Of Sick Games, Dangerous Asymmetrics and Demographics

It's a bit of a mixed bag today, mostly covered by the press from hell.

- "Church threatens legal action over 'sick' Sony game which 'desecrates' cathedral"
Sony stands accused by Church of England clergy of desecrating Manchester Cathedral after using the place of worship, without permission, as the backdrop to an ultra-violent computer game. A Dutch media outlet picks up the story (probably the low season has started to kick in) and heads "Church of England upset about a little game". The diminutive and the postmodern inverted commas trivialize the alleged qualification of the 'sickness' as well as the game itself, while in 'desecrates' they serve the purpose of throwing into doubt if such a thing really exists: isn't it all a gross exaggeration posed by hysterical Christians?

It reminds me of the comments of a E.U. Commissioner Margot "make-love-not-war" Wallstrom a few months ago, who briefly assumed the role of film critic. She derided the American production "The Departed" - covered by the freedom of expression, if not artistic licence - for its 'violence'. Apparently virtual violence from American sources is much worse than produced by Japanese. Ah, the selective indignation of the postmodern establishment and the overt game of deriding organised Christian faith in the press! And so our opinions are manipulated.

- The Los Angeles Times exploits and misuses Pope Benedict's criticism of the Iraq war for its own purposes. In "On Iraq, pope's message to Bush is quiet but firm" (which is an invention in contradiction of their own words further down the article: "Benedict did not use Bush's visit to make public remarks of substance and instead chose to deliver his message in private") the reporters state: "Benedict has been vocal in his opposition to bloodshed in the Middle East, singling out the Iraq war in this year's Easter message ...".

Actually, Pope Benedict XVI in his Easter message, worked his way down the entire list of the world's trouble spots. Instead, it was the press that singled out Iraq from that list!

- South Africa's IOL, with the intrepid headline "Palestinians 'take fight' to Israelis" is reporting on the brazen attack by a disguised Israeli army jeep on the Kissufim crossing, a fortified army position. Jerusalem Post clarifies that the hapless disguise of the car, with the letters TV taped on it, attracted attention of the Israeli soldiers since journalists do not usually drive so close to the security fence. A Palestinian spokesman admitted the raiders meant to snatch a soldier, but the attempt was foiled when IAF helicopters arrived.

The asymmetric warfare of the Palestinians could easily have backfired, as we have seen prior to last year's Lebanon war as a result of the abduction of an IDF soldier. It seems the Palestinian cause is well worth the risk of a few Palestinian lives. On top of that, after ambulances being used in attacks, press vehicles have now become also suspect. Which means that Palestinian lives are at stake as the former are checked for fighters and explosives, and that in the latter case the press are being hampered in their pet project of bringing the Palestinian cause to the world. In today's climate of emotion over reasonable arguments, in both cases the Israelis get blamed, while the Palestinians shoot themselves in the foot.

- Dutch Elsevier Magazine's Women's section carries a column on the lengths some people will go to in order to conceive: "It is actually possible to live without children, you know", taunts the columnist. Holland hasn't woken up yet to the fact that this attitude is the reason, that millions of Muslims from Turkey and Morocco are uprooted from their rural agricultural or pastoral base, into a society that is overly permissive, postmodern and post-industrialized, so as to broaden the tax base to pay for the columnist's pension in twenty years time.

In "Liberty for Social Security" in the series "Neo-Totalitarianism" we concluded that immigration is the Socialists solution to the problems caused by Socialist policies. It will have grave consequences for the future. The impending demographic annihilation is being hushed up, and very few people have as yet woken up to the fact.

Refuge within the Western hemisphere will just land you in another pickle: here's Ann Coulter's view from America. The similarities are striking! Anybody got any data on New Zealand's Southern Island of late?

How existential demographic imbalances can become the Israelis as well as the Serbs in Kovoso can attest to: of what once was the Serbian heartland, today only ten percent remain, fighting for their culture and way of life, a tiny enclave beleaguered by an assertive Muslim majority.

In Israel P.M. Olmert spends billions for Jerusalem, amidst warnings of a Palestinian demographic threat to the capitol, saying Hamas could take over the city without as much as firing a shot. I can do better than that: given time, large parts of Europe will be added to that inheritance, The Netherlands almost certainly in the vanguard of that development.

Neo Totalitarianism (7): the Futuristic View (recap.)

