The Unholy Alliance: Conflating Three Great isms

Witnessing the sad demise of democracy in front of the European Parliament building in Brussels yesterday, takes some digesting, even for one that was already aware of the realities. I will combine further comment on it with a piece I was already working on: the cooperation in the Unholy Alliance between Islam and the Left. People have often expressed their surprise over the apparent cooperation pact between two parties that - on the surface - seem to be each other's opposites. I hope to clear up that misunderstanding.

As a girl and later as a young grown-up I could never understand how - in the run up to World War II - Nazi Germany could arm itself to the teeth with no one doing anything to prevent it. Entire weapon systems were stockpiled in the Soviet Union as the arsenals and warehouses in Germany proper were stored to full capacity. Yet the furnaces and steel works were operating full steam 24/7 as unemployment rates dropped to zero percent, thanks to Hitler's National Socialist Party's 'employment policies' of everyone on the state's pay roll.

Yet Europe had influential pacifist movements (here's an brilliant take by Sanity on the subject). The U.K. had Richard "Peace in our Time" Chamberlain, and Mayoresses who promised to "not so much as darn a sock if it assisted the war effort", while 'bluestockings' and other enlightened academics conducted Peace Marches in Europe's streets.

I never understood how advanced, civil societies could let such disasters as World War II take place. That is, until yesterday. In fact, it's becoming blatantly obvious how last century's great wars, the holocaust and the enslavement of half the continent in its wake, could take place. Now, as then, we are closing our eyes to a reality that is too scary to contemplate, let alone deal with it. Yesterday in Brussels we saw the conflation of three great isms taking place before our eyes. It is very sad to see just how far indeed we have already sank into the black hole of dictatorship.

It's a bit of a pity that Stephen Hicks' explanation of Postmodernism (or cultural Marxism) doesn't get the attention it deserves. Hicks comes to another categorization of ideologies than is common. He explains that both Communism and National Socialism derive from the Counter-Enlightenment movement that started with the philosophies of Rousseau. This was a reaction to the primacy of reason that features so prominently in Enlightenment thought, of which Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism became the political offshoot (not to be confused with today's liberalism, which is Left Light).

Does the following Rousseau quotation on the ideal state strike anyone as compatible with Islam? "... the state cannot ... pursue a policy of toleration for disbelievers, or view religion as a matter of individual conscience. It absolutely must ... >>>

After theocrat extraordinaire Rousseau, both Hegel and Kant expanded on anti reason philosophy, eventually even doing away with objective reality and epistemology: man is incapable of knowing anything, to each his own universe: reality is subjective. This has provided Communism and National Socialism with their subjectivist basis.

Experts in Islam never stop to point out there is not 'one Islam'. Every Muslim has his or her own subjective perception of it (apart from the five pillars that is, presumably). I have no reason to doubt it: after Rousseau's take on the ideal state, this makes the second, basic conflation of the three great isms.

As hinted at earlier, from 1939 to 1941 Communism and National Socialism shared a history of cooperation. The German army held manoeuvres in Russia and vice versa. Both totalitarian ideologies were Socialist and differed only on its implementation: the Nazis were nationally inclined (using the ethnic dialectic of the German Volk), while the Communists favoured global subjugation (hence the 'Internationale').

After World War II the Left portrayed Hitler as the great satan. Here the dichotomy of Nazism versus Communism was born: this was however a Communist PR ploy which has worked to this day. But far from being opposites both ideologies are in fact each other's mirror image, cousins if you will, while the real opposition, the actual enemy, is Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism, rooted in the Enlightenment and in the West, which by the way wasn't originally radically atheist at all, on the contrary.

Over time and through various twists of history the two totalitarian isms also got transplanted onto Middle Eastern soil, where they gave birth to Panarabism, Arab Nationalism and Ba'athism.

Today's political correctness emanates from a revived Marxism from which the baby boom generation of the 60s cannot seem to say goodbye: their hatred of a free West is burnt onto their souls and treason has become their second nature. Some one described it aptly as "they just cannot pop out of the Marxist dialectic". It is their mindset that is our ruin today, as they now inhabit the corridors of power.

If a recently unearthed 1985 interview with KGB agent and Soviet defector Bezmenov is anything to go by, the moral compass of the 60's generation has been totally and irrevocably removed by the KGB subversion program. What that left undone, was completed by the fifth columnists at the Frankfurt School of Cultural Marxism, as the undersigned can personally attest to. (For novices, here's a commentary on Gramsci, another luminary)

The influence these intellectuals had on that generation can simply not be overstated: they prescribed how 'thinking people' should act and what their opinions should be, from the books and the newspaper they read, the friends they kept, to the movies they saw, to the brand of tobacco they smoked and the coffee they drank.

They were in no uncertain measure specifically 'present' in the bedroom, which - if they had any say in the matter, should preferably be shared by any number of people. The family a gonner as women dragged husbands through divorce courts whole-sale, Eros and Agapi were kept strictly separated as per Kinsey ukase. Children became a kind of common property, to be raised and cared for, by whoever happened to be present (if any).

Fast forward to the new millennium. The cooperation in the Unholy Alliance of the Western Left with Islamists, as the latter swap their secular subjectivism for a theological one, is simply a Feast of Recognition: egalitarian collectivism against individual liberty, totalitarian statism versus limited government at the people's pleasure, anti reason against science and technology, socialism vs. capitalism and free markets, state (which in Islam is synonymous with religion) against voluntary mutual benefit, state/divine intervention versus free will: in short, combined totalitarianism against the classical liberal values as embodied by the West: freedom and democracy.

