For the record, Spartans did not throw deformed babies away

Earlier this year - in a meta review of the movie "300", entitled "Postmodern Fallacy #14: relativism leads to historical barbarism!" - we discussed the ancient legends surrounding the Spartans. One of those stories is, that Spartans were supposed to have exposed their young children to the elements, so that only the strongest ones would survive.

In today's Postmodern, sentimentalist times, in which the Self and subjective feelings are the leading counsel to ethics - such practises come across as rather barbaric. I don't see why. It is entirely in keeping with the unproved Darwinian theory of natural selection, the number one article of faith as practised by the Postmodern Left. Never mind for the moment - consistency and logic never was their strong point ...

But according to researchers of the Athens Faculty of Medicine the myth of the exposure of Spartan children may need some re-adjustment:

AFP: "Spartans did not throw deformed babies away: researchers"

The Greek myth that ancient Spartans threw their stunted and sickly newborns off a cliff was not corroborated by archaeological digs in the area, researchers said Monday.

After more than five years of analysis of human remains culled from the pit, also called an apothetes, researchers found only the remains of adolescents and adults between the ages of 18 and 35, Athens Faculty of Medicine Anthropologist Theodoros Pitsios said.

"There were still bones in the area, but none from newborns, according to the samples we took from the bottom of the pit" of the foothills of Mount Taygete near present-day Sparta. "It is probably a myth, the ancient sources of this so-called practice were rare, late and imprecise," he added.

Meant to attest to the militaristic character of the ancient Spartan people, moralistic historian Plutarch in particular spread the legend during first century AD. According to Pitsios, the bones studied to date came from the fifth and sixth centuries BC and come from 46 men, confirming the assertion from ancient sources that the Spartans threw prisoners, traitors or criminals into the pit.

The discoveries shine light on an episode during the second war between Sparta and Messene, a fortified city state independent of Sparta, when Spartans defeated the Messenian hero Aristomenes and his 50 warriors, who were all thrown into the pit, he added.

Science as Liberal Ideology and a Puzzle Contest

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neo Totalitarianism (2): Multiculturalism and Beyond

Let us first turn to Fjordman and his buzz provoking article "Communism for the 21st Century", the University of Helsinki's critiques and Fjordman's subsequent rebuttal in "A Great Conversation", and various other commentators thereto.

It would appear from the text of the article that the University has remarked, that communism is neither synonymous with multiculturalism, nor with unlimited migration. Fjordman obviously recognises this and underlines that by 'neo-Communism' [sic] he means the 'whole package deal': they aren't identical, but they frequently coincide.

The reviewers further pose the astonishing remark that the opponents of multiculturalism labour under the false impression that multiculturalists do not consider culture to be important: "On the contrary, they find culture so important for each and every person, that it is considered a human right to be able to maintain at least some of it, regardless of where one happens to live."

At which point I am seriously in danger of bursting a blood vessel! This confirms my opinion that multiculturalists are either liars and hypocrites, or that they've had their brain cells relativised out of existence ("having lobotomized themselves, having already forgotten their lobotomies", as the present metaphor goes).

They know full well you cannot preserve anything of value by exposing it to the raw forces of (cultural) Darwinism. Unless you want the contenders to fight it out and let the best one win of course, and never mind the bloody mess which presumably they'll clean up afterward! (Note also the hapless attempt to separate identity from the place of birth, or any other accidental place where one happens to find oneself by the forces of nature!)

Fjordman's rebuttal to this piece of hypocrisy is important: in the heat of the arguments it is easily forgotten that:

"... by settling in another country, you have indirectly admitted that this country has a superior culture and should thus be required to adjust yourself to this culture, i.e. to assimilate."

I heartily agree with Fjordman, and would add that postmodernism's lack of wisdom and philosophical insight is probably to blame for not understanding, that if you value all equally and love none in particular, in fact you love none. Especially if you don't declare your own dogmatic belief in Darwinism applicable when it comes to cultures: when none is superior and predatory ones are taken not to exist, except of course Western culture which is inherently and uniquely evil. Once removed, they take for granted no other will fight its way to the top of the cultural food chain! This is Marxism's grave error! As with individuals, now with cultures.

