Of Potentates, the Lie and Altered States of Reality

Russian writer and Soviet dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote in 1974: "In our country the lie has become not just a moral category, but a pillar of the state." Think about that profound statement for a while!

The Berlin Wall was raised by the Soviets for a purpose: it marked the border between the real world and the altered state of reality that the Communists had created. The manuscript of his book The Gulag Archipelago had to be smuggled out. This is how the public in the West learnt what was going on. But not everyone wanted to. Some had erected their own altered states of reality.

I am reminded of Solzhenitsyn's profound statement with every encounter with Orwellian Newspeak. That is, with increasing frequency.

For novices to the phenomenon, Newspeak is politically correct language and a tool for thought control. Often a word is used in a way that it means the opposite (as in German "Democratic" Republic, "the religion of peace", "social justice" as synonymous with the freedom of property, or that ethics consists in good intention and never in bad outcome).

Subjectivism is based on a fallacy - that truth "as such", does not exist, but entirely depends on your perspective. This fallacy is the enemy of reality, fact, objectivity, wisdom, truth and ultimately, of liberty itself.

From the error a string of fallacies ensues, amongst others about the nature of language, and even of thought itself. Thought and language become ends in themselves, and are perceived to create reality, rather than understanding and describing it: a reversal of the cognition process.

There is an uncanny relationship between tyranny and the lie. All tyrants are subjectivists. Truth and reality are the given, and as such much be accepted but once malleable, this opens up entire new vistas to those who seek control.

Bullies and potentates - seeking power for themselves or for the sake of the common good - want as much control as possible; so the ability to change reality in the perception of the people is a tool they can't pass up. First they resort to coercive measures. Political correctness, relativism, incrementally shifting definitions, and Newspeak fall into the Nudge category. Later on there are other means at their disposal: punishment, violence, terror, purges, oppression, arbitrary rules and regulations, forced labor and lunatic asylums.

If the nudges are properly executed - which is true today - reality will be turned on its head, truth turned inside out, and mental and intellectual chaos result. This dis-ease is known as cognitive dissonance: the feeling that all isn't well, without being able to pinpoint the precise trouble spot. I believe it is responsible for much of the psychological trauma people experience today.

Yesterday it was reported that the cast iron sign over the gate of the Auschwitz Memorial, "Arbeit Macht Frei", was stolen but recovered, cut into three pieces. Arbeit Macht Frei (work will set you free) in relation with a death camp is a powerful symbol of the Newspeak utilized by philosophical and political psychopaths.

Leonard Peikoff in "The Ominous Parallels" makes the case that the Nazi death camps may have been controlled experiments in mass mind control: what does the absurd, something that bears no relation with known reality whatsoever, do to the human mind ... absurd, as in Vienna walzes accompanying human beings to the gas chamber?

This is why I have devised the "Arbeit Macht Frei" banner, to be used whenever there's a Newspeak alert, to remind ourselves of what is at stake when truth and reality itself are being manipulated to suit the purposes of evil.



Related:

-  The Newspeak Dictionary
- Sparknotes: "The Principle of Newspeak"
- "The Left's Default Position: Coercion" (series)
- "Postmodern Ravages" (dossier)
- "Pomo Lingo" (dossier)

Epics for a Postmodern Era

A major part of this blog's hypothesis is the claim that Christian cosmology has stood model for the conceptual framework of almost all modern ideologies.

As God was the center of the Universe, with Pope, King or Emperor as spiritual and secular substitutes in feudal times - during modernity in Nationalism - the Nation quite literally usurped God's place, as did the State in all incarnations of Statism. That includes liberal democracy, which is presently collapsing under the weight of Postmodernism collectivism.

In Europe, philosophers as well as anti philosophers went wholesale for the substitution model, particularly after the French Revolution, when it was institutionalized in the French version of the separation of Church and State (laïcité).