And of course the collectivists share the dialectic of Oppressor versus the Oppressed and socially constructed victimhood. This mock epic battle is the basis of all collectivist ideologies, uniquely cultivated to keep the 'struggle' going. Communism had its classes; the Nazis the German Volk; Cultural Marxism its students, women, gays and blacks, as Islam has the true believers versus the infidel.

Multiculturalism is a later manifestation of Cultural Marxism and keeps true to the dialectic mechanism on a cultural level, while N.G.O.ism (U.N.) and transnational progressivism (E.U., N.A.U.) play the same trick on the global scale of nations and states. The same story is transposed and extrapolated on all levels. So much for defeating Marxism, fifty years overdue.

Last but certainly not least the totalitarian isms share a justification of violence to power: the Western versions' passe-partout is provided for by Messrs Rousseau and Marx; the Islamic variety is of course rooted in Koranic scripture, which in the early stages also served as a platform for the conquest of the Christian lands in the Middle East and beyond.

I have laid down the ideological histories and how the three isms relate, in Chart I: The Straight Red Line for easy reference.

But the uncovering of the close ties within the Unholy Alliance doesn't stop here. AEL's Abu Jahjah's vocabulary of choice doesn't come by accident straight out of the Marxist-Leninist handbook for Leftist dummies ... dhimmis.

Just in: Hodja has published "Postmodern Jihad - What Osama bin Laden learnt from the Left", insights into the more recent relations between Islamism and Cultural Marxism: have hardly read it myself, but I think I should share it.

Much is made of political correctness. Some interpret it as latter day Cultural Marxism itself. Personally I see it as soft social pressure, to coerce others into conforming with the Left's ideology: the 'redistribution' of freedoms and rights along the lines of the dialectic. The idea is to shift power, capital, rights, etc. from the Oppressor to the Oppressed minorities. The great trick is to treat gender and faith, on an equal footing with race. But what we have to keep in mind here, is that gender is subject to choice, while Muslims are born as such.

This can be taken very far indeed, as legislation is put in place in support of the same object. We have recently seen that played out with the SIOE demo and Brussels Mayor, Freddy 'The Toad' Thielemans. At that stage, we have de facto a totalitarian situation where dissenters are made common criminals, case need on trumped up charges of assaulting a bus driver. Baron Bodissey of Gates of Vienna is spot on in today's post "Democratic Europe R.I.P." Freddy and His Walloon Troopers made European history yesterday.

But for most, including the good people of the silent majority [1], if reality gets too scary to deal with, denial erects a impenetrable curtain of make-belief in the hope the bogey will go away. I just read this morning in a paper that the Dutch as a nation, have become happier than they were a few years back during an economic downturn. Happy totalitarian dreams every one! I hope your bank accounts grow at an even pace!

Others - like Council of Europe's Secretary General Terry Davis - have become completely deluded in their psychological pathology. To them it's simply beyond the realm of the possible - indeed, a crime! - that people might be genuinely worried about the fate of their culture and continent. This type of custodians of 'European values' have no qualm whatsoever of beating up and criminalizing civilians and politicians with whom they happen to disagree. Even manufactured charges do not seem to trigger a red-hot-moral-no-no meme with these Quislings. They have become amoral thugs, who have lost sight of their opponents humanity, and do not know it. That is what scares me to death.

Update: The New York Times is offering a fascinating view of a German officer's World War II photo album of Auschwitz. The commentary is wrong at one point, when exclaiming that this is what "antisemitism, racism and hatred" does to humans. This should actually be: "this is what happens if ideology is valued over human life".

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.

The Straight Red Line (7): Plotting against The West

~ Continued from the Part 6: the Collective ~

We have now established and asserted the Straight Red Line of the Counter-Enlightenment movement, as described by Stephen Hicks in "Explaining Postmodernism", running from the anti-Reason Collectivism of Rousseau, the Relativist Subjectivism [1] of the German philosophers of Romanticism (Kant, Fichte, Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche), the Totalitarian Socialism of the Nazis on the Right side (Heidegger, Spengler), and Communists on the Left (Marx, Engels), through to Islam inspired terrorism, and the irrational European terror groups as the Bader Meinhoff c.s., on to the contemporary animal rights anti-globals and their organized rioting, topped up by the Postmodern Relativist thinkers in the Marx tradition: Foucault, Lyotard, Derrida, Marcuse and Rorty. The Postmodern movement includes branches of Feminism, Multiculturalism and Environmentalism.

The implication of the1984 revelation of former KGB agent and Soviet defector Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov that the KGB had been subverting three generations of Western students from 1968 onwards (if not before) (see other posts in this series), combined with the above pedigree of Subjective and violence prone philosophy, lays bare the origins of radical political Islam and explains the - at first glance - inexplicable attraction of that movement and Postmodern Leftism. (See Chart I to follow the Straight Red Line.)

I suggest wrapping up the series with more revelations about the group's mutual attraction and admiration, detailing the joint plans for the destruction of the Liberal, modern West, and then move on to further detailed analysis of the Unholy Alliance's strategy of misinformation, demoralization and subversion.

Melanie Phillips, author of "Londonistan" in an article posted on 18th May, "Liberalism v. Islamism" (aggregated to American Diplomacy) confirms Theodore Dalrymple's analysis of Islam being hopelessly and fatally insecure. Faced with an intractable dilemma - to abandon the faith which was supposed to bring glory and salvation, but instead has condemned Muslims to the backwater of humanity - or embrace modernity, acquiring with it the power that results from free enquiry: progress, knowledge and science. He holds that like all people when faced with an intractable dilemma, they lash out. Hence their accusation that is barely understood in the West, that they are 'under siege' by the ever expanding Liberal culture.

