Saturday, March 21, 2009

Politics Without a Moral Compass

Dutch MP Geert Wilders filed a formal complaint against the Labour Govt of Gordon Brown yesterday with the Asylum and Migration Tribunal. Wilders was barred from entering the UK last month, fearing his presence might interfere in some way with the island nation's communal harmony. Wilders will be appraised of the first hearing date within 28 days.

How do the followers of multiculturalism - the notion that every culture is equally valid - deal with African atrocities that are the result of primitive superstition? One thinks of the truly horrific treatment of and by witches and the slaughter of albinos, killed for the magical attributes of their body parts? How does the Prime Directive hold up in the face of so much primitive anti-humanism?

The infalsifiable and irrational belief in multiculturalism (read here why it is Fascist and evil) deals with such cases by classifying them as "part of the intractable contradictions that are inherent in life". Case closed. No, says Pope. I am my brother's keeper!

Yahoo!News: "Pope condemns sorcery, urges Angolans to reach out"

Speaking of the Pope, viewers of Dutch television are once again subjected to the dishonest public debate about the Church leader and his stance on condoms. In orthodox Postmodernism the 'logic' is running basically as follows: AIDS kills - condoms kill AIDS - the Pope forbids condoms - the Pope is a murderer.

The difference between the two positions lays in what constitutes sex. To the Pope this is a matter of free will, to be exercised between two people of the opposite sex within the sanctity of marriage with a view to procreation. In theory this position is foolproof as far as the prevention of AIDS is concerned.

To Postmodernists sex is more or less the opposite. It is a mere pastime and everyone's basic human right, to be exercised at any time, in unspecified circumstances, between more or less consenting cretins. But more importantly, in consideration that "the natural urge is stronger than ourselves" it is located outside the province of free will.

This brings the discussion back to the very basic question: does man have free will? To Postmodernism it is absolutely vital that this question is answered negatively, or the entire, carefully crafted edifice of fallacies hangs by a thread! It is the prime underpinning of Darwinism, Kantian ethics, Leftist sociology and psychology, multiculturalism, and every other ism that upholds the absence of objective morality.

The Left (and Postmodern Right), when vowing to bring rubber profylactics to Africa by the jumbo load, dismiss the fact the condoms also constitute a license for promiscuous behavior, which in turn - together with its 13% unreliability rating even in Western circumstances (!) - entails a considerable risk as far as AIDS prevention is concerned.

The question arises, who is subordinating human life to dogma here? Whose position is in conformity to reason, and whose isn't?

There was a time not that long ago when Westerners knew precisely which political system is in accordance with human nature, and which suppress it. Just after World War II elementary schools taught students that the problem was situated in ideals about the total state. Prime examples of evil systems were Communism, National Socialism (Nazism) and Fascism. This was, so was explained, because total states use individuals as mere pawns to serve the whole.

When Ronald Reagan in the 80s of the last century coined the term The Evil Empire, everyone understood accurately that he was referring to the evil suppression of dissenting individuals in the Soviet Union. When fanatical students during the Iranian Islamo-Marxist Revolution kept the American Embassy and its 52 diplomats hostage over the course of 444 days, no one in the West had any doubt that this was a prime display of wickedness.

All this did not apply to the fringes the Postmodern Left. Granted, Nazism and Fascism were seen as the epitomy of evil but any Leftist equivalent - from Marxism-Lenism to the Asian agrarianism of Mao and Pol Pot - have been defended by some to this very day: the theory of collectivism is good, but it's the operatives who perhaps have made a few mistakes in implementing an otherwise morally superior theory.

Ignoring the corpses piling up, amongst those unrepentant apologists is the clique of former 'domestic' terrorist and member of the Weather Underground, Professor Bill Ayers.

Enough has been said and written during the run up of the US Presidential elections about Barack H. Obama, his prior connections to those far Left radicals and their (neo) totalitarian, authoritarian tendencies. So there is no surprise if overtures to evil regimes, such as Iran and its proxy Syria, do not register on the compass of the Obama administration on the no-no side of ethics. On the contrary!

European politicians have long been relativized, as a matter of fact, ever since the Utopian collectivist one-human-race end-games were sketched by German philosophers Kant and Hegel some two centuries ago. Firmly on the positive side of the ethics compass registers wheeling and dealing, the striving for transnational union with the rapists of human rights, those fanatics who perpetrate all manner of violations, ranging from the violent oppression of women, to the murder of homosexuals to the repression of religious and ethnic minorities.

Rather predictably the Obama overtures are already being dismissed by Iran, and rewarded with blackmail in the case of Syria. That's what you get when dealing with thugs! Ask Neville Chamberlain. Who's to say what's next? A Kim Jong-il generated test, as Joe Biden famously suggested there might be?


RatePoint Business Reviews