A philosopher of the Enlightenment proper who has been a major influence on the founding of America - John Locke (1632-1704) - seems to have been well aware of the danger. It was also understood by America's Founding Fathers, who crafted the Republic not on the banning of religion from the state, but the state banned from the area of religion. The statist effort to institute an American form of laïcité therefore goes to the heart of the Republic.

Many writers at the time of America's childhood years - for example Alexis de Tocqueville - have commented on the fundamental role of religion in America's philosophy of liberty.

The problem becomes more clear if we look at the teleological narratives of Counter Enlightenment thinkers, like Kant (1724-1804) and Hegel (1770-1831): a dialectic, constituted of "improvement through strife". Both had a tremendous influence on two of Europe's main political strands: what is termed today, Social Democracy (and all forms of Progressivism) and Christian Democracy (so much so that the British Tories felt the need to leave the Christian Democratic faction in the European Parliament). It is where the Progressives' notion of social engineering (or 'makeability') is rooted.

From "Countering Kant": Kant foresees in a teleological progress towards an end-game by means of strife, war and discord. This brings man as a species to a more ethically evolved order. The process will ultimately culminate in a world government, an international and cosmopolitan federation of states, awaiting the coming of the Day of Judgment. This is the Hidden Plan of Nature according to Kant."

From "Heckling Hegel": Hegel's philosophy is a secular fantasy based on Judeo-Christian cosmology: God's projection, a spirit called the Absolute, represents creation which is seeking reunification with God. Its development through struggle and conflict by means of which it gets to know itself, is the story of the history of the world. The story ends when the Absolute - reunited with God - achieves full self-consciousness.

Hegel's theme was the state. Freedom is not God-given as the Enlighteners held, but granted by the state. Under the principle 'as above, so below' the state acts as the instrument of God. It is the 'ethical whole', the 'actualization of freedom', and the self-consciousness of the Absolute. As a mere aspect of the state it is the individual's duty to submit to its needs, and worship it as a 'terrestrial divinity'."

Since Marx was a student of Hegel's you may be justified in assuming that this is the ground zero of Socialism. But we must go even beyond that. Both Kant and Hegel were great admirers of Rousseau (1712-1778), the inventor of a foul notion he called "Common Will".

From "Radical Rousseau's Ravages": The latter is a concept that in Rousseau's approach requires state intervention. This should not be confused with the 'common good'. It is a far more developed conception which, and unlike the former, can only be realized in the context of civil society under the state ["Radical Enlightenment", p. 720). For the creation of a society of common will, "freedom of all the people", they need only accept the dictates of the state. This was Rousseau's essence of "true civilization." The struggle between rich and poor would then rise to a moral experience of self-restraint. [Wildmonk]

Imagine the world as a dome. Is it an empty space? Is it God's gift to humanity and a theater in which to pursue man's eternal rights to life, liberty and happiness (or property)? Or is the dome filled with Rousseau's nebulous collective ether, made up of humanity's Common Will under the State from which temporal rights are derived? We know Obama told us he likes the latter, in passing also equivocating the redistribution of wealth (or "social justice") with "economic freedom" (Orwell is his master).

This is the difference between freedom and bondage; liberty or statism; the Anglo-Saxon model or the Rhineland system; God given, inherent, eternal, individual rights - or temporal, collective rights derived from the State. The choice is yours.

We live in epic times. Global warming hysteria is the perfect narrative for enslavement to a global tyranny: a common enemy within and without demanding all encompassing collective measures, the Common Will to which we must all submit for the sake of the common good. We are sleepwalking into the trap. Consider these two examples, produced within a day of "Hopenhagen":

AP: "Climate reality: Voluntary efforts not enough" [go ahead, sue me!]