Whereas yours truly is a great skeptic of futuristic vistas (the 1984 dystopia of Orwell excluded) - due to the unforeseen they rarely play out in reality - in the preceding six posts in this series on Neo-Totalitarianism we outlined, how specifically Europe, and possibly large parts of the rest of the world, might look like later on this century. Said sketches are based on the present mega-trends in political, cultural and social-economic thought. As a reminder:

Part 1 - Introduction
Part 2 - Multiculturalism and Beyond
Part 3 - Indoctrination and Education
Part 4 - Transnational Progressivism
Part 5 - The Transnational State
Part 6 - Liberty for Social Security

A more or less free flowing train of world events is in the current postmodern constellation out of the question. Developments are largely engineered by liberal meritocracies and intelligentsias on the basis of 'best practice', driven by Left-Liberal political and ideological ideals.

It foresees in the obliteration of the nation state and nationality, and a redefinition of democracy based on proportional power-sharing among minorities; the creation of large, federal entities in which current nations become regions and provincial stretches of real estate; ethnic identity is substituted for identification with a cultural minority group; cradle to grave social security in return for economical prosperity through free market trade, high taxation and compliance with the ideology (political correctness); local government management that carries out the policies set out by a dirigiste, central, federal government, not unlike the erstwhile Soviet Union, on which model the E.U. is based anyway, as explained by Wladimir Bukovsky.

What are the Red Flags, the danger signs to watch out for?

Buzz words to influence public opinion - which is done professionally by lobbyists and P.R. agencies - with any message conveying accomplished fact, or a sense of inevitability ("We are the Borg: resistance is futile; prepare to be assimilated!"):

- "we are all interconnected now";
- "we live in a multicultural society now";
- "immigrants are not going away, so get used to it!";
- "immigration enriches cultures";
- "people have boots, not roots";
- "might is right is crude, uncivil" (Kant, not Hobbes);
- "we have passed the point of no return";
- "these are the (social) forces of history";
- admiration for world citizenship;
- all things multicultural and inter/transnational;

- The creation of a negative atmosphere against national symbols and expressions, by subtlely raising eyebrows at traditions and tut-tutting of other expressions of national unity, conveying they are at best anachronistic (a bit dumb, bourgeois, not sexy), jingoistic offences against political correctness at worst;

- The creation of a negative emotion towards the nation-state and sovereignty, which must be perceived as archaic;

- The discourse is steered away from the globalism versus anti-globalism dichotomy; it is substituted by the question transnational versus international: the notion that nation states and nationality are unsuited to deal with the global problems of the future, suggesting the answer lies in a form of global governance.

Indoctrination through education, combined with whole-sale revisionism:

- continuation of the gradual history lesson eradication program; in the meanwhile:

- re-writing of national history: non-offensive 'narrative' arranged around "themes";

- curricula and school books to be adjusted in accordance with the ideology;

- the abolition of time lines, so nobody is sure which event happened in reaction to what;

- the promotion of an altered perception of reality: nothing is what it seems, objective truth does not exist;

- manipulation of language and value system;

- thought control and preservation of 'self-esteem' at all costs.

Having thus created a receptive and passive state of mind and historical confusion - in essence a void that prevents reference and benchmarking - the creation and dissemination of the dim view that an obscure past consisted largely of disease and poverty, intermittent with ethnic and religious war fare and "wave after wave of ethnic cleansing";

Making religion in general, but Christianity in particular suspect by the message: "look at all the wars and misery that religion has caused" without blinking an eye of course at the millions and millions of victims of the last two world wars and counting, which will only be used in so far as it supports the ideology (see elsewhere: postmodern speech);

- combining moral relativism and subjectivism with dogmatic absolutism where the ideology is concerned;
- severance of the link between nationality and the place of birth;
- mind control through political correctness;
- possibly the declaration of a new era, starting for instance at the third millennium as the year 0 CNE (Common New Era);
- Marxist dialectic of oppressor versus oppressed is maintained;
- continued eradication of objectivism and eternal truths;

Central to the Law are Positive Human Rights that conform to Liberal morality; these are not universally valid across the board: subjective, unequal groups have different rights, the greater their proportion of inequality, the more positive rights; criminalization of moralities that do not conform with Liberal morals (homophobia, Islamophobia); no differentiation between the person and the act (for example condemnation of homosexual acts while respecting gays, as is the current Roman Catholic position);

Cultural group's proportionalism and representation in NGOs, government and other vital institutions, which must also reflect the world perspectives of the various minority groups;

For a typical example of a transnational state we can look at the U.N.'s proposals for the new, independent Kosovo: how its democratic proportional power sharing is supposed to work and how the country is embedded into the large 'federation' of the E.U.; the project is also seen as the cradle of a moderate, liberal, European Islam;