When chasing the philosophical tenets of multiculturalism, Fjordman hits the relativist totalitarian jackpot when coming to the unavoidable conclusion as I did, as described in the post "Conned by the Left, Again", that ...

"... There are those who claim that it was never supposed to be logically consistent and that we shouldn't look for any cohesive, rational arguments behind it because there are none. What little can be discerned from its ideas is sometimes quite disturbing, with elements of anti-Western hatred [sic], totalitarian impulses and Utopian ideas involving large-scale social engineering."

He poses the great rhetorical question: "But isn't this alarming? Multiculturalism is now official state policy in many countries ... millions of people are subject to a radical ideology that is almost impossible to comprehend, and thus to criticize? Many ... know that it cannot be rationally defended, which is why they simply shut critics down with charges of racism and shame them into silence whenever they sense some opposition. In fact, it is now more or less illegal in some countries to criticize it, although it could mean the most massive transformation of our countries in modern history."

I can go further than that: if multiculturalism gets its way we will see a feat of social engineering in the coming decades, the likes of which have not been seen in human history. I also want to stress again and I keep on repeating it, because it is key to understanding multiculturalism:

multiculturalism is based on the pseudo philosophy of relativism, because that is the only way one can maintain that all personal opinions, cultures, religions, countries are equally valid and of equal value, and there is no such thing as good or bad. This in turn depends on the obvious lie and oxymoron that objective truth doesn't exist, when they do claim the validity of the eternal truth of human rights!

Because it is a lie, this fallacy is riddled with unanswered contradictions and oxymora [2], but the proponents couldn't care less. To them, the end justifies the means. All is subservient to The Cause. The principles of the scientific method (a theory must be falsifiable, which btw also Darwinism fails to do), and the basic law of natural philosophy (to be), don't apply to them! But in an effort to make the nonsense marketable to rational society, they presently propose to drop the multicultural cuckoo's egg in the Liberal nest, that they reason "is all about freedom anyway" (see the Easter Egg cycle, starting here).

According to Fjordman's Finnish correspondent, the multicultural 'solution' to migrant problems is to declare a number of human rights valid across the board and for the rest we simply " ... allow immigrants the right to keep their culture provided that they adhere to the central core of our values and follow the rules in our legal system."

Brilliant! Why didn't anyone think of that before now?! As if there weren't the teachings of Judeo-Christianity, and there never was a U.N. Declaration of inalienable Universal Human Rights! Which makes one wonder if the source of the problems with multiculturalists doesn't simply lie in their arrogance, a basic lack of knowledge and a very poor education ... (we'll come to that in a later part of the series).

Apart from the obvious fact that Islam - which is basically the law of a jealous, intolerant God - is inconsistent and incompatible with any laws ever thought up by humans, we also have the minor matter of deciding which human rights should be adopted as universal: largely due to the Left's inability to curtail their urge of engineering, Positive Human Rights have proliferated over the years to the point of farce.

That mushrooming of positive rights alone has greatly undermined and devalued them, whereas they should be untouchable and cast in granite, out of reach of the fickleness and illusions of the day. Human Rights are at the core of Judeo-Christian beliefs and values: they are the beating heart of Western culture.

Leftist secularism has hijacked and perverted them to the point they have become virtually unworkable. For those unfamiliar with the concept of Positive and Negative Human Rights and the hierarchy of Rights, this would be a good place to start reading about them. Or enter the key word into the search box above - we have written frequently on the subject and there are texts with very interesting links to the subject matter.

Fjordman also sees the problems and has no other solution than giving the indigenous culture precedence over immigrating ones. I agree. Migrants come voluntarily (if they aren't refugees) and they do so because they think to have better lives in the Western world. Also it is illogical and unpractical to ask the host to conform to all the adjusting tastes of his guests. But here we touch reason - which, as we know - isn't a postmodern strong point.