(...) analysis by the United Nations and outside management systems experts show that those voluntary reductions will not keep temperatures from increasing by more than 1.3 degrees Celsius (2.3 degrees Fahrenheit) compared with now. That's the level that scientists, the United Nations, the European Union and the Obama administration have said the world cannot afford. Good intentions aren't enough.  (...) More negotiations are planned for next year. "It just underlines the heroic effort here that the science says needs to be done; it's not easy," said Alden Meyer, policy director at the Union of Concerned Scientists. "If it were easy, it would have been done. This is a daunting effort." (...) >>>

I give you last night's entry on the Articles dossier of Climategate:

The ominous postmodern rhetoric of John Sauven, executive director of Greenpeace UK is worthy of any pocket potentate:

"The city of Copenhagen is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport. There are no targets for carbon cuts and no agreement on a legally binding treaty. It is now evident that beating global warming will require a radically different model of politics than the one on display here in Copenhagen".

Expect the last remnants of Leftist liberalism to die along with their eco illusions. Aim justifying the means, don't be surprised if the fascistic tendencies from here onwards go full throttle.

Lord Monckton was manhandled in Hopenhagen. Briefly earlier he'd asked Czech President Vaclav Klaus "whether the draft Copenhagen Treaty’s proposal for what amounted to a communistic world government reminded him of the Communism under which he and his country had suffered for so long." "He thought for a moment – as statesmen always do before answering an unusual question – and said, “Maybe it is not brutal. But in all other respects, what it proposes is far too close to Communism for comfort."

Today, as I lay in the snow with a cut knee, a bruised back, a banged head, a ruined suit, and a written-off coat, I wondered whether the brutality of the New World Order was moving closer than President Klaus – or any of us – had realized. >>>

Wretchard on PJs peeks into the future and ventures a guess what the progressivist One World tyranny might look like (do read it all!). Cheer up: "Others have given us the Christmases past and present. But Christmases future are up to us. (...) We are the last best hope of man on earth. >>>

#ClimateGate: the updates

Reminding the readership that there's a file on COP15 and ClimateGate on top of Politeia Articles for the duration of COP15 at least, which will be updated throughout with the latest revelations and commentary.

Afghanistan: the Road to Nationhood - Part II

"On Development Aid, Stability and Unification"


by Dr Sam Holliday


The visit of US Defense Secretary Robert Gates to Afghanistan, on 8 December 2009, unfortunately suggests that US policy will not basically change. Or if there is to be a change toward decentralization of power, it was well hidden.


Gates spoke of continued support for Harmid Karzai and the building, training and retention of the security forces controlled by the central government, Afghan Army and the Afghan "National" Police.


Gates stated that the US was not going to abandon Afghanistan as it did in 1969 and that money for "development" would continue to flow. He mentioned the need to clean up government corruption, without recognizing that money for "development" was one of the causes of corruption.


The visit of Gates suggests more of the same. New visibility and vigor perhaps, but still a failure to address the fundamental problems.

Because of the fragmented nature of Afghanistan any centralized government able to maintain stability would have to be strong, nationalistic, authoritarian, and corruption free; therefore, the foreign-funded government of Hamid Karzai, protected by westerners and promoting Western ideas of politics, economics, diversity, and human rights has been unsuccessful.

To have both stability and democracy would require much greater common identity among the Afghans, something that would take, under the best of circumstances, several decades to develop. Since the US will not support the kind of centralized regime now required, it is necessary to move to a more decentralized structure.

This will make the various levels of governance in Afghanistan more responsive to the people. It might not be government of, by and for the people but it will be a move in that direction from the current ineffective, corrupt centralized structures.

It will be difficult to shift to greater decentralization since the US foreign policy establishment and the United Nations think in terms of a top-down control to achieve economic and political "development". They want a single point of contact; they are accustomed to dealing with state-to-state relationships; they expect the US and Europe to expend blood and treasure to "develop" others.


They see "development" as making others more like themselves.