Melanie Phillips: "The driving force behind the Islamic Jihad is the fight against Liberalism and modernity. All the iconic conflicts ... are secondary to the fundamental aim of the Jihad to prevent Liberalism and modernity from destroying Islam." But Liberalism just wants to be left in peace without Sharia Law being foist upon it, a plea that regretfully falls on deaf Jihadi ears.

Underscoring the thesis of the Straight Red Line, Phillips describes how - more or less coinciding with the KGB's activities of the perversion of Liberalism by subjecting it to unrelated, Narcissistic, pathological ideas and behavior - the Muslim Brotherhood proposed to destroy Liberalism before it would infect the Islamic world, and to replace it with Islam through the pincer movement of both terrorism and cultural takeover.


This plan allegedly was laid out in a program of subversion in 1978 when the Organisation of the Islamic Conference sponsored a seminar in London which said, Muslim communities in western countries must establish autonomous institutions with help from Muslim states, and lobby the host country to grant Muslims recognition as a separate religious community, a step towards eventual political domination.

The plot is confirmed by a book published in 1980 by Khuram Murad, titled "The Islamic Movement in the West", and affirmed by a Muslim Brotherhood document seized in Switzerland in 2001, known as ‘The Project’, outlining a twelve-point strategy to 'establish an Islamic government on earth'.

At the time I have derided Hoover Institution Fellow and Townhall columnist, Dinesh d'Souza for siding with Islam against our fellow Western ideology, Liberalism. I haven't read his book "The Enemy at Home", but a gist article "It's the Culture, Stupid" can be found on Townhall, making the point that Islam has a problem with the amoral side of permissive Liberalism specifically, not with the West as a whole.

Today's Liberalism of course is not what it originally set out to be when the philosophy first developed during the Enlightenment. In fact, it has become its very opposite. Indeed, it bears all the characteristics of the Counter-Enlightenment: anti Reason, Collectivism, Relativist Subjectivism, victimhood. I posit that this well known process of 'usurp, pervert and destroy' was carried out by the KGB subversives in an effort to rob the West of its morals, the process of de-moral-ization. Now that the move towards depravity and decadence is more or less complete, the Unholy Alliance by Phillips' pincer movement is ready for the cultural takeover.

I disagree however with Phillips' conclusion - which is in keeping with mainstream opinion - that rampant individualism is a logical consequence of the philosophy of Liberalism, the Classical version, that is. In the post "The Mill Paradigm" I explained that John Stuart Mill's tenet of personal autonomy has been gravely violated by Leftist Liberalism. What is usually criticised as amoral individualism, is most of the time caused by a pathological condition called Narcissism, and has absolutely nothing to do with Classical Liberalism.

It is however at home in Leftist Liberalism, born of the KGB ideological demoralization program, literally to rid the West of notions of right and wrong, good and bad, by injecting Counter-Enlightenment thought into the system that holds that Reality does not exist, rendering these moral principles null and void. The result is all around us.

I dare now safely say, that all conspired to atomise Western culture from within: demoralized and confused to the core by pathological ideologies, it is upto Jihadism to deliver the coup de grâce. In case anyone would object that this scenario will destroy Left Liberalism as well, I can tell you they are but usefuls in the hands of the Postmoderns, who would like nothing better than to obliterate the naked, irrational, grasping ape of a man from the face of the earth entirely.

Hicks: "Postmodern thinkers inherit an intellectual tradition that has seen the defeat of all of its major hopes ... For those opposed to the Enlightenment, the modern world has offered no comfort ... Science .... generated nuclear bombs and super-bacilli. And the confidence in the power of reason [has] been revealed to be a fraud ... [from the] postmodern perspective the universe has been ... shattered ... But there was always Socialism ... the order that would transcend everything and create the beautiful, collectivist society. The failure of Left politics to achieve that vision was merely the last straw".

If Hicks is right, Postmoderns are beyond caring.

I have prepared the beginnings of a inventory (Chart II), detailing the advance of the 'program' as pertaining to the various spheres of activity. I do invite and would greatly appreciate active commenting, critique or whatever the reader may think to contribute. Thanks!

Science as Liberal Ideology and a Puzzle Contest

Today a bit of a break from the Straight Red Line series: the line that runs from the Counter-Enlightenment movement of the eighteenth century on to Marx and (National) Socialism, to contemporary Postmodern thought patterns: all branches of Relativism as Multiculturalism, and presently in full development: post-democracy Transnational Progressivism, best described as a neo feudal form of Empire.

First another matter that requires our attention, and then I'll wrap it up with a puzzle contest pertaining to the above. On a first received basis the winner gets a copy of Stephen Hicks' ground breaking book, "Explaining Postmodernism".

America has been dealing with this problem for a some time, now it's Europe's turn: Liberal morality being thrust upon the nations, whether its people share the world view, or not. A clarification is required at this stage, the usual caveats with an added dimension: we are not talking Classical Liberalism or Libertarianism here, the Enlightenment version of laissez-faire, of the scientific variety that operates by empiric investigation and submission to falsification.

Instead the subject matter pertains to the atheist variety of the Counter-Enlightenment lot that has usurped the Liberal title and inserted into it a set of its own characteristics to further the ideological ends: collectivism, anti-reason and socialism, that runs counter to the rational, individual liberty of the original thing.

