructed coincidence, having no real value in the legal sense. But the contrary is the case and these attempts at invalidating it are an indication of the legal relativism that is current in Brussels politics. I'm still wondering what part of "Non" and "Nee" they did not quite understand.

The vetoes are what the Constitution would make impossible, if adopted: for any one country to obstruct the deals the others make, and an end to (mostly Thatcherite) opt-outs. It is also at this point that the negative side of the EU would start to outweigh the positive: it would no longer be a benign, voluntary "occupation" by foreign powers offset by economic benefits, but a dictatorship by the majority, violating members' principle right to self-determination and sovereignty: it will prove to be self-defeating and its adoption will mark the end of the European Union and its efforts for peace in the absence of power politics on the continent.

The proposed Constitution is also an effort of creating a future in which moral truth has no role in governance. Like the VVD Dutch Liberal Party, it doesn't pass moral judgement, equating Christianity with cannibalism and Colin Powell with Robert Mugabe. It will impose a anti-theist French style laïcité [1] on public life, thereby violating its own declared moral commitment to tolerance.

The single thing that the patch-work of member countries have in common - a culture based on the Judeo-Christian civilizational enterprise built on the ruins of classical Greco-Roman values, is being denied to the point of stretching science to prove a rather immature purpose. The question can be asked: are a people who deny their own history worthy of a future? This isn't a time for wisdom and visions, but for polarization and transition. That is why the desert call to shelve the constitutional project for the moment, is wasted on "the friends". European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso's EU 50th anniversary birthday list calls for all but roots, although he does invoke the Catholic founding fathers, who we may wonder cover their heads in disappointment over such cultural barbarism.

Thanks to the relativist Christophobia of the anti-theist state [1] and in consideration of a comment yesterday on Dr Sanity's blog: "By all means, accept reality ... your grandchildren will be Muslim. Allahu akbar!" (yes, the gloves are off), the future is likely to be characterised by "God in the Gutter and Allah at the Altar". But we shouldn't despair: salvation may yet come in the guise of two former communist countries and new P.C. irritants, the Czech Republic and Poland. Perhaps after the last Western baby-boomer has packed it in, the New Europe may yet be able to snatch some of the bankrupt assets away from the Gates of Vienna.

I specifically would like to hear the views of new Europeans. They are heartily invited to post their comments.

The PMF, an Update on the Culture War: Allah giving God a bad name

No sooner had I posted my list of a nice round figure of ten points, which for the sake of efficiency shall hence be termed the PMF (Post-Modernism's Fallacies), or I detected a further offence against reason. Actually this may be a version of the Tolerance Trick, the habit of attacking the messenger instead of the message.

11. Good things, bad people say.
In this version somebody who is considered "bad" (that is, in the wrong "camp": if you're Left-leaning, read neo-cons; if you're a Right-winger read Hillery) can still say perfectly proper things from time to time. The fact that they are in another camp doesn't make them grow horns or roast babies on feast days. What somebody says must always be weighed and considered on its own merits.
I have to draw attention to this phenomenon as it is considered acceptable to post comments on message boards, reading: "well of course he's wrong, he's a neo-con, isn't he?!". Of course without any further specification or motivation, the reason why he is wrong!

Back to the Culture War, which by the way some may think is an American phenomenon, in Europe it is brewing just as fierce, if more sub-surface. I have been desperately looking for a reason why the Left since roughly the change of the millennium, has been reacting in such a fanatical, vitriolic, acidic, poisonous, black-biled way (I'm almost at a loss for words to describe it), in relation to, to name but a few situations: the Bush administration, the neo-cons, the war in Iraq, the war on terrorism, name the list of Leftist bogeys and causes. A measure of what's going on can be found in the remarks of the enfant terrible of conservative writing, Dinesh D'Souza concerning the reactions to his new book "The Enemy at Home" (to which I don't subscribe, b.t.w.). He's gone on the record saying he's looking forward to a Fest of Hatred.