Decentralization will no doubt consolidate the power of Rashid Dostum, an Uzbek, Mohammad Mohaqeq, a Hazan, Abdul Rasul Sayuyaf, a Pushtun, Abdullah Abdullah, a Tajik, and their likes within the provinces. While many of these leaders have defects in Western eyes, they are capable of providing a security shield against the Muslim extremists within their our provinces—if they think it is in their interests to do so.


Getting local leaders to provide the needed security shield for the people is an essential first step to stability. Then it would be possible to influence the course of events toward a more desirable outcome. Without this first step there is no possibility of long-term stability.


Therefore, the focus of US and NATO efforts should be shifted to making local leaders, local militia, and local police more effective and efficient. If this is done the cost will be less and the benefits will be greater. XXXXX


Dr Sam Holliday is Director of the Armiger Cromwell Center


All publications copyright © 2008 Armiger Cromwell Center. Permission is granted to forward this article by e-mail to friends or colleagues on a fair use basis. For reprint permission, contact Armiger Cromwell Center at armigercc@comcast.net

Read also part I in this series, "Losing the War is Not an Option", by Arend Jan Boekestijn

Also by Dr Sam Holliday

-  American Diplomacy: "Aghan Federation"
- Armiger Cromwell Center: click "Afghanistan*New

All posts by Sam Holliday on Politeia

Related dossiers:

- "The Afghan Front"

- "Pakistan's Double Bubble"

- "The Finer Points of Warfare"

- "The Propaganda Hirabah"

- "Narco Wars"

Breaking News From Iran

"Mutiny in the Military"

by Afshin Ellian

Breaking news!

Pundits and diplomats have been wondering why the Iranian regime is loath to use the China model against protesters and opponents in the Green Wave movement. The China model stands for an extremely brutal, widespread and violent crack down on the opposition. Well, what does it mean?

Tanks and armed military charging and firing into the crowds. A wave of executions is also included in the model. Applied to Iran that would mean deploying around three in the morning and arresting anyone 'green'.

All means of communication are shut down simultaneously. Citizens will be waking up to an address by the leader who declares the rallies over. Thousands will be executed. Swiftness and brutality is the essence of the China model. Why doesn't Khamenei do that?

He pondered it this summer before he became indisposed. He even gave the order to arrest opposition leader Mousavi. But he withdrew the order when he was told that Iran would explode.

But a more important reason may be found in the military themselves. The Army and swathes of the Revolutionary Gard (RG) would have chosen the side of the people. Khamenei's military power would have collapsed. There were indications for that, but not proof. But that has now changed.

So far the Iranian Armed Forces have not been involved in oppressive action against the people. On December 10 a number of officers and commanders issued a statement. The statement was signed by:

- A number of Pilots and employees of the Airborne Division of the Iranian Army (Havanirooz);
- A number of commanders and employees of the 33rd Artillery of Isfahan;
- A number of pilots and personnel of the Iranian Air Force;
- Lecturers at the Shaid Satari Air Force University;
- A number of officers and personnel at the Logistics Training Center of the Iranian Army;
- A number of professors and lecturers at the Imam Ali University for Army Officers;

- A number of officers, personnel and commanders of the Armed Forces Chief of Staff.

The declaration reads:

"We have been fighting together with our brothers in the Revolutionary Gard to defend the nation, the people and our honor". They emphasized that ... "the value of the country is the value of the nation". That's interesting!

It isn't abstract concepts like Iran or Islam, but it's the value of the nation that is the value of the country. Therefore the weapons of the Armed Forces and RG are disposed to the defense of the nation: "When we fought together, we had no inkling that a part of the RG would turn their weapons against the people."

The short declaration issued by these brave officers will render them immortal: "The Armed Forces are a place of refuge to the nation and will never oppress the people at the request of politicians. We will stand by our pledge not to intervene in politics. But we will not be silent when our compatriots are oppressed by tyranny."

"Therefore we warn the gardists who have betrayed the martyrs (of the Iran-Iraq War) and decided to taint the lives, properties and honor of our civilians. We give them clear warning that if they don't see the error of their ways, they will have to deal with us. We will defend the peace loving Iranian nation against any form of aggression".

