Continued from Part I: "A Bag of Postmodern Curses (I): Potentates, Narcissists and Hume's Law"
Jack's post also made painfully visible that Europeans - unlike Americans - despite all the claims of prolonged civilization and sophistication, still have not taken ownership of their politeia: in their minds they are still subjects, waiting for the ruling political elite to throw them a democratic bone or two from time to time. When will Europeans storm the hideous Berlaymont with pitchforks and illicit fire arms? It's theirs, even if they don't realize it! They've paid for it; the ruling elite rules in their name, on their behalf and at their pleasure!
In respect of the hell-hole that is EU politics, I recently lifted the following laudable anonymous statement from the commentary section of 'nourishing obscurity":
"(...) it should be obvious to the public at this point that since there has been no ratification (of the EU's new treaty that isn't a constitution), and a NO vote on an issue that was billed as requiring a unanimous vote, that there must be considerable doubt as to the legal existence of the EU at this point. Certainly expenditures on activities set up in the unauthorised "Constitution" are entirely illegal. So where are the legal challenges?Why is our Monarch (Queen Elisabeth II) mute? These reptiles are entirely soluble, so lets dissolve the bu**ers! "
Sound advice indeed! What are we waiting for? Please let me know where I can sign on the dotted line ... in the meantime I'll get the pitchfork out of the grease! Looking forward ...!
In The Netherlands - as we speak - what passes for a 'public discourse' is going on over M.P. Geert Wilders' plans to produce a film, explaining the somewhat fascist character of the Koran, which regretfully isn't clear yet to everyone.
The former leader of the Christian Democrat Labour Union CNV, a 'Leftist Christian' (never mind the oxymoron for the moment) called Terpstra, has taken a stand against the initiative and is amassing politically correct support against Wilders in a case of psychological projection. He does so in blind solidarity with fellow 'believers' in ways and words he himself would never use to defend Christianity.
The 'discourse' goes entirely along Relativist lines: one personal opinion based on emotions is set against another - all monitored by various polls and surveys - as the establishment of the objective truth in the matter remains painfully beyond reach! Personally I ask myself the rhetorical question when someone in that country will realize that this is about as far removed from a debate as you can get! Public, or personal opinion, is not - I repeat NOT - synonymous with right!
Roger Bacon, English philosopher (1214-1292): identified several obstacles to truth, among them uninstructed popular opinion and long-standing but erroneous custom.
Wilders - unlike the recently repentant Flemish anti Islamization party "Vlaams Belang" (presently the cause of a bitter falling out within the blogging Counter Jihad community) - has no (neo) Nazi, nor any other fascist roots - but on the contrary, was and is a Classical Libertarian whose sole vice is admiration for the state of Israel, which the last time I checked, wasn't (yet) a criminal offence.
The terms in which Terpstra is addressing Wilders have no basis in reality whatsoever. Let's fisk a few quotes:
"Again and again Wilders uses Muslims to create a platform for himself and willingly directs society towards polarisation." (The same stopper was used against Hirsi Ali. Muslims of course play no part whatsoever in said polarization.)
"I am annoyed by this man who creates divisions and who sets minorities against each other. I am annoyed by the fact that Wilders takes no responsibility whatsoever for a discourse on arguments on the topic of the multicultural society." (On the contrary, it is Wilders who takes responsibility at considerable personal cost. His actions are by no means gratuitous. But it is of course 'assertive' Muslims and their facilitators who create divisions. The arguments he so yearns for, Wilders intends to contain in the film which Terpstra so heavily objects to as being fascist! N.B. the use of the term "multicultural society"! As if it were a given fact, instead of a conscious choice.)
"Wilders as an MP, has duties towards society. One may expect a sense of responsibility not to hurt people or minorities. But Wilders abuses his position and right of free speech as an alibi to provoke and divide." (Speechless, for once - don't know where to start!)
"Democracies run the risk of implosion ... Wilders' so-called free speech is a threat to a society in which tolerance, hospitality and solidarity are core values." (Que?! Terpstra appears to have missed that Western society is under siege ... hospitality indeed!)
"When are reasonable people going to take a stand? When is enough, enough? When will we explain to Wilders that we want a society in which people respect each other and that we want a dialog based on mutual respect and values (...) with respect for the words in the Koran, as I wish the Biblical message to be respected." (As it happens there seem to be less and less 'reasonable people' around. Elsevier is reporting today that Terpstra is practically having to round them up at gunpoint. Where's the dialog and respect in "shut it, in twenty years' time we'll own this country!" Where was Terpstra when the Red Left were ridiculing black frocks and called the Pope a criminal?)
"The time has come for a resounding "no" from society, to the evil message of Wilders and his ilk."
"Wilders is evil and evil must be stopped!" ("Nothing personal intended there", explains Terpstra in earnest.)
This man gets it, doesn't he? He's exemplary of the delusions that are raging in the minds of the Left, be they Christians or 'free-thinkers'. The 'cognition process' (that I suspect rages entirely on a subconscious level) starts by aligning with Islam for whatever reason outlined in "The Unholy Alliance: Conflating the Three Great Isms". In this particular case probably his declared solidarity with fellow 'believers'. This rests on the premise that Islam is in fact a religion, which - in view of its source and practices involved - is debatable.
The premise also excludes from the equation any eventual shortcomings in Islam: they are completely ignored, even though they are staring him in the face each and every day. Dr Sanity in "Behead the Enemies of Steyn!" recently writes:
"If you think the Islamic reactions to benign incidents seem to be escalating (...) you are correct. The reason for this is a psychological one (...) If you want to get people to behave responsibly you must first have an expectation that they will; you cannot be opposed to murder and then let them get away with it.
"The first moment when the West failed to stand up to the insanity being promulgated by the adherents of Islam and instead appeased it, was when all of Western civilization extended a carte blanche to the barbarians to do whatever they wanted, fully aware that they would be able to away with it.
"The first time Muslims who practice the "real" Islam (at least they keep telling us it exists) failed to confront the fanatics in their midst, and instead let them take over the indoctrination and politization of their children, was when so-called 'tolerant' Islam was thrown out with the dirty bathwater."
Terpstra is still extending cartes blanches as he decided to ignore any wrongdoings on the part of the religion of peace, let alone that he will realise he isn't empowering the moderates, but on the contrary is leaving them in the lurch and at the mercy of radicals and fanatics!
~ Continued in Part III: The following false move in Terpstra's reasoning process is "Wilders is a fascist because he is anti Islam". As we know, all fascists are anti Islam: read the comparison between Hitler's book "Mein Kampf" and Islamic Scripture at the bottom of this file! ~
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment