For Easter: Multicultural Cuckoo's Eggs (I)

I wasn't planning on wasting much more time on the German government sponsored culture site that was established as a counterweight to the American influence on American culture, but the latest contribution "Multiculturalism is not cultural relativism" - while simply breathtaking is its anti-logic - not an unfamiliar experience for regulars on the subject - it does provide an opportunity to provide a recap for the benefit of those that have joined us a bit later, or for readers who missed the basic principle: that multiculturalism cannot base itself on any philosophy, other than the pseudo-philosophy of relativism exclusively, and that the excruciating postmodern phenomenon of political correctness, is a mere symptom of the two.

Recapping the above: relativism is to multiculturalism, what scientific socialism is to communism. Political correctness is to multiculturalism, what Heil Hitler! was to National Socialism. You still with me ...?

Whereas the multicultural proponents in the discussion, Messrs Buruma, Garton Ash and Sim are viciously out to destroy Western culture even if they have to make dhimmis out of all occidentals, it would transpire that the latest contributor to the debate, author Jesco Delorme, is merely useful and is making some honest, if basic mistakes.

A caveat for the beginners around this subject, don't expect anything in the way of logic or reason: that's not the point at all. Relativists only call their ideology a philosophy, and multiculturalists pretend they have a serious policy, to make the impression it is well wrought and deeply thought through. The proponents aren't interested in logic, in true or false: the basic tenet of relativism is that objective truth does not exist, reason why at some point I personally stopped counting the paradoxes, the oxymora and the fallacies. Even I don't have so much time!

Multiculturalists are presently disowning relativism as their philosophy because they just found out that if you deny objective 'eternal truths', the emperor literally has no cloths. So they're on the lookout in whose nest they can drop their nasty cuckoo's egg. At the moment they favour Liberalism, a philosophy they not that long ago vilified for its free-market principles!

The sole purpose of the proponents however is to push their agenda, which is ultimately the destruction of Western civilization - Christianity for starters - which, for some reason only known to themselves, they deem inherently and uniquely bad. In this respect, think like communism: everybody knew it didn't work, but the aficionados kept on apologising and advocating it long after its crimes against humanity became known, simply because it offered the best opportunity to annihilate the West. Fortunately it collapsed under its own weight, but that was after only the fittest survived the atheist humanistic onslaught.

But for those not willing to suspend the laws of logic altogether, let's begin by establishing a few definitions. The relativist mind - bend on realising the main objective - tends to be not very precise in definitions and loans principles and tenets here and there, wherever the purpose takes him. So, back to basics:

1. What is the essence of relativism?
2. What is the definition of multiculturalism?
3. What is Liberalism in the original sense?
4. Ditto on Socialism.

~ In tomorrow's instalment a closer look at the definitions. ~

A fittingly Good Friday

Good Friday 2007, and it hasn't made me any more charitable towards postmodernity.

The institution that went - within one year, from the standard of journalistic excellence, to possibly the worst politically correct offender - weighs in on the Greek history book furore, and entirely along predictable, dualistic, P.C. ideological party line:

- church, obstructionist, uncompromising, conservative, irrational, reactionary, history, obscurantism, vilification of the other, narrow minded, dogmatic, nationalistic, monoculture, nation-state, petty pride: bad;

- 'science' (in casu, the authors, the supporters), reasonable, open minded, charitable, progressive, enlightened, European Empire (implicit), multiculture: good.

The basic part of the P.C. message also is, either "it must happen, it is essential" for some unidentified reason, or "it is already an accomplished fact, so you'd better make the best of it": case closed. So much for the open mind, revulsion towards dogma and the 'scientific' approach.

Another sample of the course BBC are on, can be found in a typical "BBC Breaking News Alert" of these days. Another 9/11? Government fallen? Moldova struck by major earth quake?You must be joking! Such a hot breaking news message can only concern the new animist religion! But perhaps there's still hope. They're getting new management. But if the Tory reaction is one to go by, things may not even have hit rock-bottom yet! Or it may be as per the E.U., simply beyond repair!

But back to the Greek history book story, which is revealing in more ways than one. Following the 4-1 loss in the Greece/Turkey soccer match last week, English language Turkish Daily News gloatingly spoke of "no absence of national malaise these days" and "The textbook takes a less victimized approach to the war of independence in 1821 from the Ottomans and downplays the role of the Orthodox Church during that period".

Dear Turks, by all means, eat your heart out while you still can! By the time the boys in Brussels are finished with your history books, you won't know what Greek and Armenian lobbies will have hit you! By the way, the French don't mind about the gas pipe line project being abused as a political object of blackmail over the Armenian Genocide Act, you know. Apart for your mutual interest in power politics, the French are also great stickers to principles. And after Russia's abuse of economics as a political crow bar like there never was a Soviet Union, the rest of the world by now is up to anything that might be thrown at it. You'll see ...

With hindsight it has by now become apparent that humanity's hay days were the 1990's of blessed memory, when the curtain had just fallen and to the optimist it seemed to be curtains! for the whole social engineered mess. But this is the new millennium and high time for yet another gigantic folly of global proportions.

So old Uncle Joe (Stalin) gets the blame (he's conveniently dead so has nothing to say) and the entire totalitarian circus is resurfacing in another guise, as champions of women, blacks, gays, indigenous peoples, the physically and mentally challenged, and any other downtrodden minority you can think of. Just in the nick of time rescued from white, male, Christian domination, only to be turned over to the other partner in the axis of evil in Operation Destroy the West - to reemerge on the other side of the 'debate' as dhimmis, or converts with bags over our heads. As if 1821 should never have been: empire is good, even if it is called a khalifate, it is multicultural!