The declaration has been published on the sites of various human rights organizations, Iran Press News, Amir Kabir and Gooya.

I've discussed it with various sources inside and outside Iran. It is real. If Khamenei will have these officers arrested, resistance will spread like wildfire to all barracks.

It is ironic that Air Force officers have now joined ranks with the people. Thirty years ago that was also the case when the Shah was toppled in just a few weeks' time. Now that his power is waning in the military, American and European diplomats should warn Khamenei of the consequences of his rule.

Related:

- "Persian Power Play"

- "Ellian Blogs"

COP15: the Vortex of Global Socialism

Image by genetew via Flickr

Yesterday at COP15 (that's eco lingo for the Copenhagen Climate Conclave) European leaders signed off on "7.2 bn Euros* over the next three years to a fund to help developing nations adapt to climate change. Announcing the deal, Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said all 27 EU member nations would contribute." (...) >>>

* That's peanuts compared to what is actually being claimed! Estimates range between $100 and $350 bn a year.

To those who labor under the illusion that it's just "government money", just wait till next tax day. Or your energy bills.

Perceptive followers of the news may be aware of a small scandal in the margins of COP15, dubbed "Climategate". It is a confirmation of what many long suspected: that there's a mechanism at work called "confirmation bias", if not - that downright fraud is taking place. Where politics and science meet, corruption ensues.

Others hold that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) can never be proved. It is a given that we will just have to accept as dogma, on the off chance that it's actually true (what was that about a pseudo religion?). It is also true that the universe isn't static: apart from the eternal laws of physics, things are changing all of the time - the climate - meaning: the composite of prevailing weather conditions in a given region (which is why "saving the climate" is such a ridiculous claim) is not exempted.

On this off chance leaders are pledging away billions of tax payers' money in a time of economic crisis and hand it over to developing or stagnant countries in the world, under the radar and as an alternative money stream, now that development aid is no longer an unquestioned form of global welfare.

The BBC is reporting that the G77 bloc of developing nations and China has reacted furiously to the EU offer. Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping, representing the G77 has accused them of acting like "climate sceptics" (apparently as a replacement term of 'fascist!' now that warmists have claimed that ad hominem as their badge of honor).

He said during a news conference that "they are essentially saying that the problem does not exist. Their pledge does not address financing in its totality. We want to know where the money is coming from. Is it overseas development aid or not?"

Yes, we would also like to know!

"Swedish Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt (...) acknowledged that the pledges were "a combination of new and old resources".

"Almost all of the money is likely to be simply a relabelling of existing aid commitments," said Anne-Catherine Claude, of ActionAid."

"Oxfam EU climate change adviser Tim Gore was also disappointed. "(...) this money is not even new - it's made up of a recycling of past promises, and payments that have already been made," he added."

Arend Jan Boekestijn is a Dutch scholar and a subsciber to Douglass North, Wallis & Weingast's theory "Violence and Social Orders". (His article "Losing the war (in Afghanistan) is not an option" was posted here yesterday.)

Boekestijn's book "De Prijs van een Slecht Geweten" (The Price of a Bad Conscience) (Aspekt) hit the bookstores in the Netherlands just yesterday. He's making the case that development aid in its present form is doing more harm than good. He's doing so on the basis of the following arguments:

1. The moral hazard: the UN sends peace missions, the developed world healthcare and eduction. What's there left to do for a national Government? Sustainability and aid addiction?

2. The cause of poverty is bad governance (autocracies, Socialist experiments, theocracies, etc.) .

3. There's no clear correlation between aid and economic development.

4. Good governance ought to be a condition for debt relief.

5. More aid doesn't lead to better economic growth. There's no lack of capital in Africa, but capital in Africa has a how productivity.

6. Aid harms democratization: why raise taxes when aid keeps poring in? No taxation, no representation. To which we may add: erroneously applied, democracy may actually legitimize tyrants, and pernicious collectivist regimes.