The usurpation doesn't end there: enlightened science is being used as a means to provide the subjectivist, liberal ideology with a rational coat of paint: it is actually a bit of a dirty trick ... like Kim Jong-il saying he's proclaiming North Korea hence a capitalist nation, while secretly maintaining a plan economy and defending the construct as the only respectable and lawful way to conduct a free market.

At stake: the all important existence of God ... God Must Be Averted and Stamped Out, at All Cost ...!

Subject matter is the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly's draft resolution on the dangers of creationism in education. This institution is one of Europe's impermeable political entities, not to be confused with any of the European Union's agencies, but it bears all the hallmarks of the same pseudo democracy, claiming "pluralistic composition of democratically elected members of parliament" while there are very few citizens that have heard of it beyond the evening news, let alone having voted for any of its members.

Its proud President is Mr Van der Linden, in an earlier incarnation a nondescript backbencher of the Christian Democrat persuasion in the Dutch parliament, got respectability by moonlighting in Brussels corridors of power.

This body of crypto dictators have seen fit to draw up a rag of a Subjectivist Manifesto that is typical of the breed. It lives and breaths liberal morality activism: "The theory of evolution is being attacked ...!" it rants. Yes, this is what you do in science with theories: you attack them in order to see if they can stand up to scrutiny.

But it stands to reason: after 150 years the theory is still unproven and the chances of basic enzymes of life arising by random processes are 1 to 1 followed by forty thousand zeroes! So instead of attacking it, it had better be kept in a velvet coated vault for fear of it desintegrating into sub-atomic particles.

The Discovery Institute just the last few days published an article by David Berlinski that sums up the story of "The Origins of Life" rather nicely: some 17 pages of modern science history and not an end in sight. The author concluding that "We must wait end see".

This is the actual state of the scientific investigation, but the Council of Europe have elevated it to gospel truth and wants to root out all forms of alternative investigation and research: "The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist theories within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights, which are a key concern of the Council of Europe."

There you have it in a nut-shell: consider the consequences for human rights and democracy if God cannot be averted. I don't propose to repeat the entire rag, but this is not the language of lawyers and it certainly isn't scientists talking: this is sheer activism in defense of the politically correct ideology! We are way, way out of line, at present!

I promised a riddle, a little contest ... okay ... but brace yourselves for this one: the full kit of protective totalitarian raid paraphernalia is required. I'll give you the answer who's quoted here tomorrow. Good luck, here goes:

"while the state can compel no one to believe it can banish not for impiety, but as an antisocial being, incapable of truly loving the laws and justice, and sacrificing, if needed, his life to his duty. If, after having publicly recognized these dogmas, a person acts as if he does not believe them, he should be put to death ... the individual particularly ... is surrendered to a new moral and collective body which has its own self, life, body and will. [In moral society, one] coalesces with all, [and] in this each of us puts in common his person and his whole power under the supreme direction of society's leaders."

The Mill Paradigm

The secret that the West is a Liberal dictatorship still isn't out. For the penny to drop it needs some distance, like it needs an outsider to make you aware you've developed a nasty habit. I have long been reluctant to make this statement: to Classical Liberals/Libertarians it is an oxymoron, an impossibility given the mutual exclusivity; today even the ultra Left Dutch Greens appreciate that Liberalism stands for freedom, so how can it possibly constitute a dictatorship?

The problem is that Liberal morality is cast into laws - to the point of even becoming 'human rights' - and foisted onto the world at large, thereby criminalizing rejectionists; whether they're hapless grannies objecting to being mooned by gays for homophobia, or gays protesting against imams who call for them be cast from minarets for Islamophobia, or priests criminalized on both counts.

This happens in reaction to Islamic modernophobia, and under pressure from activists and their advocates in the European Parliament and elsewhere, at the expense of the freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. It cannot go on like this. Practising U.K. barrister Neil Addison in "Religious Discrimination and Hatred Law" provides the first comprehensive survey of legislation concerning religion in diverse areas such as criminal law, discrimination, employment and harassment, and charts the growing role of courts.

In "The Impossible made Possible: the Dictatorship of Liberalism" and "EU Phobia: more Crimes against the Ideology!" I posited that Christianity was the basic source of morality at the time Liberal thought developed and it is consequently built into the philosophy. By no means were Liberalism and Christian values ever mutually exclusive, until - not that long ago, Leftist Liberals swapped the Classical values for Socialist ones (here's Dr Sanity's invaluable chart once more). Among the proponents is a brand of fanatical atheists who have adopted selections of John Stuart Mill's Liberalism, minus the wisdom, conditions and restrictions, plus the virulent Marxist zeal. Classical Liberalism's founding philosophers are turning in their graves.

The disrobed Mill paradigm has also been adopted as the life-style of choice by the Liberal populace in general, whether they are aware of it, or not. The basic principle seems to be just tailored for current epoch: "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of the community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant".

This licence for radical individualism is popularly the sole and sancrosanct moral rule governing Western society today: do as you please, as long as you don't hurt others. It seems simple and sound, but it is selective shopping, as Mill added the restriction ".... accepting the consequences of your actions". But these are usually left for others to deal with.

It is hard enough for sages to foresee the lengths and breadths of their actions; the consequences for ourselves, and moreover the consequences for others are often near impossible to fathom. Therefore, what Mill would have us add, are the Victorian virtues of a sense of responsibility and prudence. Mill: "It was better to be Socrates discontented than a fool satisfied." Well, we all know what happened to those graces: given the psychological effect of the nanny state - acting as a perpetual baby-sit to pick up the pieces - preventing people from maturing into fully fledged human beings, attaining their full potential.