This is going on while some useful others with impaired brain capacity, want us all to become bloody heathens and think, this is of no consequence at all, other than entirely beneficial, to the world we live in.


~ Some of the readers will be pleased to know that over the Easter weekend we'll be revisiting the Veritable Treasure Trove of Sheer Relativist Madness! ~

Happiness isn't blogging

Once upon a time, before political correctness and sobbing over black babies became the norm at the BBC, I had the pleasure to watch a documentary they produced about the state of happiness. The notes I made at the time, read as follows:

- Happiness within a community can be measured by the level of mutual trust;
- The sum is made up of what's known as social capital;
- Social capital is what binds people within a group and builds bridges between groups;
- What fosters happiness is: rights and responsibilities, codes of conduct and shared values;
- Impediments are: personal isolation and prolonged individual activities.

Francis Fukuyama in his book The Great Disruption. Human nature and the reconstruction of social order takes a short cut and says, mutual trust is a by-product of shared values and shared moral behavior.

What follows is that social activities like scouting, bingo and the right to do volunteer community work enhance happiness. As do good manners, team sports and assimilation.

What makes us unhappy is protracted queueing, watching television and doing yoga. As well as crime, playing tennis (always found it highly suspect) and joining the blegosphere.

I somehow knew it was a mistake.

The Impossible made Possible: the Dictatorship of Liberalism

To the list of subjectivist sins we can now add a reverse of Greg Koukl's Tolerance Trick: The Tolerance of Intolerance. A (regretfully anonymous) commentator on Thursday 12th, to a post on the plight of Christians in the Middle East on the blog Setting the World to Rights wrote as follows:

Relativistic thinking leads to a peculiar problem. If one person cannot judge an other's behavior because he does not live in his skin and cannot see through his eyes, then how should disagreements be settled? If each antagonist's conflicting idea about what each will do is determined by equally valid but differing perspectives, then a philosophy that starts out sounding tolerant to each, devolves into a philosophy that supports conflicting patterns of behavior, otherwise known as violence. By uncritically accepting the Islamists perspective that Westerners are "Christian Crusaders", no doubt in the name of being tolerant, the Archbishop (ed. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams) unwittingly accepts the legitimacy of the consequences of that worldview, namely the massacre of Christians -- surely the height of intolerance. The Archbishop, like relativists who argue similarly, adopts a morally inconsistent and therefore morally wrong position: the tolerance of intolerance.

... for which we are no end grateful!

In the world of paradoxes and oxymora created by the relativist world view I yesterday even had to conclude that the impossible has now become possible. What keeps bothering me no end is the case of Rocco Buttiglione. Let me not repeat the whole sordid matter: a biography and links to media articles on the case can be found on the site of the Acton Institute.

It was of course the politically correct E.U. at its worst, having elevated subjectivism to the officially prescribed policy for all member countries. I'm just wondering what my old hero, philosopher and former E.U.commissioner Frits Bolkestein would make of it. We cannot know, as he doesn't seem to blog.

It is of course a case that would make any follower of genuine Liberalism, in the classical sense of De Tocqueville and John Locke, shudder at the mere thought, the latter two probably turning in their graves as well. I know my mother does.

I was a member of the Dutch (classical) Liberal party VVD (not to be confused with the left wing Liberal D66) when Frits Bolkestein was leading it with great moral courage. Mr Bolkestein at his inauguration stressed the need to come to a discussion in the party on ethics and morality. It never got off the ground, there being a wing that subscribes to "unlimited liberty as long as nobody else gets hurt" and the banning of "preaching moral values", a hint at the fully fledged relativism of current date. The subject at some point even became a real taboo. It was - in the end - also the core reason for me leaving the party.

Since there's an element, described by some journalists with a turn for the caricature, as "beer tap liberalism" - a branch of Liberals not particularly interested in the inner thoughts and workings of the doctrine itself - they know little of De Montesquieu who remarked on the American Constitution that it worked as it was embedded in a Christian society, and John Adams who said that the American Constitution was made "only for a moral and religious people". Alexis de Tocqueville has commented that "despotism may govern without faith, liberty cannot" and Liberal theorist John Locke noted on civil society that it was Christianity that gave his doctrine foundations and strength.

Contrary to how it is seen at present, I think that for at least a number of the great Liberal philosophers from the age of the Enlightenment, it never was the idea for society to become "radically enlightened" (secularized, science and reason only considered possible outside the faith), in the sense that Christianity, as the original source of reason, science and natural philosophy, was seen by them as an obstacle to the Liberal ideal. Above quotations are proof to the contrary.

Pope Benedict XVI in his book "Christianity and the Crisis of Cultures" proposes that we adopt the reverse of an axiom from the age of the Enlightenment, when an attempt was made to understand and define the essential norms and morality by saying, these would be valid etsi Deus non daretur, even if God did exist. The reverse advising the atheist to direct his life veluti si Deus daretur, as if God did indeed exist.

It is valuable advice from men who in wisdom and knowledge are light-years removed from today's pseudo scepticism and sophistry that in fact has led to a form of politically correct crypto- totalitarianism, that hasn't the foggiest notion or even awareness of a nasty by-product of democracy, the dictatorship by the majority.