I'm greatly unqualified, not being a shrink, but could it be that the Left is scared out of their wits for Osama's laddies at home and abroad, and:

- are they blaming the Right (at large) for the Muslim radicalization, confused as they are about the usefulness of appeasing extremists and the Law of Cause and Effect c.q. the time-line?
- and/or are they too intimidated to stand up to Islamic extremism - hiding as they are behind a façade of cultural relativism - and live it out on the next bad thing they do dare to take on: Christians and Right-wingers? Educated comments invited ...

Something else I've noted: is it me or is the Left - the further they move towards secular radical Enlightenment - the more irrational they get?

In any case, Allah is giving God a bad name, causing the Left to withdraw even further behind the barricade of soulless rationality, while hysterically asserting the virtues of plurality; the Right is singing the praises of charismatic Evangelism (at least in the U.S.) as the summit of what religiosity has to offer. Both going in opposite directions towards the extreme sides of their positions, which isn't exactly conducive to a rebirth of wisdom and balance.

Speaking of balance of faith and reason, some may consider it old news, but I fear it is not. I am preparing a post on the real content of Pope Benedict's Regensburg speech. Thanks to the Sons of Peace one single sentence was lifted from that document of six pages (a marginal one at that) and got the decibel levels spiking, the actual content drowned out of existence. So I'll revisit that in the next couple of days, it being of the utmost importance for the future of Europe and Western culture.

I'm leaving you for today with a picture of a marvel of Greek architecture, the lighthouse on the Ionian island of Kefallonia: may her lights shine just a little on our battered brains!

The Last Stand of the Baby Boom Empire and other bed-time stories

The last few days provided us with the following news worthies:

- Here's one of the simple European multi-culti variety: Beate Winkler, director of the 'European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia' in an article on the website of Deutsche Welle is making remarks about humans not having roots, but boots ... Now I wonder where does this piece of rhyming relativism stem from? My conclusion: scientism ("humans are at root nomadic") dressed up as a sneer at Pope Benedict's and Marcello Pera's book "Without Roots", in which they make mincemeat of multi-culturalist balderdash like Ms Winkler's. Well, let's leave it for the time being for what it is: the last throes of a generation of wreckers. More later on in this post.

- Al-Guardian's columnist Timothy Garton Ash is wondering how come Europe hasn't a story for the future. Could it perhaps be that a people who deny their own history aren't worthy, or perhaps are simply incapable of envisioning a future? Sad indeed.

- Speaking of sadness: Al-Guardian goes on to call Somalia, now almost free of Islamist terrorists ... America's new puppet, which just goes to show what deep feelings of blind hatred can do to a psyche. This is why Christianity doesn't encourage it. And that is why the Left's gathering averseness of Christianity is almost on a par with their hatred of George Bush (and democracy) (see paragraph down on The Last Stand etc.).

- Back with the boys in Brussels it transpires that Mr Verheugen, Germany's Commissioner for Industry, is advocating moving the E.U. goal posts by unearthing proposals to give small countries less influence than larger ones. They don't really need commissioners, minor functionaries would be sufficient (whatever). You'd almost think he's doing it to please the Turks who are very fond of power politics, but this is probably not the case. He's just trying to set the tone for the German presidency, lowering expectations of the small fry in re of the Constitution talks.

- Elsevier was for-seeing it and warns that "the Constitution is back on the agenda". As did I (which is not that difficult once you understand how their manoeuvrings work) and wrote in this blog just how utterly untrustworthy and tricky these boys in Brussels are. Because officially they have no business at all to bring back a subject that has been voted down by two member states. The veto still being in place (this is what the constitution proposes to change and why the Dutch have voted it down), even one would have been sufficient. Real role models for ethics and observers of the rule of law, these boys in Brussels.