Mill's popularly practiced, disrobed principle - to which added the sole modern restriction of consent by the persons involved - implies no one has the right to interfere, or to pass moral judgment. Analyzing the latter, British doctor and writer Theodore Dalrymple came to the conclusion that this actually means that "the highest form of morality is amorality". Isn't it fun how selective shopping in philosophy can turn wisdom into vulgar popular social dross: 'mind your own d#*% business!', 'who the f#*% is the Pope?'

The same doctor Dalrymple in "Our Culture, What's Left of It" sketches us the postmodern life in Britain's slums. It doesn't take much imagination to turn that reality - of which the real victims are the children - to be generally true for the whole of north-western Europe. The postmodern society isn't yet willing to accept their moral bankruptcy, to be reminded of life, before Christianity made its civilizing influence felt.
Here's a picture of Mill and his wife: oozing approval of so much permissiveness, don't they?

But back to our Liberal Dictatorship and the values it has proclaimed universal human rights: on whose 'Authority' have they done so [1], if I might reciprocate that pregnant question?

Paul Belien, editor of Brussels Journal and an Adjunct Fellow at the Hudson Institute in a column in the Washington Post on 23rd May, "Europe's Culture War" describes the interface between the Left Liberal values - now 'moral law' across the European Union and guarded by the European Court of Human Rights - and classical Christian values: abortion rights and gay rights.

Let me state on a personal note that the times homosexuals were rather fun, are long gone. What is left is blind activism, hysteria, fallacy, and beyond hedonism: decadence and degeneration, pure and simple. These gay rights centre on the allowance of annual street parties in each and every given capital city, displaying all that Roman orgies also had to offer, minus the style.

More seriously, gay activism fights for legal rights to adopt children and same sex marriage, which is already accomplished in many Western countries. The argument against, that they constitute an infringement on family values, are not accepted by gay activists on the grounds that these are Christian values, which don't apply to them.

Would the argument that children have no say in the matter - their inability, given their age, to express consent - cut any ice with them in the matter? The argument that a child needs role models, two parents, one of each gender, I won't even mention in the light of the Liberal dogma. Would the argument that marriage is originally a religious institution perhaps destroy their appetite for state-sanctified same-sex nuptials? Or could it be, that this is exactly the reason they want these rights in the first place: usurp, pervert and destroy?

Liberals have long denied the existence of the slippery slope. Given the developments in the matter of abortion and partial birth, it can be safely said - as suspected - that this is dog food. Where is the line that must not be crossed, if not life itself? As per Ann Coulter's elemental query, if you don't believe in God, what keeps you from committing mass murder?

The next item on the moral erosion program will be the sanctity of children: pederast activists are already working to swap consent - which presently stands between them and the legalised act - to read "understood to consent, unless otherwise is indicated"! Governed by the perverted Mill paradigm that everybody simply must answer to his or her personal urge, they now try to convince themselves and others that their heinous attentions are a matter of 'nature', society's revulsion caused by 'nurture'. Just when you think it cannot possibly get any worse, it just did!

There is no good reason at all why we shouldn't find the European Parliament's agit prop bus in the streets of Moscow and Latvia in a few years time, delivering that message in the name of just the next unequal group requiring emancipation at the expense of the powerless.

I am resting totally assured that some Left Liberals are presently in danger of bursting a brain capillary from sheer indignation at so much reactionary moralising! They should realize that the most common failure of Roman pagan society was their inability to make the protection of the innocent and vulnerable a matter of morality. We are reverting to those violent times, but that wouldn't be a problem, would it - any culture being the same as any other ...

Your can't make an omelet without breaking eggs!

Delorme and great number of other Liberals are making the mistake of thinking that Islam is as any other minority group whose victimhood must be compensated, not taking into consideration its perceived superiority, its exclusivity and its intolerance of other faiths and schools of thought. They are aware of it - or they could be, if not in denial - but the public secret is that of their own choice, they choose to ignore it in the hope that almost overnight a friendlier, more liberal, Western variety of Islam will develop.

Some politicians feel other paths may yield better results. They try to avert the consequences by appeasing, smoothing over, imposing temporary stop gaps and half measures, uttering sedating mantras they hope will make the threat go away, hoping against hope to avert the inevitable, betraying their own people in the process if they have to (oh, I'm sorry - was that terribly fascist of me?). Some French Police Departments for one, are more realistic.

Others, totally in denial, require immediate commitment to an institution for the criminally insane (or wherever it is they send the hazards of society to these days). Amsterdam Mayor Job Cohen (proclaimed Mayor of the Year by his peers for crying out loud!) - who together with the parties of the leftist coalition that is ruling the city, have come to the conclusion that the Muslim Brotherhood may not be a dangerous organisation at all!

Yesterday we had a look at a Middle East Forum report to the effect that Islam in its present state, isn't fit to be integrated into free society. This conclusion may be an obvious one to any unblinkered observer who isn't dazzled by the prospects of a global Ummah. But so as to avoid admitting the fact, things are exacerbated by excuses that hardly stand up to closer, Liberal scrutiny. Delorme mentions one such example, of a Bavarian court coming up with stops like the headscarf is 'fostering paternalism' and is 'hampering women's lib'. That's elevating the values of the Left Liberal school to the accepted standard of general morality: the mechanism of political correctness!