Furthermore, even multiculturalists see that for a balanced society the separation of church and state (secularism, laity) is required (by which I do not mean a religiously sterile state). The source of this principle [1], is Christianity, which should be a reason to honour and maintain its existence. Postmoderns have the simplistic conviction that it doesn't matter which culture is leading! A trip to the Dar al-Islam should suffice to prove otherwise.

Fjordman goes on to bring up the chilling 2001 article written by Hudson Institute Fellow John Fonte, "The Ideological War Within the West", which warrants its own post.

~ To be continued: Dr Sanity provides us with a wonderful if shocking piece on the history of totalitarian education. Needless to say that indoctrination is the appropriate description. ~

Beliefs of Fear

Time for a few assorted news alerts with a commonality: the usefulness of fear!

Czech President and economist Vaclav Klaus today said that his new book "Blue, Not Green Planet" is to highlight the threatening and curtailing of freedom, which Klaus considers the key topic of the present era. The book is subtitled "What has been threatened: climate or freedom?". A good question.

If we follow the Roman advice: Cui Bono?, or the American: Follow the Money!, we arrive at the subsidized global fear industry that has sprung up over the last decades, and at governments that are thus able to firm their grip on people's freedoms by regulating and soft engineering; above all it provides an opportunity - and moreover, a ligitimated excuse - to 'broaden the fiscal base'.

Price tag: a personal contribution of 225 Euros per year will release you of your guilt "and can prevent the earth from warming two degrees by the year 2030", the U.N.'s I.C.P.P. has calculated! Total cost: 1700 billion Euros.

Perhaps it is this what Klaus has in mind. The book isn't available yet on Amazon. When it is, we'll let you know and add it to The Lighthouse Library.

It is astounding how environmentalism - whose animistic Gaia theory, which borders irrational earth-goddess worship - is abusing science to ridicule the skeptics: their taunting 'Flat, Not Round Earth' in this case, is reminiscent of the Darwinism versus creation myth dualism, when the unproven and highly unlikely theory of evolution is called into question.

If you don't buy into the Leftist politically correct epistemologies, you are an medieval ignoramus, that's the idea. Yet nothing is less scientific than elevating theories to sacrosanct dogma, as the medieval Scholastics knew, and some postmodern relativist theorists would be happy to point out!

Surely this must be another one of the Sanity Squad's infamous psychological projections! There's nothing like fear and guilt for a prime mover!

On an entirely other topic, I woke up this morning with the Algerian genocide in mind, which occurred during the nineties of the last century. The 150,000 martyrs to Islamism appear to be all but forgotten. The inhabitants of entire villages had their throats scimitared, after the Algerian government made the mistake of allowing an undemocratic Islamist party (FIS) to participate in democratic elections. When they appeared to be winning, the elections were cancelled in the certainty that democracy would be abolished were the FIS come to power. This sparked a whole series of blood baths that lasted for years.

According to this BBC article the period is characterized as a 'civil war', and apparently the security forces had a hand in it. Not mentioned are the Jihadis of the FIS and other Islamist groups. The reason for this is likely to be found in the BBC's approach towards journalism, by which unequal groups are compensated in proportion to their inequality vis a vis the official government, which in this case means they don't get any attention drawn to their unspeakable sins.

But today Algeria goes to the polls. Let's hope they make it a good one! In the West - especially in Europe - we tend to forget that democracy and freedom aren't free!

Neo-communism exposed! (III)

Fjordman, with an article "Communism for the 21st Century" has the entire conservative blegosphere abuzz in sheer shock, with comments, quotes, cross-posts and re-posts. These pages had already come to the same conclusion some months ago through our own separate, well-documented investigations. The chances therefore, this is only a figment of the delusional, conservative mind - as doubtlessly some projecting Leftists would have it - is herewith narrowed down to practically zero, I posit!