- And while Muslims are screaming for attention and everybody is looking that way The Last Stand of the Baby Boom Empire is upon us (see also the first item in re of Ms Winkler's roots versus boots and the para on Al-Guardian's opinion on Somalia). Just mark my words, these are their last throes before they're pensioned off. Upon growing up in or just after World War II, all their lives they have done their damnedest to wreck the West's collective, cultural memory that has been built up over the better part of two millennia. First we had to turn communist, then broody post-modern deconstructionists and live through the sexual revolution, then became socialist squatters on their behest, then Maoists, back to trying socialism yet again, this time by a third method and all the while also being progressive, pacifist feminists.
I tell you, the last thing still standing and gathering strength, is Christianity. This is the last asset they'll try their hand at wrecking before packing it in. However obnoxious and tiresome, after going through hell yet again in engaging them in public discourse, after they've failed at that too, perhaps the rest of society can re-find their inner strength and construct something positive and lasting for the future, at long last. And they can go and enjoy the benefits of the old people's paradises they've constructed over the years to be rid of their own elderly parents.

About historical mistakes casting long shadows

I'm looking forward to goodbyes to my long-term subscription to Time Magazine. I got it when I was still living in the old country, which is so left-leaning that journalism like Time’s, seemed from that vantage point a pretty neutral sort of rag. But that's not the point. As I am impatiently waiting for my next Amazon shipment to arrive, I got hold of a few random articles in Time and stumbled upon “Slow train to Europe; With controversy over Cyprus, Turkey’s membership on the E.U. fades further into the future”. This is of course in the light of E.U. Commissioner for Enlargement, Olli Rehn’s recent recommendation and subsequent acceptance of eight chapters of the 35 of Turkey’s membership talks, to be suspended, just 13 months after they started; all in reaction to Turkish intransigence to opening up its (air)ports to Cyprus carriers (the official half of that island state, that is).

In Time’s words, the accession train isn’t wrecked, but it will be slowed considerably. Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said that this is the consequence of Turkey not fulfilling its obligations.
It so happens I saw a news item the other day (don’t remember where), which made my hair stand on end. In the manner of current affairs programs passers-by in Ankara's high streets were surveyed about the E.U. membership talks. The figures pro went from 64 percent at the start of the talks, to a mere 32 percent at current levels. I actually heard someone commend on how the E.U. dare put forward all these demands, "after the Turks have given Europe its civilization"!'* What, darned tulip bulbs?! Apparently they are having strange ideas about what it is exactly that constitutes civilization. Unless, of course they mean this big, gaping black hole, right in the middle of Greek national history, which isn't mere bulbs, I can tell you!

With these reactions and others the Turks are unwittingly offering proof of their unreadiness to be a part of Europe. They simply don’t get lots of things. For example that the accession talks aren't a “bazari”, a series of negotiations in which both partners personally give and take, but instead a basic set of laws and regulations that each and every member state must implement and adhere to. Because of this attitude it feels to them as if the E.U. is piling demand upon demand on Turkey personally and that they personally have to “give in” time after time, which is very degrading to the proud Turkish nation!

Just like the old mentality of power politics, on which I have commented before in these pages. The mentality of a big country, that is no party to a dwarf state like Cyprus. They don’t understand that the E.U. is made up of any number of small countries (founded in fact by the three miniature BeNeLux countries), each of which has about the same weight in the decision making process as the bigger ones. This principle was on the point of being somewhat undercut by the proposed E.U. Constitution, reason why the Dutch have voted it down. It will of course be brought again to the table in another guise, but that’s another story.

But, Barroso doesn’t want to close the door to the proud Turkish state just yet. On the other hand there are a number of prominent European politicians, not all at ease with the Turkish membership. German Chancellor Angela Merkel for one. She’s not alone either. Nicolas Sarkozy, the French Interior Minister and presidential candidate, and Bavarian Governor Edmund Stoiber have also voiced criticism, as have Austria, Greece and Cyprus (no surprises from the Eurovision axis as yet).

Other problems lie in the areas of minority rights, freedom of speech and faith and the press, apart from that ridiculous law against insulting Turkishness, of which so much is being said, but is still not revoked.
I understand the atmosphere in Turkey is leaning towards actually ceasing accession talks from their end, but we're not to hold our breaths yet. But they won’t go back on Cyprus! Really, how can you expect to become a respected member of a club, saying simultaneously that another member, albeit a small one, will be either ignored or bullied into submission? Basis their geography Turkey may be a key player in many regions, there’s a reason they are friendless, apart from the few relationships of convenience they are involved in.