The basic, absolute, and universal right to liberty cannot be defended without violating the Left Liberal moral standard. This is why we stand aghast when confronted with the fact that Liberalism stands for freedom, but that this principle apparently doesn't extend to practicing Muslims. This standard is thus self-defeating in the face of radical Islam, which needs confronting head on, and on proper grounds.

The present trouble with Islam could have been averted, if we hadn't lost our objectivity in abandoning the principle of equal value (N.B. I purposely use this term, which is not to be confused with equality, often taken to mean: identical). Mostly to blame is the Left who keep on arbitrarily compensating victimhood, if only for reasons of self-perpetuation. Relativism and its ugly stepsister, multiculturalism, did the rest for the distorted, subjective world view.

Another taboo is that what caused the problem in the first place - the Left's principle of good intentions that always outweighs the regard for negative effects.

While volumes have been written and (inter)national agreements have been signed over any kind of positive right, benefiting perceived unequal groups - be they animals', children's, civil, collective, group, men's, women's, workers' or youth's rights - we have lost sight of the real hierarchy of rights. To remind us of the most elemental, basic and absolute ones: the right to life, liberty for all, and the pursuit of happiness. All else is secondary.

The fundamental question of a government should be, is anyone expanding his freedom at the expense of someone else's and if so, do we have the means to address it? The prime government's role in the Classical sense is the defense of these rights, but that cannot be done if certain groups are empowered at the expense of the government's ability to do their job. This is a matter of proper balance. After the transition from Classical to Left Liberalism the government became an institute for taxation, and redistribution: compensating groups for their inequality in proportion to their difference.

We have to ask ourselves: if we let ourselves be demoralised by the call of the Borg: "Resistance is Futile - Prepare to be Assimilated ... !" and if we waive our right to self-defence, which is primer in any one's book, the Borg's one uniquely excluded - there will shortly be no Liberal rights or values at all to uphold.

The best generation defended the free world at the cost of millions of lives, so that the worst generation had the liberty to wreck two millennia of civilization in the stretch of four decades. Feast your eyes on the following quote from the comment section of Elsevier Magazine, a repro from an article dated October 10th, 2004 on Daniel Pipes Weblog, "Europeans Fleeing Eurabia":

"The German author Henryk M. Broder recently told ... that young Europeans who love freedom, better emigrate. Europe as we know it will no longer exist 20 years from now ... Broder pointed to ... passers-by and said melancholically: 'We are watching the world of yesterday.' Europe is turning Muslim. As Broder is sixty years old he is not going to emigrate himself ... he urged young people to get out and 'move to Australia or New Zealand. That is the only option they have if they want to avoid the plagues that will turn the old continent uninhabitable'."

That's right .... this is the answer of the worst generation: flee while you can! Flight is easier than showing moral courage and fight for what's right! It is time we did what must be done: return to basic values, get objective and state unequivocally: this is what made us who we are, this is for the good of us all including freedom-loving Muslims; accept and live them, or leave us!


Most of us have got over
the pre-war wishful thinking
about international politics.
C.S. Lewis,
Mere Christianity (1952)

Egg on our Face!

New Left Liberal, subjective, morality laws are in the making: people have already been sentenced to fines and it is just a matter of time before the first priest or vicar will be jailed for inciting hatred under the relativist reasoning: race discrimination is bad, gender discrimination is bad, 'phobias' for Islam, homosexual behavior and abortion are bad and must be banned for violating the subjective rights of unequal minorities (is hatred). In the meantime denial of Jewish and Armenian holocausts are quite the done thing, resulting in more laws against an objective, basic Classical right: free speech!

Islamic fanaticism and its incompatibility with other religions and ideologies, are leading atheist and anti-theist movements - to whom all faiths, as per above reasoning, are in essence 'the same' - to increasingly view religion as a threat to the Liberal society, rather than as any section of humanity worthy of representation, like anyone else ... (not an subjective, unequal minority ... evidently).

This is leading to what could paradoxically be termed, signs of a Liberal dictatorship in the making. To mind come two recent affairs. One is the matter of the Italian candidate for the European Commission, Professor Buttiglione, who was rejected by the Euro Parliament for being 'too Catholic'. Everyone is welcome to join the democratically elected, freedom loving, European institutions, as long as you underwrite the Liberal ideology which says that gender is race and does not exist, the usurpation of ecclesiastical institutions by secularism is perfectly natural, human rights are fine but feticide is a women's right alone, and ventilation of opinions to the contrary are an incitement to hatred.

At present in The Netherlands there's a question over an M.P. who also happens to be a member of the Seventh Day Adventist Church, apparently a criminal organization by Liberal standards. Although it is not altogether clear what the problem exactly is, it is safe to assume that the fear is that she holds politically incorrect views, as per the above, or - worse - that she may be a rejectionist of the Liberal epistemology, called Darwin's Theory of Evolution: journalistic commentators make kindergarten comments - quite normal these days - to the effect that "she's in a creepy sect", and that they wouldn't be surprised if this entails "denying the Theory of Evolution".

Instead of which it would have been more in line with serious Liberal thought, to point out that "yes, we have freedom of conscience in this country" and "yes, the Theory of Evolution is indeed just that, a theory, that after 150 years still hasn't been proved - that the chances of basic enzymes of life arising by random processes are 1 to 1 followed by forty thousand zeroes". If they'd done so, they should have acted as genuinely open minded, truth-seeking journalists would have done. Instead they explain to the nation in baby-talk that the M.P. has to go as she might be committing crimes against the politically correct. For those not old enough to experience a déjà vue at this point: this happens before political correctness is elevated to law: such was part and parcel of the Soviet Union and perpetrators spent lengthy sentences in Siberian work camps for their dissent.