But in line with the paradox of The Intolerance of Tolerance, it is the Dictatorship of Liberalism that is at the core of "The Case Buttiglione", a case with more victims than Mr Buttiglione and the E.P. alone: it marks the death of classical Liberalism as we knew it. (It stands to reason, when basically totalitarian parties start calling themselves liberal.)

On Pride, Shame and Debauchery in the Emerald City

- Today I received from the American Jewish Committee an update on the Salah Choudhury situation. Apparently the Moral Courage Award has been handed out to Mr Choudhury. What fills me personally with anger is that my government is lavishing vast amounts of taxpayer's money (called development funds) on a country that abuses its citizens, is stifling freedom and tends to follow the ranks of what is now termed a new political system in the Islamic world that will prove to be every bit as bad as its predecessors. Here's the article in yesterday's Daily Star of Lebanon in re of National Islamism (make a mental note; I don't think we've heard the first and the last of this).
It is not too late to sign the petition for the life of Salah Choudhury! The link can be found here on the left hand side column or see the relevant articles.

Here's the story on the Award:

Shoaib Salah Choudhury expressed deep appreciation to AJC for sending its Moral Courage Award to him through the U.S. Embassy in Bangladesh. "When I brought the plaque to my residence, my family was extremely delighted to see it. We have placed the plaque with respect in our living room, where the guests will have the opportunity of seeing it. Each time I see it, it gives me a kind of divine inspiration. And, every time, I remember especially Mr. David Harris and our friend Yehudit Barsky for kindly choosing me as the recipient of the award." AJC had attempted to honor Choudhury at the Centennial Annual Meeting in May 2006, but he was prevented from leaving Bangladesh and is now on trial for sedition because of his efforts to foster dialogue with Jews, to visit Israel and his opposition to radical Islam in Bangladesh. His trial is set to resume on January 22.

- On a similar note how Islamic countries are misusing so-called development funds against their benefactors. Lebanon's Daily Star has a report how Egypt is funding Al Qa'ida's P.R. requirements.

- This post isn't about a so-called "Peace Mum" who is exploiting the death of her son for narrow party political gains in a shameless fashion. Present pastime is proof she's also an activist and is displaying very awkward bereavement reactions.

- Here we have a worthy, except if you happen to be Venezuelan, in which case my commiserations. After Tony Blair's socialism by a third way proved to be unadulterated Tory politics, it seems that Hugo Chavez a.k.a. The Clown of the Caribbean, is now trying to get it done in yet a fourth manner. How many more ways do they need to concede at last that socialism doesn't work?!

- According to the E.U. Observer Spain and Luxemburg are calling for "pride" in the Constitution. They are right: pride is so much more important than acknowledging your religious, historical and cultural roots of two millennia! Pride is P.C., pride is neutral, pride is good (provided it doesn't lead to nationalistic tendencies, in which case we'll break out in a terrible rash: wait till the 21st and you'll see).

- The theme of today's post seems to be shame and pride. Here's one for the shame category: Recently I have been writing how the New Europe, the former East Block, is treated by Old Europe, which is an indecent shame. Al-Guardian provides us today with an excellent example. (What an awful rag is that! And me thinking the New Rotterdam Courant was the pits!)

- Townhall.com's columnist Star Parker is on the case of the defense of Oprah! Good for her! I'm so proud of her!

- Back to shame (and a bit of fun thrown in): journalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran, former Baghdad bureau chief for The Washington Post has published a book. It's all about the debauched life of the Americans in the Green Zone in Baghdad during the first year of the U.S. occupation. It's called Imperial Life in the Emerald City. In a recent interview on CNN he clarified the trouveille as follows: 'emerald' refers to the Green Zone (emeralds are green, you must know) and the Americans were displaying 'imperial' attitudes: they were sitting in Saddam's palaces, eating pork in the middle of an Islamic capital!

The Euston Manifesto: Truth by Incredibility

One of the ludicrous by-products of George-hatred is the almost silent condemnation of democracy. After all, there is something to be said for enlightened totalitarianism. On second thought a messy democracy is not such a good idea after all, just because George said that it was. Democracy: so bourgeois, so over-rated and generally not a result obtained by forcible liberation from dictatorship. Germany and Japan after World War II are visible refutations of this statement, but to relativists opinions are more important than facts.

The last few years have produced more of these aberrations, as the countries of "New Europe" acquired a bad name by voicing too much of an appreciation for freedom, by not being atheist enough and generally for having not nearly enough P.C.-ness infused into them.

First the Polish plumber became somebody akin to a free market terrorist; then in the early stages of cajoling the U.N. into enforcing their own Security Council Resolutions and support the war in Iraq (in the absence of Saddam, adhering to the terms and conditions brought to bear after his war against Kuwait), the Poles were told by the French President Jacques Chirac at some point, they missed a good opportunity to shut up. Lower than gutter level they don't come. The attack on New York's Twin Towers on 9/11 crossed a new frontier in the history of terrorism: since that time lots of people are inspired to cross new frontiers all of the time: Jacques Chirac with his comment crossed new territory in the history of diplomacy; it was a sad example of how an otherwise perfectly good mannered and sophisticated man all of a sudden lost sight of civility: it happened often those days.