Promoting the acceptance of multiple passports: no loyalty towards a particular national state. According to the theory of the epoch of Fourth Generation Warfare, a period in which we find ourselves currently, multiculturalism is the death of states: cultural loyalties super-cede state loyalties;

The legitimacy of the nation-state (especially those with a persistent lead culture) is undercut wherever the opportunity arises by way of the Kosovo precedent (if it comes to fruition, which is by no means certain), thus paving the way for embedding states into the large multicultural and multi-ethnic federations, or systems of total interdependency;

Ongoing immigration in ever larger numbers, broadening the fiscal base, thus enabling Leftist governments to maintain social security spending for unequal groups;

State dependency of populations through taxation and benefits: the state acts as a parent, taking over the major responsibilities of the individual.

The buzz already is "well, everybody knows immigration is to make up for the low native demographic numbers", but that's just the point: people could know if they were suspicious enough to read between the lines, interpret the goings-on, read the mega trends and extrapolate, but they aren't informed by those whose duty it is, which is possibly the most scandalous of the affair. The media and the politicians deem it a too sensitive a subject to discuss it out in the open, preferring instead public manipulation as the more responsible attitude.

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

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

Neo Totalitarianism (6): Liberty for Social Security

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neo Totalitarianism (1): Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Existential Answer!

The question posed yesterday, i.e. is any majority ever justified in abolishing the state of democracy, was not only given in by the constitutional problems presently playing out in Turkey - by which the E.U. blindly sides with fundamentalism over preserving democracy - but also by the remarks made by a Dutch Government Minister that - if such would be the wish of a constitutional majority - it should be possible to impose Sharia Law in The Netherlands. That remark was made some months ago, but frankly - after a storm of protest - I haven't seen him retract the statement!

The consequences of wars and revolutions excepted, it might so come to pass that even a minority government stands before the question. I take that to be insufficient in any case for such existential decisions. Frankly, I think all the world's nations would be well advised to set a few constitutional rules in stone about this matter.

The question might be excused if Dutch Minister Piet Hein Donner is perhaps intellectually challenged or morally impaired. Or is he simply criminally naive? Is he a psychiatric patient on the loose, or is he suicidal to the point that he even wants to take the Dutch welfare state with him to his grave? Alternatively, perhaps he's just a relativist? Or a multiculturalist who ran out of patience to see Islamic rule replace Western ethnocentric hegemony at its natural demographic pace?

Truth is Mr Piet Hein Donner's pedigree is simply above any suspicion: decency is his middle name and he has an above average intellect, at least officially so. He comes from good, solid Calvinist stock, born in a patrician family with a long history in government and the judiciary. Actually, his remarks may have been 'quoted out of context' by the MSM. Mr Donner himself says he meant issuing a warning. Indeed.

I think however that's not the whole story. Black and white Calvinist as he is, I believe he may have been coldly extrapolating future demographics and taking the state of democracy to that ultimate result: a two thirds majority that is required to change the Constitution and vote the rule of law out of existance and with it - de facto - democracy. Mr Donner's no fool, he's a democratic fundamentalist!

As we have concluded in the 'Easter Egg' series of posts, that contrary to multiculturalist tenets that "all faiths are the same", the religion of Islam isn't your any home and garden, bread and butter faith at all. Far from it. We shouldn't confuse our Buddhist ammonium nitrate collectors with our Evangelist disenfranchised bombists, as it were. By Muslim admission, and as the founder of the modern Turkish state, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk well knew, the religion of Islam isn't compatible with democracy: the people would be usurping the power of Allah, it's that simple.

From my part here I'd like to argue that by allowing a government by the people, the rule of law, and the separation of Church and State to be replaced by a theocracy to which either three don't owe one iota, such would be an unnatural and irreversible step backwards that cannot be man's destiny.

By which I mean this: the people can decide to impose an Islamic theocracy, an Islamic theocracy would never freely choose to impose a rule by the people. By the same token - and contrary to any ordinary European Christian Democrat party - a Koran based political party is an anomaly: it's like giving the fox the ballot about raiding the hen house!

Another way yet: while democracy has Greek classical roots, the rule of law is founded on Jewish biblical tradition and Roman law, the separation of Church and State (secularism, laity) is a Christian principle, Islam is bent on replacing all that by the law of 7th century desert raiding.

The ultimate goal of democracy can never be the irreversible end of its own existence. No wonder Ataturk gave it a formidable watch dog to prevent it from committing suicide, boys of Brussels!