These are serious and ominous signs. Dissent from the prevailing Liberal thought is sliding from the politically correct suspicious, into full fledged crimes against the ideology. Very slowly but surely we are descending into a society which is tuned to totalitarianism and dictatorship, instead of one that is free, based on Judeo-Christian values and Greco-Roman principles. We are in danger of losing ourselves.

If we have a cold, hard, objective look at the remedies that have been put to work for better results, it is plain these haven't worked. Often even worked to the contrary. Due to its subjectivism [1] and the departure from Classical Liberal values (see Dr Pat's chart), Left Liberalism is defenseless and self-defeating in the face of upholding basic freedoms against radical Islamism. The multicultural approach is worse than the problem it sets itself to solve: Resistance is Futile, Prepare to be Assimilated! French secularism, laïcité, has failed as well.

International laws, so often invoked in explaining why tougher measures simply aren't on the cards, are not acts of God, but human-made legal edifices, often raised on Utopian grounds. There were reasons for putting them there, there are even more vital reasons for evaluating them. It is of existential importance that the Western world regains the ability to defend its proper values, before there won't be any left to defend.
I think it is high time we take a step back and examine what it is exactly we are forging here.

~ To be continued: Delorme and great number of other Liberals make the mistake to think that Islam is as any other subjective unequal minority group they are dealing with, not taking into consideration its perceived superiority, its exclusivity and its intolerance of other faiths and schools of thought ~

After Easter: Islamic Tyrannosaur Eggs (II)

That said, on other vital areas Islamic principles and Liberal values collide irreconcilably; the problem areas are numerous and fundamental. A recent report published by the Middle East Forum "Can there be an Islamic democracy?" explained it like this: "Ironically, while Western scholars perform intellectual somersaults to demonstrate the compatibility of Islam and democracy, prominent Muslim scholars argue democracy to be incompatible with their religion ... Islamic law regulates the believer's activities in every area of life, and ... some Muslim scholars further reject anything that does not have its origins in the Qur'an."

In consideration of my personal health I go out of my way in avoiding the calls to dhimmitude issued by The Kings of The Borg, Messrs Garton Ash, Sim and Buruma as per their cold, robotic mantra: "Resistance is Futile - Prepare to be Assimilated ... !" Regretfully I had the misfortune to stumble upon an article that the Dutch-American product of multiculturalism, in the person of Ian Buruma, recently published in Pakistan's Daily Times, entitled rather counter-intuitively "The strange death of multiculturalism". Well, not due to wishful thinking on his part, I should think.

Anyway, apart of the usual nut-cracking that kept me sleepless till six this morning - and the habitual whispers of Resistance is Futile: "... like it or not, Muslims are part of Europe ... so ... learn to live with them", he singles out Indonesia as the crowning evidence that "Liberal democracy and Islam are reconcilable." That is, conveniently passing over acts of terrorism - which, according to The Borg are to be taken in our stride, in the life in the new nationless Empire: just ask the Hapsburgs and the Romanovs; beheadings of young Christian girls are but a small price to pay for so much celebration of diversity!

It so happens that the Middle East Forum report also mentions Indonesia, but as an example that Islam is the antithesis of any secular Western democracy: "Outlining his plans to establish an Islamic state in Indonesia, Abu Bakar Bashir, a Muslim cleric and the leader of the Indonesian Mujahideen Council, attacked democracy and the West and called on Muslims to wage jihad against the ruling regimes in the Muslim world. "It is not democracy that we want, but Allah-cracy," he explained". The Borg's sense of reality has been totally relativised, I'm afraid! But that doesn't keep them from serving in governmental advisory committees. Want to bet?

Western society as a whole is in serious trouble due to Liberalism's relativist view on religion as a result of the erroneously reasoning that is typical for the pseudo philosophy, of which Buruma is a master. For instance: "Christianity equals religion, Islam equals religion, all religions are equally valid, Christianity is Islam". This infantile fallacy causes radical atheists and agnostics to seek refuge in the Christophobic French secular system, by which religion is pushed to the very margins of society. There, in the fringes it may play a silent role within the confines of the private home.

As is in evidence in the French suburbs with the violent rioting of Islamic - no, strike that last word - unemployed youths, this approach of the religiously neutral state - as warmly recommended by author Pascal Bruckner - apparently doesn't work either. It doesn't produce a better integration, or a more peaceful society, while it does create a religiously sterile public space in which even the wearing of a small crucifix on a necklace amounts to a crime. And, by Bruckner's own emphasis, this state of affairs is built on the blood of priests and nuns. No, thanks!

The bane of subjectivism within the judiciary was recently in evidence when in a German case, a Muslim mother of two petitioned for an expedited divorce from her violence prone husband. Judge Christa Datz-Winter didn't apply German law, but instead saw fit to single handedly declare Sharia law in Germany, denying the woman's request on the grounds that the couple hail from a "Moroccan cultural environment in which it is not uncommon for a man to exert a right of corporal punishment over his wife." We may not notice it any more, but this is pretty serious Eurabian stuff! Justitia blind? Objective? This isn't class justice, it's sheer racism!

Western society and the Liberalistic philosophies underpinning the legal system, are tuned to a free, responsible people that respect other person's freedoms. Adjustment of legislature to the intolerant dentencies is threatening to undermine these civic freedoms, the foundation of Western societies.