As long as Turkey is drawing for its mentality on traditional Middle Eastern political attitudes of power play, diplomatic bullying, driving excessive bargains, negotiating over absolutes coupled with an obnoxiously arrogant attitude in general, it will culturally and mentally be part of the east. It will not understand Europe, nor will it be ready to become a part of it. Europe we must accept has a Judaeo-Christian history and mind-set (which among other things made modesty a kind of chic trait).

That particular European mentality has been undercut of course by the latter day relativist generations and the multi-culti "Down With Us" deconstructionists. Thankfully a few generations not a barbarian make.

* N.B. I'm adding this note as a precaution, as it occurred to me that some victims of relativism might actually be persuaded to believe this remark, made by an anonymous Turkish woman in the program. No relativism on her part, of course.

Why the European Union will never be loved

It is on the day the Dutch ambassador's wife to Indonesia announces she will no longer serve pork sausages, I discover a blog entirely devoted to the early destruction of the Restoration, that the shameless Anti-Holocaust conference opens in Tehran. Not a good start, so to speak.

But there's no day so bad that there's no good news at all, albeit minor. A Dutch-Moroccan organisation in one go proves quite a bit, namely that,
1. faith has nothing to do with brain-cell count (contrary to what some believe),
2. there are other means of pressing a point than blowing people to smithereens (but most of us knew that already, so no news there) and
3. it pays not to give in to blackmail and threats (ask Geert Wilders: try the search button or the tag list).
In the recent past I already commented that the Iraqis are hugging each other to death; now this Dutch-Moroccan organisation is going to try to do the same with Geert! I don't think it will last long though, as they really hate his guts for taking a stand, contrary to their own!

Contrary to my activist colleague at One Cosmos Blog (this is the last time I am linking to him) I believe in The Truth. You see, I don't place myself in "one camp" which is hence pronounced infallible and devote myself to publicly saying the "other camp" consists entirely of brainless morons who are wrong ... even if what they say is actually true and/or of some value (so much for modern tribal warfare, of which I want no part). What relativists don't get is, that for too long we have let people like them tell us we are the bad guys and should therefore get deconstructed by a philosophical parlor trick. Their logic is also badly flawed: "us" being bad, doesn't make "them" (whoever they are) good, and vice versa. In other words, if we are proud of our culture, it doesn't mean automatically that "theirs" should be confined to the cultural scrap heap!

So, knowing there is such a thing as The Truth I have been pondering a bit about something I have written about the Dutch Prime Minister, Jan-Peter Balkenende (JPB) in relation to a remark he made in the press about his personal relationship with God. Here's the link to that post for easy reference.

The point is the following: France, the country of the The Revolution and laicite (can anybody tell me where those @#!* accent keys are hiding?), is a neutral state: it is faithless, it is secular (about which the Pope today had a few words to say, by the way). I haven't read the now brain-dead draft E.U. Constitution on this point (although we do know that the preamble in respect of Europe's Judaeo-Christian roots, hotly advocated by the late Pope John Paul II, was regretfully rejected by the Europarls), but what it does look like is that the French concept has been given unofficial E.U. policy status.

It is not a minor point we are discussing; it is on the contrary a basic issue of utmost importance, which nobody is asked about, citizen nor member-state is democratically consulted: it just becomes a point of policy, secretly pushed through. Where the members of Parliament are on this point, or what it is exactly that they are doing, is unknown. Because it is debatable if the French concept of the neutral state is the one we need or indeed want for the E.U. as a whole, let alone if it isn't a subsidiary matter (for the individual states).