This is still not really over and things are exacerbated by the relativist preference for the here and now. So it happened that it has been altogether erased from our collective memory how much we owe the former communist countries: they were sold and and left to their own devices when in Yalta and Tehran after World War II, they paid the price for the West's freedom. Some in the West consoled themselves with the thought that Uncle Joe probably wasn't nearly as bad as some said he was and that they, after all, were living in the working man's paradise. A state of affairs soon to be realised on a global level.

While the last thoughts (and sometimes other means of support) have not been atoned for, half as much as should have been, there are now people of the Intelligentsia (meaning Left Leaning High Culture) that have had enough of these aberrations and want to go back to the status quo ante George and forget all about the Americans being in Iraq for the oil and premature accusations like that. In fact they have been doing this since 25th May of last year, but nobody of the international MSM thought to inform the public outside the U.K. or I was too busy fleeing the relativist heartland. Anyway, this is the first I'm hearing of the Euston Manifesto Group of Islington by way of the New Culture Blog. It cannot have been hot news for a long time, otherwise I would have picked up on it from some place.

Contents of the Manifesto warrants a single, dedicated post. While it is old news and critique almost entirely comes from the (loony) lefter side of the manifestists proper and is worded in terms of "wanky wonkos betray our cause and join the ranks of the neo-imperialists", the Manifesto offers some beautiful examples of violations against reason that I simply cannot bear passing up.

Suffice it at present to say that the Left Elite/Liberal Intelligentsia have a rock solid template for everything they do: the choice of words and its nomenclature are infamous, as is its capacity to turn an idea on its head. The word Manifesto has a first class pedigree and its use on the Left goes all the way back to Karl Marx himself.
"New" in New Culture Blog works like "progressive" in those circles: it was new and progressive seventy years ago, so mentally you have to read instead "Over-aged" and "regressive".

At first the libs display all the usual Pavlov reactions to a given situation: if the self-appointed opinion leaders decide Against, say George and the war on terrorism, they all go Against George plus the war on terrorism. This automatically implies what they are For, namely all of George's enemies. Schematically this makes a horror cabinet of 3rd millennium current affairs (in no particular order):

- Against: the war in Iraq, the Iraqi government, democracy, Israel, the war on terrorism, the death penalty, the Iraqi Court, the Kurds, Eastern Europe, Colin Powell, Tony Blair, Condi Rice, pro democracy movements against authoritative but essentially "benign" governments (like Yanukovych's), God (Allah exempted), globalization, free-market liberalism, Ethiopia, classical liberalism, cookies, etc. etc.

- Pro: The Noble Freedom Fighters, Saddam c.s., the Palestinians, Hamas, Hezbollah, Ahmadinejad, Al Qa'ida c.s., France, Lebanon (at large), Robert Mugabe, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez and South American Friends of the Leftist Cause, Howard Dean, the Chechen cause, John Kerry, Nancy Pelosi, abortion, euthanasia, evolution as proposed by Darwin(ism), Spain under the Zapatero government, open source software (free of charge and called a movment), Somalia, humanism as proposed by "The Enlightenment", science however fuzzy, Africa (at large), etc. etc.

- The jury is still out on: Russia and President Putin, North Korea, Iran, Belorussia, the Maoist rebels in Nepal, the Sudanese government

- Kicked off the pro list are: the IRA, ETA

When the situation has reached unsustainable proportions and the stance is no longer seen as credible by opponents and proponents alike, some frequenters of one or another private salon or a public house, usually located somewhere in the South of England, come together to write a Manifesto, distancing themselves from the situation in an effort to raise some credibility, just in time for the next general elections.

So the next time you read some left leaning drivel please check if it carries the Euston Manifesto Seal of Correctness; in the affirmative you can rest assured that this is in accordance with the New Improved Left: you'd be pleased to know they no longer blindly further, apologize, appease or advocate George's enemies no matter who. What do you suppose this is: Truth by Incredibility?
One must assume that Al-Guardian, considering their article yesterday, calling Somalia America's new puppet, isn't a signatory to The Manifesto.

Relativism's Three More Sins Against Reason: The Tolerance Trick

One of the by-products of relativism is tolerance, political correctness' pretty little sister of skin-deep beauty. "The idea has been misused so often that it has become a vice", says the protagonist of this post, Greg Koukl, regular columnist at Townhall.com in his article titled "The Intolerance of Tolerance".

Greg Koukl is providing us with some very valuable insight into the workings and unfortunate by-products of the culture of relativism. I can specifically recommend reading it entirely, thereafter printing and framing it and hang it over the bed, to be read each night before turning in, for the coming two decades or so. It is also very suited to children of all ages, to be read to as a bed time story or as didactic material. It is impossible to overstate the importance of his article. Greg Koukl unmasks relativism for what it is, at best fuzzy philosophy, at worst a lie pure and simple.

First and foremost relativism supports the absence of objective truth, while it goes on to assert two truths!

- The first is the contradiction in terms, namely the truth that there is no truth.
- And it implies the validity even of the view that relativism is false.

Another contradiction lies in the intolerant imperative: Thou shalt be Tolerant. To which can be added tthe fact that if other people's viewpoints must be tolerated, that makes them at least potential truths, otherwise they wouldn't have to be tolerated, which in the classical sense of the word means: to allow others to express their opinion without fear of reprisal.

Greg Koukl continues his démasqué, by what he calls the "passive-aggressive Tolerance Trick", which supposes that every one's view has equal merit. No body's ideas are ever wrong and to say so, is considered the height of disrespect and intolerance, thereby proving the limit of tolerance. Tolerance is not absolute, apparently.