We came to the same conclusion, because the founding fathers of the postmodern pseudo philosophies that underpin the whole miserable construct - positivism, subjectivism (relativism) [1], deconstructionism, multiculturalism and other related sophistries - all had their feet firmly planted in the same Marxist clay in one way or another. This is something that anyone, who's willing to put in a bit of reference work, can conclude for themselves. To read related posts, enter 'communism', 'totalitarian', 'soviet' and/or 'dictatorship' into the top search box).

Another give away are the terms used (intelligentsia, peaceful coexistence); their knee-jerk pathological reactions to concepts like authority, dogma and religion; the need for a common scapegoat to blame all the short-comings of an otherwise perfect ideology on (neo-cons, Christians, Israel); the fact that their ideals are only practically attainable under totalitarian circumstances (intolerance towards dissenters); that the basic unit is the group (as opposed to the individual); criminalization of dissent (crimes against the ideology: racism, Islamo/homophobia, etc.); a mentality in which the end, justifies the means (everything is secondary to the realisation of the ideal); science is seen as a means to 'prove' the scientific correctness of the ideology (Darwinism, suppression of theories that potentially disprove its tenets and underpinnings); transnationalism (a borderless, multi-ethnic and multicultural 'Empire', the Emperor being substituted by a democratically unaccountable meritocratic elite); anti-realism; subjectivism (not: all men are created equal and therefore treated equally in similar circumstances, but: unequal groups must be compensated in proportion to their inequality); collectivism (ditto); a socially constructed identity and victimhood (ditto).

The above also explains the mutual identification of the postmodern ideologies with the cause of Islamism and their cooperation in the Unholy Alliance. All totalitarian concepts have a lot is common. Hence the mutual admiration. I don't propose to repeat the whole argumentation here again, as these posts are readily available in this blog (enter 'unholy alliance' and/or 'Islamo-Nazism' into the top search box).


Commentary from a contributor identified as The Great Satan, and brought together in an easy readable post "The Long Game- Enlightened Commenters Reveal All" on weblog "Mr Smith's Refusal" has some additional insights into the matter on the basis of Darwinism (natural selection and survival of the fittest), worth quoting extensively.

On the postmodern version of 'democracy':

"An ideal democracy is a coalition where political power is allocated among groups in proportion to their numbers. It has nothing to do with voting or with individual citizens expressing opinions, and in fact it doesn't require elections at all. A 'winner take all' system, or one ruled by a majority, is profoundly repugnant because it disenfranchises minority groups of all kinds and deprives them of their proper share of power."

... and emphasizes that ...

"National identity is evil. We should try to think of ourselves as citizens of the world, not as citizens of the nations in which we live, and we should try to minimize the effects of national interests, especially our own if we live in powerful nations."

And concludes ominously that ...

"... basically, the government policy is to ethnically and culturally replace the current majority ethnicity/culture with a different majority ethnicity/culture (ed.: Latino and Muslim for the U.S. and the E.U. respectively). Sounds familiar? It should because that is defacto GENOCIDE - albeit soft genocide by stealth [sic]. I imagine in Europe the Muslims would then wipe out the remaining Westerners by traditional genocide which they are quite good at."

In other words:

"... 'my' supposedly democratic government and media has the nerve to simply inform me it will continue with policies that will replace my ethnic/cultural group as the major ethnic/cultural group in my own country in relatively very small number of years, and if I don't like that, I am racist? ...."

"Diabolically clever. Hitler failed in his genocide of European Jews. The political U.S. and E.U. elites are much closer to a successful genocide of a much more numerous ethnic group."

I firmly agree with the qualification 'diabolical': that term sums up the stealth with which this treacherous policy of global proportions is being executed upon the indigenous people. Diabolical is also the crypto Marxist pseudo philosophy that underpins it all: relativism, i.e. your senses are untrustworthy, objective truth does not exist, and each person/culture/country/religion is identical except Western ones which are inherently and uniquely bad.

If you can make people believe that - eventually with the assistance of the useful media - anything goes - even global Islamic crypto Marxism.

