Another Victory of Unreason over Reality

We live in blessed times. Man is making great strides forward. After we have done away with the shocking notion that one religion or culture might actually be superior to another if only because one stayed barren while another caused civilization as we know it; and even the regrettable scientific theory of the existence of objective truth has been discredited, thus enabling us to commit oppressive ideas as 'lies', 'wrong', 'mistake' and 'error' to eternity; today we can celebrate that neutrality as vital prerequisite for professional journalism has finally fallen in the name of victory of unreason over reality.

That the mainstream media (MSM) have become a by-word for political bias was an accusation which - till today - was always vehemently denied. Yet any owner of a bit of an open mind reading the papers, watching television or the Internet, could come to the conclusion that the dice are loaded on the left hand side.

As neutrality and emotional distance once were the trademarks of professional journalism, one would have thought that the allegation of bias is a serious one. Yet the BBC has gone within the course of one year, from the standard bearer of the trade to one of the worst offenders against it.

Since anti-Americanism re-took hold - as it usually does to some degree with a Republican President in the White House - even the pretence of impartial reporting got less and less with each passing year that George W. Bush has been in office.

As former neoconservative politicians turn into Gerbil Mix wherever the opportunity presents itself, U.S. ally Israel is at present singled out by Britain's 35,000 strong membership of the National Union of Journalists (NUJ) as a particularly savage country, as it sits in an ocean of human and social injustice. But in this vast field of choice in the Middle East, the NUJ has declared a boycott against America's ally.

Just say No! to Israeli agricultural produce, they demand, echoing former U.S. President Carter's ludicrous accusation of "Apartheid!". Ludicrous, as the essence of Apartheid is discrimination on the basis of race: the author was the first to deny that this was the case, thereby declaring the title of his own book null and void.

The luminaries and intelligentsia that make up the Leftist elite, likely subscribers of the Euston Manifesto and other such offences against reason, en masse adhere to "multiculturalism, that university-nurtured version of cultural relativism that has now firmly ensconced itself wherever politically correct college-educated elites congregate, which is to say just about everywhere." Needless to say that the vast majority of the NUJ are likely self-proclaimed members of said elite.

Another trait of this côterie is the blood-chilling cynicism that is the result of the disappointment after communism failed to live up to its earlier promises to put an end, once and for all, to Western civilization. After a decade or as so of brooding over this unsatisfactory state of affairs, a particularly nasty piece of irrationality was dreamed up: relativism, accompanied by its ugly stepsister multiculturalism.

A lot has been said in these pages about these postmodern pseudo philosophies, but the fact of the matter is, at heart, these fallacies to a large extent cloak cowardice in a shroud of intellectualism. It sounds as an excuse, but Clifford Day in his article "Hacks or Flacks?" on the site of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies describes why the NUJ seems to be caving in to intimidation:

"Johnson’s kidnapping (by Palestinians), the abduction and forced conversions of Fox journalists Steve Centanni and Olaf Wiig, the video-taped decapitation of Daniel Pearl - these and other atrocities are intimidating a growing list of journalists."

He sarcastically concludes that "with this as backdrop, perhaps the NUJ boycott against Israel should be seen less as bias and more as a kind of tribute - a sacrifice of journalistic integrity in the hope it may appease the editors who matter most, those who cut not with red pens but with butcher knives, those who produce not packages for the evening news but snuff videos for the Internet."

I say, if you haven't got the spine to uphold your own standard of professionalism against your personal political activism, go find a job where your lack of character and spirit is less required. Go restock store shelves, or something!

Of Rats and Inner Voices, mainly

Humanity's inability to resist the temptation to push things to their extreme seems to be our curse! Take the following hot news items.

Lost our way?
I see this isn't going to be a pleasant post, but - as we know - reality must be faced. With about half America, I've had it with Hilary and all these other hysterical women's libbers about 'a woman's right to choose'! I think it's terribly moronic to get accidentally pregnant in the first place, rape cases evidently excluded. Yesterday I registered some female peawit whining that "... all these prophylactics are so terribly unreliable, aren't they?"

Let's suppose you are one of those who answered the irresistible call of nature and got unlucky. What's to keep you from getting a 'day after' shot. At present outlook in most Western countries the situation is such, that should you be brainless enough to let that moment pass, there's still a legal period, that number of days worth of opportunities, to make your Personal Choice. We shouldn't be here at all, but let's presume for the sake of argument.

At which point Hilary's libbers have the gall to come and tell us that, still dithering around the 180 days pregnancy mark is still not enough Choice. They also want the 'right to partial birth', which is a gruesome and unnecessary procedure by any one's standards. Even Hillary can't sell us a six months' old fetus for a de-humanized 'cluster of cells' .

Remember yesterday's hierarchy of rights? The disturbing thing in this debate is, that we are talking about human life, but the ethics are lost in the politics of the matter, and the principle of positing a mother's right to choose above a human's number one, basic and absolute right to life.

While beheading your innocent unborn offspring is seen as a right, hanging Saddam Hussein is a big moral 'no no'! Don't let anyone come and tell me we are not hopelessly confused, and not a little disturbed!

Christian values?
Roman Catholics keep telling us about Natural Law, and about a trait we all are supposed to possess. Others explain our natural capacity of a conscience, as an inner voice: after you've done something you oughtn't, it's telling you that it was a bad move on your part? It's all very Victorian ... Christian philosophy and all that, I know ... which is possibly the reason why it isn't much in evidence. I'm also not so sure about this over-all natural capacity of a conscience anyway. Perhaps it's latent, but needs nurture to develop. How else can you explain the above?

What conscience?
Or explain the existence of these rats?
- Dutch former Socialist Party leader and former World Bank Chairman of the Board’s Ethics Committee during mid-2005, who requested Paul Wolfowitz to act as he did, presently denies all knowledge. Those familiar with the Ad Melkert modus operadi, shouldn't be terribly surprised. Didn't I explain that's the sort of institutions Socialists go to die - spending other people's money - after messing things up too much, even for Dutch hyper tolerant standards?
- Deputy says 'quit', Here's the link to all 357 articles
- Well, the whole Wolfowitz affair stands to reason ... he's a neocon, isn't he? As it's open season ...

What? More rats ... ? Yeah ... remember the anti war crowd? This is the lengths some go to in a good cause, in all their rage, rage, rage about rats, rats, rats ...?