I came across an article on the website of Radio Netherlands, again about Ayaan Hirsi Ali (see how she shocked and riveted the nation!), which illustrates the confusion that is exacerbated by the Muslim culture that has declared large areas of religion sacrosanct and beyond reproach. The article shows just how it is resented that Ayaan had an opinion, and voiced it! Greg Koukl's point explains this supreme height of intolerance in the name of tolerance.

It brings to mind my complaint about the behavior of the Dutch who don't know how to deal with criticism; it is also related to the point explained above. Nobody is ever wrong in the culture of relativism, so queries are looked upon as if they were ice cubes in the desert.

This point also explains the lack of any real debate taking place, complete with sets of arguments that can be brought fore and against [1]. It is why the discourse doesn't get beyond expletives and verbal abuse. More is the pity that we live in a time where the Internet provides all the space and opportunity we might want to voice our opinion: if we only had one. But it does raise the desperate question: Where is everybody? Where are the intellectuals and the writers, the thinkers ... and where are the debating societies?

Tolerance in the classical sense of the word is equal to respect and civility and is directed at the person, instead of his ideas and/or behavior, and that is exactly what is absent in the culture of tolerance, egalitarianism and relativism. The person and his ideas are being confused: we can disagree with his ideas and his behavior while at the same time, still respect his person. Mr Koukl explains how the modern definition of tolerance turns the classical meaning on its head: egalitarianism about ideas and elitism in relation to persons.
He puts it in other words: you cannot tolerate people you agree with; you tolerate people with whom you disagree, because it means you allow him his opinion or behavior although you disagree with it, while still respecting the person! It's all elementary, really.

To which can be added that tolerance in the true sense requires two opinions, one on each side, in the absence of which, one is left with indifference instead. Now the modern sense of tolerance is dominant, the absence of true opinion on both ends is preferred as less likely to cause a messy debate, which is all the better if you're trying to appease assertive Muslims.

The same trick is played out in the matter of equality (égalité). It is the same contradiction which makes people say politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali is "the same" as soccer player Kalou. In the relativist book equality means identical, instead of its original meaning "equal before the law" (i..e.of equal value). This was to ensure there was no "class justice", one law for the poor and another for the aristocracy. The law is still in need of a human interpretation so as not to become a value onto itself, as opposed to Law is Law, Befehl ist Befehl, the interpretation Minister Verdonk is putting on it out of personal interest. But that is another matter.

Today's public discourse under influence of relativism and its ugly relatives is one huge witch's cauldron of confused ideas and fuzzy philosophy that constitutes a poisonous potion for Western society: terms are used improperly, ideas are confused, wrong definitions are given and there is the unawareness of the contradictions in terms, that makes relativism into an almost satanical philosophical parlor trick. It has by now touched millions of people and their capacity to think along the lines of logic.

Greg Koukl closes his argument with the remark that tolerance is in actual fact nothing else than intellectual cowardice and a fear of real engagement. Indeed, it is easier to hurl an insult: the commentary pages of the mass media are full of them, all equally disrespectful in tone, and content and empty of opinion.

The State of Malcontent V

The anti-authoritive streak of the Dutch is exemplified by a now deceased but still enormously popular author of children's books, Annie M.G. Schmidt. Her protagonists are usually naughty children of the type that doesn't react particularly well to discipline, but is good hearted to the core. The Dutch, anarchist as they are, identify with Annie's heroes through all the seasons of their lives. Now that anything goes and all is permissible I fail to see how being naughty can still be fun! But it's an attitude. One that approves of some things and is against some other, be they in themselves positive or negative. On the pro side we find freedom, progressiveness (not to be confused with progress or progression), tolerance, underdogs of any description, teachers in pullovers, individuality, commonality, the lower middle classes (the bourgeoisie excluded), platitudes, dillitants, kids permitted in the streets till all hours, prostitutes (honest women), the police, vulgarized versions of great works, mediocrity under the guise of averages. On the anti side we find authority, conservatism, boarding school, nuns, rules, etiquette, neck-ties, fatherhood and perception of God as The Father, brussels sprouts, The Truth, uniforms, well-behaved children (gravely suspicious), well-dressed children (the pits!), Popes, foreign situations (American, Belgian, Italian, etc. "toestanden", situations descriptive of whatever disagreeableness We Would Never Do!), the aristocracy, organised religion, accomplishments requiring study, practice and discipline, the armed forces, to excel ... I could go on forever - but you get the picture.

It is therefore deeply ironic that Holland is one of the most regulated countries in the world, in which everything is managed, from the official spelling rules (which change on average every seven years when they are considered out-dated and no longer reflect the P.C.-ness of the day) to the landscaping of towns and countryside alike. And to conform is basic rule number one for everyone across the board, from crown prince to cannabis grower.

The above makes on the whole a pleasant enough picture if you like that sort of thing, but all isn't well in paradise. Since the assassination of Pim Fortuyn it has become the rage for all and sundry to have an uneducated opinion and express it uninhibited by civility in any way, shape or form. Acidity levels are reaching over NAP (New Amsterdam Water Level). Who wants to take the temperature could check out any forum webpage of any media outlet; the tone is simply crushing and the content is even worse. In one such discussion a mother who has just lost a child, was told to shut it, she and her self-pity! That kind of thing. Worst of all, all other participants think it's quite a normal thing to do.