7. Aid leads to a hard local currency at the expense of exports.

8. Aid is supporting evil regimes and oppressors.

It's an interesting study and we'll be back on this issue shortly.

But while the Marxist poverty narrative is proved false, the combined forces of transnational progressivism and climatism are ensuring that a parallel stream of money keeps poring into the vortex of global Socialism.

Related dossier:

- "The Perversion of Development Aid"

Afghanistan: the Road to Nationhood - Part I

Image via Wikipedia

"Losing the war is not an option"

by Arend Jan Boekestijn (original article in Dutch)

Pundits are fond to cite George Orwell lately: the fastest way to end a war is to lose it. Afghanistan has divided the West. We have acted so recklessly that it appeared at times as if losing the war was indeed the object. But it would have dire consequences for Western security.

For those who are taking pleasure in debunking Obama: losing the war in Afghanistan is no option. As long as Europe seeks strength in diversity, appeasement and cashing in on peace divident we shall have to settle for Obama. Defeat is nothing less than an affirmation of the jihadists' view that the decadent West has no staying power.

Failure would be a colossal encouragement to even widen the front. In case you're not so sure: defeat in Afghanistan means that the Pakistani jihadists, who won't rest until they've appropriated the national nuclear arsenal, will be able to use Afghanistan as a hide out. To use the word defeat in such a situation, reveals a shocking deficit in responsibility.

It is wiser to learn of ones mistakes. In Afghanistan the US and NATO have chosen for a light military presence. This forced the Afghan President Hamid Karzai into making deals with warlords that were in their economic tribal interests. Some were even included in the Government: keep your friends close, but your enemies closer.

Like half a century ago in South Vietnam, when President Ngo Dinh Diem was given to understand that he must democratize, Karzai was driven to an act of similar political suicide given the lack of a loyal opposition. This weakened his position even further. Karzai is quite literally consumed by paranoia. At night he rides his chauffeur driven car through Kabul, hoping to discover what is really going on.

Finally Karzai's political system was made to absorb such insane amounts of aid, that corruption, endemic in this patrimonial system, rose to alarming levels. In Africa many political systems have been corrupted by development aid, but that is insignificant compared to the intervention in Afghanistan. The mistakes in Africa were multiplied hundred fold.

And yet, in all this gloom over this fest of follies and flubs there's some reason for optimism. First of all, it is encouraging that Obama, like his predecessor George Bush, albeit reluctantly, chose for a surge. Admittedly, 30,000 extra troops is minimal, and half of what General McCrystal's requested, but Obama has come through in spite of severe opposition in his own party.

It is very well possible that 30,000 troops are too few to force a breakthrough in the war, but that sounds hollow from the mouth of an inhabitant of a continent whose contribution is only minimal compared to the American effort. Why doesn't Europe do more?

Secondly, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has shaded somewhat Obama's assurance that withdrawal would go ahead in the summer 2011. That will only happen if the circumstances allow. This is not without significance, because the famous 3-D approach - Defense, Diplomacy and Development - can only succed if the West shows fortitude.

We are talking here of a decades long involvement, not just a few years. Anyone who believes the West will never be able to muster the staying power may be right, but should stop complaining about severe damage to the alliance and a potentially fatal defeat in the fight against political Islam. It's not an attractive perspective. Moreover, alternative presence on the ground, like cruise missiles and drones, offer even less chance of success. Whether we like it or not, we won't fix this problem without boots on the ground.

The question is also if the economic crisis will allow America the cost of a major contingent after 2011. If not, we're in deep trouble as the EU is still unable to act militarily. The word 'still' reflects politeness rather than realism. There is no cause for joy over the economic resilience of Obama's country either.