Why it struck me that JPB was making the comment that he did, was not because in his Calvinist tradition the relationship one has with his God is a personal one, but because this is not per se true for Holland is a whole. The Dutch state guarantees its citizens freedom of faith (among other relevant rights, about which more later in a post dedicated to the separation of Church and State), but is not in itself "neutral". For example the rim of the Guilder bore the text "God zij met Ons" (God be with us). Under the influence of relativism in the guise of multiculturalism this was abolished with the introduction of the ... Euro.

I say the guise of multiculturalism, because this abolition ostensibly took place in order not to upset the Muslim emigrant population (who aren't dominant at all and wouldn't have let this happen in the first place). You see, they call their God Allah, which is of an entirely different concept ... sounds a bit lame and construed, doesn't it? That is perhaps because it is and the whole issue was done under E.U. policy pressure. This would be vintage E.U., typical of its secretive modus operandi. When nobody happens to be watching, or those who should aren't alert enough, a major policy decision is taken en commission and suddenly implemented.

While the Iraq Study Group's Report was officially presented "to the American people", Europeans are treated like mere subjects, if as much! Which is why the E.U. will never be loved.

The State of Malcontent VII

But consider what life is to the average relativist. Nothing but a cosmic accident, a coincidence. After the big bang (which they accept only very reluctantly, as contrary to Darwinism, leaves room for God), you first get through the evolutionary stages of cosmic soup, then dinos, giant squid and pterodactyls, topped up with a comet crash as grant finale. After which the mammals get their turn on the cosmic stage. So far, so good. By that time it's not long before we encounter apes, naked apes, Charles Darwin and other champs of relativism. Once in existence we eat, sleep, copulate and multiply, thereafter die, never to be heard of ever more.

How's that for breeding the ultimate cynic! It is a purposeless world, a void empty of vistas and morals* they have us subscribe to. Thus made, not created, we can dispense with God, "whom we have invented because we cannot accept the inevitable". Besides, we can do much better ourselves without the moral authority watching our every step from above. So we pass through the motions of life. And how to pass the time? Well, you live life to the fullest; you get it all and you get it now, before it is all over. Never mind eventual consequences and the harm you may cause to yourself and others in the process.

This nihilist world view is also detrimental to the value of human life. There is nothing in which man differs from the animal kingdom. He's part and parcel of it, being a glorified, naked ape himself. The good news is that this view has resulted in the upgrading of animals. Humans on the other hand are increasingly dispensable, if not downright harmful, as some biologists suggest. If you ask me, they are the biggest instigators of "Down With Us", but I could be mistaking. Anyway, they opine that babies are the biggest polluters imaginable, and their advice to the world at large is, do suicide if you want to help the environment; if that's too drastic just dispense with air travel and motoring, and make up for your sins by remaining childless! Since in Europe we are already under-performing in that department, this is very bad advice indeed. But for those offspring that get through the net, their raising can be limited to the teaching of a few survival skills and acquiring the ability to get the most material stuff the fastest possible.

Anything that is technically possible is being done without further ado, as science and medical practices are moving out of the public domain, as some people would have it. With the passing of time we are also getting healthier and richer, without having to overcome the natural setbacks that were part and parcel of life to the generations before us. Thus fitted out we don't learn to deal with frustrations and to accept that we're not all made the same (no, we're not!). That doesn't mean the value of a person less endowed is dimished, he's just different. Egalite is a legal term, dignity is a moral one. Spiritual guidance is optional and only for the few. What's weak must give way to the strong and cannot expect to be protected. That's also Darwinism, in a social sense.

We moan and groan about everything, lose our sense of humor and respect for life and other people, because in the end there's nothing but emptiness. It begs the ironic conclusion that we've never been this poor and sick before, albeit in an immaterial sense! Can you blame the Dutch and the other Eurolanders for committing cultural suicide, the slow way? Still, one more generation or so should do the trick!
The End (of the series).

* This statement may anger some liberals, but while we're on the subject - they should specify at long last where exactly it is that their moral code is laid down. Dedicated posting to follow.

The State of Malcontent VI

Relativism and nihilism, like visitors of brothels, come in suede shoes with crepe soles. You don't know it's coming until it's in all capillaries of the system. It has also resulted in run-away secularism, emptying most churches and the institutions that rely on them.