There's other trouble too in the form of relativism, of which the Dutch are dedicated followers. This means that any point of view is freely interchangeable with another. So should you by a delicate rational process have come to a certain conclusion that happens to go against the current of popular opinion, such is at best frowned upon, but at worst simply not tolerated. Because by the same token you could just as well have said something less contentious. You did that quite deliberately so no measure is considered out of bound to express displeasure and that includes the anonymous, lethal kind. Antagonizing Muslims is increasingly hazardous, as that is looked upon as putting society as a whole at risk of bombs and throat-cutting exercises of the kind that killed the film director Theo van Gogh.

The afore mentioned situation is in the end far more hazardous, as there are politicians and intellectuals who no longer dare speak their minds. Those who do are day and night accompanied by an army of security personnel to ensure their safety. Ayaan Hirsi Ali has spend time in protective custody and Geert Wilders has lived on air force bases for weeks on end. And so it happened that we are at risk of dictatorship, no more nor less!
This is a society in deep trouble. Not least because - as an odd-sounding domestic proverb says "one gets used to everything, even hanging" and that's exactly where the danger lies, the anomaly gets to be the norm.

___

Een volk dat voor tirannen zwicht
zal meer dan lijf en goed verliezen,
dan dooft het licht. *
H.M. van Randwijk (1909-1966)

* Free translation:

"A nation that bows before tyrants
loses more than just life and wealth,
the light will cease".

Pope Benedict XVI in Turkey: days 3 and 4

Greek public broadcaster ERT, having not reached that level of P.C.-ness as some others in Europe, under the title "A Historic Meeting" and "Visit of Love and Peace" yesterday sang the praises of the papal visit for the opportunity it offers to expose the lamentable situation of Patriarch Bartholomew and his flock to the international press.
The commentators were especially curious about Benedict's message in the guest book, because, as they said "such texts always have a deeper meaning". Alas, we never learnt!
The joint declaration, signed yesterday morning in Hall of the Throne in the Phanari was considered "very important". So there you are!

About the Agia Sophia as a building, I can say only this: it's spooky and it's big! In fact it, and everything in it, is huge, over-sized and made for giants. It doesn't contain much anymore but some menacing Turkish shields with Arabic calligraphy and some other indescribable relics, but what there is outsizes the next in dimension. It may be hypersensitivity on my part, but it gave me the creeps. Till today I've not been able to find the words for what I felt there. It's a culture-clash of gigantic proportions, a sacrilege against a brother religion and a crime against good taste. At some point in time even the Turks seemed to agree and built their own temple in the vicinity, the Blue Mosque, about which I can also be short: it was unmemorable apart from the fact that I can vaguely remember taking off my shoes.

Pope Benedict last night prayed at the Blue Mosque "like a Muslim, towards the east", about which the Turkish press and Al-Jazeera were very excited. What's more he didn't pray at the Agia Sophia, which was even more cause for praise as that would have constituted an embarrassment for the government.
The Dutch press are also their usual diminutive self, describing the Church of the Holy Wisdom as the "Sinte-Sofie", as if it were the local village pastorial.

Last night the Pope also joined with the Armenian Apostolic Patriarch Mesrob II in a prayer service at the Armenian cathedral. He brought up the sensitive topic of the Armenian genocide, albeit not explicitly. EWTN today apologised for not having any video material made available, which indeed makes you wonder. Is the world not to be made aware of the Armenian presence, or does their low profile not permit any media exposure?

Later in the evening Pope Benedict met with the grand rabbi and concluded the third day of his visit at a dinner with the Catholic bishops of Turkey.

Yesterday the demonstrations against the Pope were also back. As a measure of democracy and civil rights in Turkey it is a positive thing. In terms of toleration of other faiths and a measure of maturity or ability to absorb criticism, it's not. And then there are the demonstrations by the organization calling itself The Grey Wolves, who have persuaded themselves that Bartholomew wants to establish in Istanbul a Vatican-style state, reminiscent of the Byzantine Empire. Looks to me something of the Mother of all Conspiracy Theories, but what do I know! I mean, membership of an organization by that name must be only one jot worse than holding a membership card of the Club of the Black Hand. Brrrrr ....

A measure of how far off we are from the required E.U. levels is illustrated by the following, reported by The Independent Online: the Turkish government warned the Pope against describing the Orthodox Patriarchate as "ecumenical", saying the use of that ancient title (meaning universal in Greek) has political overtones that could undermine Turkish sovereignty.

As I am writing this, the Holy Father is on his way back to Rome. On his departure he looked a great deal less tense than when he arrived. I guess that in many respects the papal visit can be called a success. In terms of improved relations with the Christian brothers and Islam and in terms of delivering a few messages in passing, such as the need to unite and renew awareness in Europe of its Christian roots.
This morning's Mass at Istanbul's Catholic Cathedral of the Holy Spirit - due to its Eastern elements - stood out and was more and not a little moving!

It's about time too we wrapped this up, as there are a zillion topics waiting for posting, such as the impending civil wars in Iraq, Palestine and Lebanon. The latter is engulfed today by Hizbolla mass demos with a view of toppling the government of Fuad Siniora, all with a little help from the friends in Syria and Iran and turn-coats like Michel Aoun.