Neither is there about Obama's inquisitiveness. But he steered wisely clear of mentioning democratization in the same breath as failing states. That's a bonus. Anyone who witnessed the blood-curdling spectacle of the Afghan election can rest assured. Ballots without functioning institutions and a loyal opposition - in other words, without a civil society - are a recipe for instability and in-fights.

Elections in closed societies are of a different nature than we're accustomed to. In civil societies temperatures may rise, but they lead to legitimization because the new Government reflects the results of the ballot box, irrespective how disastrously difficult a governing coalition may be formed.

In the absence of a civil society the dynamics of the ballot box potentially undercut the understanding between the leaders of the oligarchy not to use force. As a result few can resist the temptation of vote-rigging. And that is precisely what happened in Afghanistan. When the second candidate withdrew, the Americans had no choice but to endorse Karzai. His legitimacy is at an all time low.

Above anything else Afghanistan needs stability and order. Only then there's the chance of a meaningful relationship between the center and the periphery. It is up to us to shield the Afghan regime from becoming a safe-house for those who wish to destroy Western civilization. Jihadists from Pakistan using Afghanistan as a launching pad to topple the regime in Islamabad, is also a hazard that must also be averted.

Before we can safely speak of stability we need to ask ourselves why we're training an Afghan standing army. For Karzai? I don't think so. He's a dead man walking. A military corps will only bring stability if it reflects the existing balance of power, giving it legitimacy in the 19th Century meaning of the word. This will not enthuse everyone in the West.

The American proposal to finance tribal militias is very dangerous, but not inept. A tribal balance of power at the provincial and central level is not trivial. The alternative, training Afghan armed forces, is not without its problems either. The current army is tribally unbalanced and it is no wonder upto a third has deserted. It's fairly easy for the Taliban to infiltrate such an artificial construct.

Stability will only be possible in Afghanistan if the Westminster model is neatly tucked away, to gather dust somewhere in a nondescript drawer. Think tribal, practical, undeterred, and bide your time. All other options, democratization, abandonment or just providing development aid, will lead to an instable order, at odds with vital Western interests.

What should the Netherlands do? Forget about being a leading ISAF nation, but recoup, and go back to the area where vital interests are at stake: the Greater Middle East. And to those who think that the West lacks the political will to endure this fight over longer stretches of time, I can only advise you to seek refuge under the bed.

Arend Jan Boekestijn is a historian, associated with the University of Utrecht, the Netherlands. His book "De Prijs van een Slecht Geweten" (The Price of a Bad Conscience") (Uitgeverij Aspekt) will hit the bookstores today.

NRC: "Dutch politician asks if aid really aids"

In a new book, former politican Arend Jan Boekestijn joins the choir of people challenging the usefulness of development aid. >>>

Read also part II in this series, "Of Development Aid, Nation-Building and Unification", by Dr Sam Holliday

Related dossiers:

- "The Afghan Front"
- "Pakistan's Double Bubble"
- "The Finer Points of Warfare"
- "The Propaganda Hirabah"
- "Narco Wars"

Related:

- Pat Dollard
- Michael Yon

- The Armiger Cromwell Center (click Afghanistan*New)

- ISAF (NATO) Official Page

The Unholy Alliance: a Work in Progress

As dumbing down continued to the point of now even Socialists coming out against their own "equality of outcome" policies in education, and as anti authoritarianism abdicated parental autonomy, smart asses in the religion of piece are preparing to strike the fatal blow with false equivalence.

Parlour games for a relativized season of good will: find the theological mistakes in the Jesus4Sharia campaign?

Hat Tip: Tea & Politics (Angry Infidel)

Team Wilders Versus Pomo Law

The paper version of Dutch newspaper De Telegraaf reported this morning that Geert Wilders' star lawyer Abraham Moszkowicz has lodged a complaint with the Amsterdam Court of Appeal against their indictment of Wilders for "insulting a group".