For most people atheism is ultimately not satisfactory, as they feel vaguely, that somewhere, there must be something of a First Cause, somehow (in Holland this goes by the name of Ietsisme (see elsewhere in this blog)). So they think up their own individual belief system, picking and choosing from a warehouse of the existing religions and faiths, whatever suits them (this form of spiritual plagiarism is also known as New Age). The devil and his mates don't suit them, so he's out. The same goes for God, too male and too authoritative; so unless he grows a few sizes smaller and gender bends, he's scrapped too. Angels are okay, but they must be of the safe sort, those little rosy buttocked cherubs with wind instruments and lyres; not the towering vengeful types as the archangel Gabriel with his fiery sword! As no God is involved in Buddhism this might have been a particularly attractive lifestyle option, were it not for the demands it exerts on mind and body: no, too much trouble and not quite instant enough. And so a hotchpotch is created of whatever offers the least resistance and promises something undetermined beyond the realm of pain or pleasure.

All this virtual living, secure under nanny's cheese-dome, also isn't satisfactory in the long run in other respects. It lacks challenges and risks. When the last government put in place a much needed austerity package, this resulted in a sheer endless litany of complaints against the inequities of poverty, which was now rife in our poor country, against the terrible school system (they have a point, but the wrong diagnosis) and the lousy medical services (which suffer the most under the mental bankruptcy). The proposed remedies were respectively more welfare money, a bigger educational budget and higher medical spending. Hardly credible in a country which transcends all levels of material affluence.

And then there was the totally debilitating discussion under the term "norms and values", a pet project of the Prime Minister, Jan-Peter Balkenende (JPB). All the wrong policies, culture clashes and social/sexual revolutions over the past forty years combined, have resulted in behavior of mindless vandalism and the basic lack of respect for others and their property (here Muslims have a valid point). Added to that the lack of simple civility and lately what are termed acts of "useless violence" (Ed. random violence), sometimes soccer or binge-drink related, usually both. But good manners and propriety were just deliberately done away with, together with moralizing, vicars and pulpits, as deemed too bourgeois or to too calvinist for words! The Prime Minister's analysis and definition of the concept don't go much further than superficial small-talk and doesn't go beyond the level of primary school (somebody in the public information business once concluded that the eduction level of the average Dutch is elemental school plus a few years lower secondary and since that time that is how we are spoken to). Basis glasses and hairdo JPB may be referred to as a political Harry Potter, but he's certainly no great intellectual, let alone a spiritual leader. But some magic skills he cannot be denied, as he has managed to transform the subject into a discussion about the integration of emigrants, which is of another essence altogether!

Asked the other day about his relationship with God, the Premier could, like his counterpart Tony Blair across the pond - despite his calvinist background and christian-democrat roots - only mutter: "I don't do God (with the press, it's something between us"). I bet you get the same answer in each and every European capital. It is the result of P.C.-ness, in full accordance with the Brussels' line of Best Practice: keep God out of the public discourse lest the Muslims assert more demands! This comes under the guise of separation of Church and State, secularism or laity (or laicite), depending on the country. Thus the public discourse remains limited to the area of politics and the solutions therefore material in kind, while the actual sources of discontent are of a spiritual, cultural and intellectual nature, an area untouched, ignored and confined to the private realm.

The politicians stand staring into this gaping, unfillable hole, still discussing budgets and spending. That is, once they have determined if their image can sustain the wearing of a neck-tie or not. They are egged on by the population that is as discontent as ever, despite the evenly distributed riches and privileges.
Once there used to be a top layer of intellectuals: writers, thinkers, scientists. Those that remain are Leftist and followers of Liberalism (not necessarily identical in the Dutch context) and in full agreement with everybody else. The others, wherever they are, are inaudible.

After these instalments we can safely conclude that the Restoration is a long way off. We haven't even begun to be aware of the problem, let alone define and analyse it. In the present state of malcontent the leading role is for Messrs Denial and Clueless.
To be continued.