I'm not there yet but an in depth delivery on the book Without Roots, a joint product of Pope Benedict and Marcello Pera with the tags The West, Relativism, Christianity, Islam, is underway. It describes my complaints about Europe word for word and we may have the beginnings here of a movement away from the present predicament. Hopefully!

Pope Benedict XVI in Turkey: day 1

Pope Benedict's long awaited visit to Turkey has kicked off today. He looked awfully smart, that is if you can identify him in the thick cluster of security personnel surrounding him. This is an energetic, intellectual man of almost eighty years old with a razor sharp brain. He's on his life's mission and has no intention of shutting up for the sake of P.C.s, appeasers and timids.


As I was watching EWTV a guest commentator was quietly and with mild embarrassment listing the figures that have haunted relations between Turkey and the Christian world in the past century. It hardly makes any sense to Americans, having started historically as good as from scratch, so to speak. The figures however are staggering and the history is just appalling. In other posts we discussed the Armenian history, but the one concerning the Greeks is just as bad. Of a once almost entirely Christian land (Egypt, on an even par in this respect was also mentioned in passing) only pockets of a few thousand here and a handful of hundred there, remain. But the visit does provide a useful platform for a bit of a history lesson to the average European, who - enjoying a cheap package holiday on the beaches of the Turkish west coast - has no idea what happened there only a few decades ago, when over a million Greeks were forcibly removed from Smyrna (now Izmir), which was hence burnt to the ground.

But for the time being Pope Benedict's trip is conducted in an atmosphere of brotherhood, diplomacy and politeness, which is as it should be. Demonstrators were either not in evidence or were kept out of sight. Let's hope it will all work out as intended and Papa Benedict will be safe. Despite his fine figure and good impression he looked a bit tense and ill at ease, which is not to be wondered at given the security situation.
Tomorrow's schedule will be very exciting from a Catholic's point of view, when the Pope will celebrate Mass at Ephesus from St Paul's house, where also Mary lived the final years of her life.

From there on the Pope will travel later that day to Istanbul ((Konstantinou)poli, or The City as the Greeks call it) for the actual object of this trip, the meeting with Patriarch Bartholomew I in the Phanari district, the site of the Orthodox Patriarchate since 1601 (phanari by coincidence, means lighthouse!).

In all this religious fervor you'd almost forget this visit coincides with an important NATO meeting in Latvia . From this place and unless there are specific angles to the story, which I feel belong on these pages, I am not going to report on all and every subject, however important. There are journalists and reporters who do this much better than I.

On the other end of the spectrum of importance, the next instalments of The State of Malcontent I fear, will have to be shelved for a few days.

The State of Malcontent II

My analysis of the present situation of discontent is the following.
Pim Fortuyn back in 2002 before he was murdered by an animal-rights activist, was a lightning rod for all the negativity in the country, the reasons of which were sought in a political system that fostered uncharismatic politicians, mediocrity and a style which can only be described as P.C. squared.

Due to the fact that some serious problems (mostly multiculture related issues) were pronounced taboo by the three consecutive so-called purple governments*, these problems were largely and quite consciously ignored. Politicians and others who did try to bring them up were either bombed, cordon-sanitaired and/or demonized as persons with unsavoury opinions and ideas. Policies that were put into place stipulated retaining of elements of ethnic, religious and cultural identity and foresaw to that effect in facilities like multi-language information brochures, schools that provided original language classes, etc. Integration was a dirty word, but some efforts were made, largely limited to bicycle lessons for women.

This was the situation that gave Pim Fortuyn a landslide election victory and - had he lived - he might have made a success of it. As it was the party went down by a combination of internal strife, beginner's mistakes and sheer stupidity. The discontent however remained and the sources as well as the remedies are still being sought in political and material issues. I think the problem lies elsewhere. Where, I'll tell you tomorrow.

* The purple governments (1994-2002) were cabinets made up of two liberal parties and labour; their signature colours were blue, green en red respectively, which together make up a kind of ... well, purple.

Bizarre, bewildered and unconscious

Recently I've seen an interview with bizarre Borat (Sacha Baron Cohen) and frankly, I didn't think him all that funny. But now, it seems, he's got the Hysterical Women's Lib up in arms ("It doesn't really matter that a woman's brain is smaller than a man's", or words to that effect). Now I'm all for him. Long live Borat! That he may continue shocking the P.C.s for a very long time to come. In fact, I can even do better than that: here's The Unofficial Site! Watch, read, listen and imagine the indignation ... enjoy!


Which brings me to a very pressing bit of discourse, which I thought we were done with some forty years ago, when it became the done thing to poke fun at royalty, clergy and authority. Compared to what we are seeing today, makes what was done then, seem like a stroll in the park. Elsevier is reporting about a website (geenstijl.nl, no style dot nl) for youngsters (pfff, am I getting old!) which shows a girl being sick by undue cannabis use; this picture is obviously hilarious and the author is paid due homage as the true hero that he is. Clips and footage shown on this site are often undergoing an editing process for comic and unseemly result and never mind facts or truth. One of it's victims (who is no angel himself!) is considering legal action; the authors so confronted had one typical reaction: "Krijg de tyfus", which means exactly what you think it does! As if that is not representative enough of the moral and philosophical low ebb of the discourse, one commentator's contribution to the critical article in Elsevier is "your attempt at censoring annoys me" (Ik vind de sensuur ... storend"). Let us pray ... long and hard!