Come to think of it: this charge may not even be constitutional. I don't know about your country, but it's the first time I hear that "groups" are a legal entity. Article #1 of the Constitution reads:

"All on the territory of the Netherlands will be treated equally in equal cases. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, philosophy or political affiliation, race, gender, or any other ground, is prohibited".

This article constitutes the principle of equality. The indictment against Wilders on the other hand rests on the postmodern collectivism of "groups", i.e. the ground for direct action i.e. positive discrimination, i.e. unequal groups being compensated in proportion to their inequality. This flies in the face of Art. 1.

Moszkowicz' complaint is rooted in a prior arrest in which someone claiming that "Islam is evil" was acquited because Islam is not a person. At least one Judge had the sense - like Catholics have been doing throughout history - to separate the persona from the idea.

Keeping an eye on De Telegraaf website for details.

Related:

- "Wilders Fights Back"
- "Politicians Under Fire by Loose Pomo Canons"

Related dossier:

"In Defense of Liberty"

The Turkish Capacity for Chutzpah

In a recent entry on the Articles file "In Defense of Liberty" we brought up the matter of a Dutch Parliamentary delegation headed for Turkey running into trouble, because the Turkish Government refused to meet with Geert Wilders, a member of the party. It's just become official and to his honor, the Socialist leader of the group has cancelled the tour altogether.

The Turkish Government kindly confirmed for us a number of 'preconceptions' we are allegedly laboring under. For one, true to tradition and in a fit of psychological projection, they're blaming the other party. Secondly, that they are not mature enough to join the EU. The Muslim sense for solidarity trumps objectivity every time. And get this! It's not them who are intolerant, but Wilders, the xenophobes, the Dutch, the Swiss, the Islamophobes, the fascists!

The Erdogan Government's top EU negotiator Egemen Bagis just commented on the Swiss anti minaret plebiscite. (N.B. Switzerland is not an EU member state.) He's advising rich muzzlemen to remove their pots of gold from Swiss banking paradise and place them on Turkish halal banks: that'll make the Alpine fascists see the error of their intolerance!

He went on to state that Turkey easily meets the EU requirement of respecting minorities. Yeah, ask the Greeks, the Armenians, the Assyrians, the Kurds, or any other former subject of the Ottoman Empire or of the current secular state! Your jaw hitting the pavement yet? There's more where that came from.

Yassin Musharbash writing in Germany's Der Spiegel makes an argument which truly defies all logic. He's asserting that the rationality behind the often heard demand for Islamo-Christian reciprocity is bizarre! (By the way, has anyone heard anything of late about the Pope's talks with 138 Muslim clerics?)

- Caption: Head uncovered, Patriarch Athenagoras prays before the overturned altar table of the destroyed Panagia Church in Belgratkapi. (Photo by Demetrios Kaloumenos) - Hat Tip: My Greek Odyssey -

It's false equivalence, says Yassin Musharbash in his Spiegel article, because ... as we all know ... Christians in Muslim countries are indigenous, while Muslims in Christian countries are not! Makes all the difference, right?! Of all false arguments this one fairly takes the cake!

Specifically noteworthy from a revisionist view point is:

"As Islam spread from Saudi Arabia, the number of Christians dropped as many people converted to the new religion. Forced conversions were the exception; many sought the tax benefits that came with being Muslim. Today, of course -- primarily on account of massive exoduses -- there are relatively few Christians in the Arab and Muslim world, perhaps only a few percent. Even Bethlehem no longer has a Christian majority.

Let me translate that for you. As Mohammed's conquering hordes swept through Christian lands, Christians heartily and voluntarily converted to the new "religion of peace". The choice of death, conversion or jizyah never came into it. (It's the first time I've seen it described as a "tax benefit".) The entire arrangement was so successful that said converts - again entirely of their own free will - exited Muslim conquered lands en masse. That's why there are now only few Christians left in the Arab world, including Bethlehem and quite a few other locations in the Dar-Al-Islam ...

Turks truly are the champion producers of chutzpah. It fairly takes your breath away.