Dissecting relativism, The Base (III): Third generation at crisis point

I've been at it again last night, or should I say this morning! It's because I have been reading an article by Barry Rubin of the Middle East Forum, titled Arab Politics: Back to Futility. On the basis of one of the Middle East's favourite style figures, that of comparing the present situation with another in the past, thus providing some gloss to an otherwise shoddy piece of journalistic work, I was at first a bit apprehensive about it. It compares the present situation (Islamic fundamentalism led by Iran's president Ahmadinejad) to the situation in the 1950-1960 (Pan-Arab nationalism led by Egypt's President Nasser). But it is of another style altogether, well-investigated, thoroughly thought through and could give us some foresight into the near future. If so, we are in for a big conflagration (which is on the books anyway, of that I am convinced), but we all know how Nasser's plans worked out in the end. I'm not that sure about the futility, though! And the Arabs shall have to accept Iranian hegemony in the region, which also a bit of a stretch.

For today's illustration I been rummaging through images of said dreadful conference in Tehran, old Adolf pics, etc. All pretty drab, really. I prefer a picture I kept for it's own sake, a good photo. I think it's in Rome ... here it is:

Which brings me back to The Daily Star of Lebanon, which provides us with some more insight into Ahmadinejad's brain brawls, this time in re of the anti-holocaust conference, held in Tehran earlier this week. It would be nice and easy to dismiss the man as a raving islamist who doesn't know any better, but at our peril. What he means with the whole lunatic exercise is this:
1. The holocaust doesn't suit my purposes, so he denies it ever happened.
2. It negatively impacts the status quo (from his point of view).
2. The European Union and Germany itself are built on the ruins of that event and are what they are today, because of it. The West protect Israel on that basis and will prevent it ever happening again.
4. In his letter to Germany's Chancellor Angela Merkel, Admadinejad says in so many words that, just imagine what your country (and Europe) would be if it didn't have this "imposition".
At which point I would like to make a M.E. style figure of my own, namely of comparing Ahmadinejad with Hitler, who told the Germans after World War I: "just imagine what your country would be if it didn't have this "imposition" (of being lumbered with heavy repair payments). I am not an admirer of present, inflationary remarks made left, right and center with reference to events and people of WWII, but this guy is simply begging for it. Better still, I think he'll take it as a compliment.

Back to our last generation of post-moderns at crisis point.
Dissecting relativism, The base (III), continued
Should there unexpectedly be a feeling of spiritual emptiness, this can be remedied by dabbling in vague mystical concepts of a much further past, or of a brand new variety for that matter. For those seeking a practical hobby or pseudo-guidelines there are astrology, numerology, stonology and the like, and for those seeking a quick fix there is aroma-therapy and hot stones, should you be medically inclined. For the pseudo-scientist there is The Field (or whatever it's called) and bio-rhythms; the not too timids can go all the way in neo-paganism and Wicca. For fallen Christians Gnosticism and Da-Vinci-Code'ism is recommended (the latter formerly known - before a hoax was admitted and Mr Brown got away with plagiarism - as "the secret of the Priory of Sion", which was exciting and fun while it lasted, but was nonetheless a bit of a cult and seriously believed by lots of romantically inclined gullibles).

Besides that, we are told every day, implicit or explicit that all these, and each and every idea born of humanity, however barbaric, downright luny or brave and brilliant, are equally valid. (Christendom excepted, which supported very bad things in the past that The West did to other peoples.)

Each his or her own truth, depending on where you come from, your situation and particular place in the world.
Can you blame poor people from stealing a loaf of bread (supported by a Dutch bishop), or Africans for waging tribal wars (which is a result of the West's imperialism that drew arbitrary and unnatural borders between countries), or Indians for extensive navel-staring under coconut trees (this is what their faith tells them to do and is their way to cope with poverty), and so on, and so forth.
Besides, what to do in case of a paradox or a contradiction. The way out of that one and to keep the peace in the world, is by declaring them all equal. It is also fits our idea of democracy, egalite, n'est pas?