It's not all bad news though. The BBC is reporting that Pakistan's parliament has voted to amend the country's strict Sharia laws on rape and adultery. There may be some hope yet of bringing Islamic practice somewhat into step with what we have come to think of as universal human rights and civilization.


Back to polder now where a right-wing politician Marco Pastors, a follower of the assassinated Pim Fortuyn, makes no bones about the self-censorship under Islamic fundamentalist duress of journalists, comedians, columnists, politicians, and so on and so forth, in short the apologists, appeasers and cowards:

The islamization of The Netherlands resembles the growth of Nazism in Germany
in the twenties and thirties (red. of the last century). The extremists are setting the agenda and the establishment sits idle.

It's a bit of a tall order (?) and it is after all campaign time, but I am reserving judgment until 20 years from now.

A bad habit.

I have a bad habit. More than one actually, but the one which annoys me at present is the habit of opening my RSS Feedreeder before turning in at night. I get to read two infuriating stories at the minimum. So I open my Blog to write a comment and am hence unable to sleep till four hours later when the adrenaline is starting to wear off and the sun is hesitantly showing it's face over the mountains.

I have had no problem whatsoever in producing tonight's two stories: one from Holland (which I said I wouldn't do anymore in the foreseeable future, but then this country is still a fountain of annoyance and infantility). The other hails from Germany, but could just as easily have originated in Holland (in fact, this already happened there).

Here's number one: the country prides itself in having a leftist catholic fringe which is called the 5th of May Movement, so called after the date the old Pope, called The Great, visited the country and was received as if he were the devil incarnate. This fringe movement, which is now at long last on the brink of extinction, produced a poet, yes a poet, well poet .... he says he is, anyway. But he's got more occupations than Houdini had tricks: he's also a theologist, and a politician. He's on a prominent place (according to some strategists) on the ballot list of the former Maoist communist party, presently calling itself socialist (which makes all the difference!).

This person has opined in an interview with a "train rag" that to his thinking the only difference between the police that collaborated with the German authorities during Nazi occupation and the present national service that is hired to remove illegal aliens from the country (IND), is the fact that the former's intention was the actual extermination of said aliens. The man is either insane, lost his single braincell in a canabis induced cerebral storm, or both (probable causility)! If you remove the intention of extermination, what you are left with ... well, is a national service that is hired to remove illegal aliens ...., which is prosecuting by the way ... they feel insulted.


Here's the P.C. Gospel, the German version. I'm not going to comment. Figure it out for yourself. It's long past my bedtime.

Justice

For just one of his crimes and subject to appeal Saddam Hussein has been sentenced to death by hanging by an Iraqi independent Court of Justice, which is very unpleasant for him and too late for his victims, who didn't get the privilege of a fair trial! But no European p.c. or Christian sensitivities in the verdict. You'd think in the West they'd be happy with this feat of statehood, but considering the lack of enthusiasm for the democratically elected Iraqi government which nobody has said, but is by silent understanding considered a neo-con propped up troupe of puppets unworthy of the label "decent government" (read: Liberal, Enlightened), the independent court and it's verdict will surely be painted from the same ink pot, I'll foretell.

It reminds me of the people who went to Iraq before the war (of liberation) to protect Saddam Hussein by human shield, like the meanwhile deceased enfant terrible of Dutch public opinion Willem Oltmans. Another of those is the former British Labour politician George Galloway. How people can so end up on the wrong side of history by misplaced loyalty to a brutal tyrant, is frankly beyond me.

Which pea wit of all?

Although I am not going to bring up the recent fuss about the Pope Benedict's deliberately misinterpreted sideline in his speech in Regensburg (enough has been said and written about that ludicrous allegation), doing the laundry this morning (what would we be without domestic chores?) I suddenly with nauseating reality remembered some comment by a Dutch pea wit by the name of Willeke Alberti (those who are blissfully unaware are advised not to bother finding out). This person, who has been pestering the public scene in Holland for the past 150 years (after her father did so since 1780 A.D.) refuses to go away. She saw fit to comment that "he" (being the Pope) "was a little dumb" ... (I am not going to stress, this is like Gary Glitter calling Bach prone to errors.) This fine example of Dutch pond-life didn't even have the originality to think of a quote herself, this one-liner hailing from some noteworthy comments by the country's First Daughter-in-Law, Maxima Media Magic ("hei waas in bitje tom").
I just didn't want this memorable contribution to the public discourse move into oblivion without mentioning it. Like that other recent comment by a Portuguese journalist on BBC World Television, that we owe human rights to the U.N. (that worthy talking shop for present black dictators and past diplomats whose national sell-by date has come and gone at the taxpayer's expense). Whatever happened to education I'll discuss in a future post ...
I intend in the near future to spend as little time as possible commenting on the situation in the fatherland. I do watch some TV programs via the Greek copper cable Internet connection of maximum speed of 225 kbt (or something or other technical term) and they are as nauseating as usual. News items are of the sort only countries can afford that aren't plagued by endless government formations, natural or other disasters, gross corruption, sharia law, endemic poverty or any other real problem: "Snowfall of as much as 10cm overnight has caused widespread disruption of the morning rush hour!!!!!" But we're close to new elections and I am at heart an incurable political animal. Even if it makes me at times feel sick in the stomach area, I am still being drawn to any sort of election (a bit like Christmas, actually). Even to the American one in November, that summit of shameless P.C. opportunism. I'll comment all right in the near future, help it or not ...