~ To be continued: New morality laws are in the making: it is just a matter of time before the first priest or vicar will be jailed for homophobia or abortionphobia ... In the meantime, denial of Jewish and Armenian holocausts are entirely the done thing ~

After Easter: Islamic Tyrannosaur Eggs (I)

While Jesco Delorme in his article "Multiculturalism is not cultural relativism!" states that in Liberalism the fundamental idea is that "the human being is autonomous, takes precedence over the collective ... metaphysical concepts such as God, History and The People may not be invoked in the formulation of political demands", he goes on to state at least three - in his eyes legitimate - examples of Muslims invoking Allah (or the Koran) in demanding privileges in re of headscarves, separate swimming pools and beaches for Muslim women. Those that mind about such minor details are merely being shortsighted and petty bourgeois. Yesterday we saw that Mr Delorme's brand of Left Liberalism justifies granting certain special rights to unequal minorities.

I don't propose screening Mr Delorme's article further on inconsistencies and inconsequential reasoning, but to move on instead to another very important point that he raises, which sets Left Liberalism (or free-market Socialism), apart from Classical Liberalism (or Libertarianism).

It is the fundamental leftist mistake of abandoning universal equality, thereby introducing subjectivism into politics and society. Decades ago I was taught the virtue of trying to be as objective as possible: to assess a casus or a situation on its own merits, without taking into consideration the persons involved: their social class, status, race, gender, or the amount of money in their bank accounts. This premise was based on the biblical principle that God created man in His image, and that consequently all people are of equal value, have equal rights and possess dignity in and of themselves.

With the Left in attendance of politics, the judiciary, education, housing, welfare, social services and a number of other fields, this universal principle was abandoned - objectivity made way for subjectivity - with grave consequences all round. Jesco Delorme justifies it as follows: "Aristotle himself insisted that equality must be understood as proportional equality. To treat persons equally in the strictest sense is justified only when they are truly equals. However, if they differ from one another in normatively relevant respects it is justified - indeed imperative - to treat them unequally in proportion to their differences". This principle may be philosophically sound when pertaining to plastic balls and pieces of fruit; it doesn't make good policy towards a healthy social state of society.

Since the departure from objectivity in politics it has become the norm for people and groups to formulate and foster any number of perceived grievances and inequalities, so as to claim special status and privileges over and at the expense of other people's rights and freedoms. It has caused the cultivation of victimhood, it has kept people from taking responsibility for their own actions, and caused the waiving of acceptance and atonement for the consequences of mistakes. That is, apart from the endless debates over how and in what measure perceived unequal proportions must be determined and compensated.

Mr Delorme's article brings us right to the heart of today's trouble when on its basis a number of privileges for Muslim women are demanded: we are not to whine pettily over headscarves and separated bathing areas. In the past decades we have been likewise subjected to positive action for women and blacks, unreasonable demands on the mentally and physically impaired, special housing and services for lower income brackets, ditto for immigrants, ditto for students, funds for violence prone youths, pregnant women, sufferers of particular diseases, AIDS victims, teen mums, the elderly, underprivileged youths, the morally challenged, divorcees, the list is endless and the struggle for inflated victimhood goes on ...

The result is the virtual incarceration of people within social and mental ghettos, poverty, class justice, ludicrous situations as a result of positive action, unfair mirroring of society in group quotas, and the excruciating phenomenon of the politically correct: the inviolate face of the prevailing ideology, the representation of today's red handkerchief. Still worse, it has made inequality the norm in Western society.

Dr Pat's chart shows in which areas the Left and Islam's social views coincide: socialism, collectivism - the subordination of the individual to the group, subjectivism, anti-realism and a socially constructed victimhood. The Unholy Alliance presently extends to a growing Muslim constituency adding to the Left's vote and a growing influence on politics in general, on immigration policy, and of influence of foreign governments on Western soil.

On a less directly visible plane of operation it could be said that the multicultural branch of the Unholy Alliance is disseminating ideological confusion, while the terrorist off-shoot takes care of radicalization in copying Marxist-Leninist revolutionary theory. The multiculturalist's view of a world without national borders - one huge multi-ethnic Empire without a worldly Emperor, coincides very happily with the Islamist's vision of the Khalifate.

Islam's unprecedented special status of victimhood backed up by terror threats has led Liberal subjectivism to allow distortion of history, adjustment of school curricula, denial of the holocaust, all so as not to hurt Islamic sensitivities. The story is ongoing. Further special privileges are demanded or coerced at the expense of other groups, and cohesion of society as a whole. Especially the more radical versions don't accept the democratic tenets, nor do they accept - or even appreciate - democratic values. We have passed "go home if you don't like it here" a long time ago. This has turned into "let's change it in accordance with our wishes". It's the West that does the assimilating, at home.

The incompatibility is to a large extent due to the Islamic principle which holds that society is subservient to the all transcendental laws of Allah, as laid down in the Koran. The concept of free will is non-existent. Assertive Muslims don't accept, nor are they willing to understand, Liberal c.q. Western values which they take for weak and degenerate. As an exclusive, superior religion it expects global conversion and victory of Islam over the infidel. Neither does it accept socially deviant behaviour of the faithful, nor does it tolerate dissent.

With regard to Delorme's proposition one wonders how he reckons to police the Liberal rights of the individual within the Islamic singularity. I'm thoroughly looking forward seeing him do that!

~ In Part II: That said, on other vital areas Islamic principles and Liberal values collide irreconcilably; the problem areas are numerous and fundamental ... ~