This is however ignoring what's plain to see for everybody who wants to. Stealing is not done, because that would end in Darwinian chaos, the strong knocking the weak over the head to get to a mobile phone. That would be a free for all in which no body's property would be safe anymore, so having any property would be senseless, so why should we work, etc.
African tribal warfare is equally of the stone age, and bad for obvious reasons (don't start me again on survival of the fittest, or mother earth being crushed by the sheer weight of so many people inhabiting it!).
While a people whose faith prescribes extensive navel staring as the highest good, would always remain poor and couldn't be dragged out of misery by all the development assistance in the world.

One could of course argue that only a westerner would think this way. We are always thinking in terms of economy, money and practicalities. That may be so, but why then is it that nobody in his right mind would advocate a anarchistic Darwinian society, Africans would come to the West en masse if they only could and Indians are by now also discovering starvation doesn't bring nirvana any nearer and what the benefits are of some basic earthly goods.

Of course it could be said that all these people see it the wrong way and are indoctrinated, believe in fairy-tales, et cetera, but how high is this chance? I know ... equally high as relativism is true.

The State of Malcontent VII

But consider what life is to the average relativist. Nothing but a cosmic accident, a coincidence. After the big bang (which they accept only very reluctantly, as contrary to Darwinism, leaves room for God), you first get through the evolutionary stages of cosmic soup, then dinos, giant squid and pterodactyls, topped up with a comet crash as grant finale. After which the mammals get their turn on the cosmic stage. So far, so good. By that time it's not long before we encounter apes, naked apes, Charles Darwin and other champs of relativism. Once in existence we eat, sleep, copulate and multiply, thereafter die, never to be heard of ever more.

How's that for breeding the ultimate cynic! It is a purposeless world, a void empty of vistas and morals* they have us subscribe to. Thus made, not created, we can dispense with God, "whom we have invented because we cannot accept the inevitable". Besides, we can do much better ourselves without the moral authority watching our every step from above. So we pass through the motions of life. And how to pass the time? Well, you live life to the fullest; you get it all and you get it now, before it is all over. Never mind eventual consequences and the harm you may cause to yourself and others in the process.

This nihilist world view is also detrimental to the value of human life. There is nothing in which man differs from the animal kingdom. He's part and parcel of it, being a glorified, naked ape himself. The good news is that this view has resulted in the upgrading of animals. Humans on the other hand are increasingly dispensable, if not downright harmful, as some biologists suggest. If you ask me, they are the biggest instigators of "Down With Us", but I could be mistaking. Anyway, they opine that babies are the biggest polluters imaginable, and their advice to the world at large is, do suicide if you want to help the environment; if that's too drastic just dispense with air travel and motoring, and make up for your sins by remaining childless! Since in Europe we are already under-performing in that department, this is very bad advice indeed. But for those offspring that get through the net, their raising can be limited to the teaching of a few survival skills and acquiring the ability to get the most material stuff the fastest possible.

Anything that is technically possible is being done without further ado, as science and medical practices are moving out of the public domain, as some people would have it. With the passing of time we are also getting healthier and richer, without having to overcome the natural setbacks that were part and parcel of life to the generations before us. Thus fitted out we don't learn to deal with frustrations and to accept that we're not all made the same (no, we're not!). That doesn't mean the value of a person less endowed is dimished, he's just different. Egalite is a legal term, dignity is a moral one. Spiritual guidance is optional and only for the few. What's weak must give way to the strong and cannot expect to be protected. That's also Darwinism, in a social sense.

We moan and groan about everything, lose our sense of humor and respect for life and other people, because in the end there's nothing but emptiness. It begs the ironic conclusion that we've never been this poor and sick before, albeit in an immaterial sense! Can you blame the Dutch and the other Eurolanders for committing cultural suicide, the slow way? Still, one more generation or so should do the trick!
The End (of the series).

* This statement may anger some liberals, but while we're on the subject - they should specify at long last where exactly it is that their moral code is laid down. Dedicated posting to follow.