Blurring the Border between Reality and Perception (1)

Just one of the hazards of Postmodern (Pomo) thought (if that is the right word), is that the line between reality and perception becomes blurred. Indeed, it was thought up by the Marxists for this exact same purpose: it is a psy-ops program that proves very useful in the present subversion plot: setting the Jihadis on the realm of The White Patriarch, so that the Egalitarian Collective may still blossom on the ashes, once the fog of war has lifted.

The process of surgically removing the West's moral consciousness has long been completed: that put paid to right and wrong, and 'oppressive social constructs' like good and evil. The consequences of that second part of the subversion program: the blurring of reality and perception, are only now becoming apparent.

Keeping in mind that even the research into the natural world - science - is seen as only one of many versions of reality (a meta narrive, in Pomo lingo), this helps in the realization that this is - by now - an institutionalised attempt at creating a global nut-house. The fact that we now have Pomo Christians - which doesn't make sense on any level - is one measure of just how pathologically insane the world really has been made.

The task of journalism is to inform the public of current events. Events are facts, they are objective reality, things happening in the real world. Considering that journalists as a professional class were one of the first and most enthusiastic admirers of Postmodernism, it is apparent that what they write isn't seen as reality at all, but only as a particular version of it: the so-called 'narrative'.

The BBC always has been, secretly, proudly biased, although the chickens may now be coming home to roost. The spectacle of pretended objectivity has run for a long time, until the appearance of Al-Jazeera-in-English created some sort of a critical mass and pretence was dropped altogether. I think it was then that the theoretical period ended and the mainstream media quite overtly swapped the 'narrative' of the West, for that of the East. It may have been a coincidence: this is of course my 'narrative', but perhaps somebody else has a better 'version of events'. Update: LGF reports more antisemitism and Christophobia on BBC message boards; Islamophobia though is considered taboo.

An example of the confusion between fact and perception (or personal opinion) is that attempts at correcting a wrong - a mistake is easy to make in the creative commons of the virtual communities - is rapidly shoved aside as censorship.

A personalised news service, as for example offered by Google may seem a practical feature, few people realise after time, that what they are getting aren't objective news items as they happen, but subjective news items as they have ordered them.

Anyway, at last the objective realists are starting to fight back. Lists are appearing, detailing when, why and how the facts were manipulated to conform with somebody's particular 'narrative', attempts at disinformation, spin and counter-spin, fibs and lies, fabrication, selective emphasizing, manipulation and censoring.

For fun, let's start with Coulter's list, never one to mince words in a good cause:

"All the Democrats' most dearly beloved anti-war/anti-Bush heroes invariably end up in the Teresa Heinz Kerry wing of the nut-house."

- "Scott Ritter went from being a trusted U.N. weapons inspector .... to being just another creep trying to have sex with underage girls."

- "Cindy Sheehan once had 'absolute moral authority'. Now she's just a madwoman writing mash notes to Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chavez."

- "Max Cleland was a war hero who lost his limbs as a result of Viet Cong grenades ... (T)hen we learned Cleland was a victim only of his own clumsiness and had dropped the grenade on himself in Vietnam after stopping for a beer."

- "Bill Burkett was the left's most admired military veteran since Benedict Arnold. He claimed Bush had shirked his National Guard duty and said he had the documents to prove it. And then Burkett turned out to be a foaming-at-the-mouth loon."

- "Paul Hackett was treated in the media as if it were the Second Coming ... yes, he was a veritable Noel Coward, that Hackett. Soon, even Rep. Rahm Emanuel and Sen. Chuck Schumer were trying to get Hackett to drop his next political campaign for the U.S. Senate."

- "Gen. Wesley Clark was once compared to Eisenhower ... Then it turned out the only war Clark wanted to lead was America's War on Fetuses ... he had received calls from 'the White House' by which he meant 'a think tank in Canada'. Last we heard, Gen. Clark was on the alternate list for 'Dancing With the Stars'."

- "Joe Wilson went from being billed in the media as a trusted adviser to Vice President Dick Cheney and billed (by himself) as an eyewitness to the president's 'lies', to being an apron-wearing househusband who had been sent on an errand by his wife."

- "Most recently, The New Republic's 'Baghdad Diarist' has been unveiled as a liar, another illustrious chapter in that magazine's storied history of publishing con men and frauds."

~ To be continued in Part 2: Reports from Iraq have become synonymous with Leftist spin, censoring, emphasizing, and selection. Each death that occurs within its borders is brought to me, personally, 'as it happens' by CNN's and the BBC's Breaking News Email Service. ~

God in the Gutter, Allah at the Altar

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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