Progress Report (2): Plugging the Holes Against Reality

~ Continued from Part I: Progress Report: the Simple Truth ~

Ayn Rand's views on ethics - whatever we may think of the Objectivist philosophy as a whole - is a rational guideline in polarising times such as ours. In the current confusion it is easy to lose sight of the imperatives. However - when people are made subservient to ideology, and when playing dice with the existence of an entire nation of fellow humans is looked upon as throwing rabid fascists a bone, this should wake us up to the fact that something is seriously rotten at the core.

Striking a compromise between two ethically, mutually exclusive propositions, is siding with evil. This has nothing to do with a lack of nuance, or a black-and-white world view, but sound reasoning. In the choice between food or poison a compromise is death. The relativism prevalent today, that denies the existence of objective reality - and consequently of morality - that recognises only social constructs, but no right or wrong, no good or evil, is leading us up the path we all hoped to have left behind us for ever with the collapse of Communism (and National Socialism decades earlier).

In order to avoid lumping the innocents with the terrorists the political Left have reversed the logic, instead lumping the terrorists with the innocent. This perversion in reasoning is a two-edged sword. It provides the radicals with a free pass, while at the same time taking of a moral stance is abdicated. But moral neutrality is fiction! The above is a fine example of the distorted rationale as a result of relativist thought patterns. There's more.

This moral cowardice, that refuses to make a decisive choice for the good, has two more far-reaching consequences: they turn against and betray those who seek to protect Western civilization from the onslaughts of a culturally sterile Third World death cult that spells the end of liberal democracy as we knew it - to say nothing of human and civil rights. Or do they suppose that the basic right to life is well protected in the hands of Osama c.s. - one culture or religion being just as good as any other?!

They also fail to make a choice for supporting the moderate, innocent Muslims who increasingly find themselves isolated in fundamentalist ghettos. They don't stand a chance of standing up to wife molesters and honor murderers, let alone effectuating the only hope for moderate Muslims and the rest of the world to ever live together in peace, the reformation of Islam from within. On all counts, no moral choice turns out be a choice for evil.

Blog after blog is filled every day with frustrated updates on the inroads and trespasses of the Third Jihad on life in the West. I have meant to tell the global counter-jihad community for some time now that their energies and efforts are largely wasted if we don't at the same time convince the politically correct facilitators, appeasers, advocates and moral cowards at home that they are backing, aiding and abetting evil.

It is by their grace that Islamization is making the advances that it does. Their short term policies are driven by the expansion of the cohorts of 'victims', thus broadening the Leftist constituencies. The source of this blunt, cynical opportunism - coupled with the tear jerking sentimentalism - is once again the relativism on which the Leftist ideologies are based.

Our quarrel is not with Ali and Aisha next door! It is advocacy groups and legislators - specifically in the transnational entities of the UN and the (unelected) politically correct politicians in the European Union (national parliaments have been made fiefdoms that are allowed to wield the rubber stamp 'approved') - that see to it that democracies are turning into post democratic, neo feudal dictatorships - secular or under Sharia law is entirely equivalent to them.

Grassroots initiatives like "Stop the Islamization of Europe" are by now in serious peril of being declared criminal organizations, together with granny taking an offence at gay parades and clergy refusing to marry persons of 'the same sexual persuasion'. This is the result of the surrogate morality that is thought up to plug the ethical holes left behind when relativist thought is embraced.

Virulent Islam is in the process of being legally insulated by the collaborators in The Unholy Alliance in power in all tiers of Western government, from the local school governing boards and town councils, to national parliaments and supranational Quangos. Terrorists and bullies need to be told in no uncertain terms where it is exactly that they get off, but as long as there's a home force standing guard over their advances, most of the energy invested is going to waste, and what's more, is on the brink of being outlawed altogether as incompatible with the prevailing surrogate morality (read ideology)!

In the present and in the upcoming post I'll present two cases that make mince-meat of our basic rights and the rule of law. As we speak, an investigator into the West's home grown branch of Al Qaeda is intimidated into silence. It is an attempt to keep him from sitting on a forum and speaking out during an upcoming police convention. The ultimate aim is to muzzle him altogether by discrediting his reputation, in the process rendering the freedom of enquiry a dead letter.

Even worse, the intimidation of investigative authorities constitutes an assault on the rule of law itself. Don't think that one isolated case of mob rule doesn't harm the principle! As explained above, 'a little pregnant' means defeat in moral cases. And if 'omerta' rules, who's to say this is indeed an isolated incident?

People like him (i.e. Salman Rushdie, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Geert Wilders to name but a few) are under threat and can only be protected via the official channels if we're not to stoop to paramilitarism. But what, if the official channels are concurrently threatening to clasp counter Jihad bloggers in irons the moment they set foot on home soil, back from 'self-imposed' exile? Read the case of Lionheart - Hat Tip 1389 Anti Jihadist Tech Blog. Debbie at Right Truth is apparently coordinating, is in touch with Lionheart by mail and has more links and information available on the dismal case.

In the next post, we'll give further details on the West's home grown branch of Al Qaeda, what it means for the investigative scholar in question, and what is the current state of liberal democracy.

~ To be continued in Part 3 of Progress Report: "the Assault of the Rule of Law" ~

- Filed on Articles in "Progress Report: Summary", cat. Balkans/E.Europe, GWOT, Moral Legislation, Neo Totalitarianism, Terrorism -

Something Rotten in the State of Europe ...

Maybe I'm missing something, but my feeling is there's something rotten in Europe. Slowly but surely, some invisible octopus is busy hindering the arms and legs of all of us, Western European citizens.

As everybody, I was watching the news to see Gary Kasparov arrested last week while he protested against Putin's regime. The media were unanimous to condemn this act of intimidation towards a citizen, willing to exercise his freedom of speech and opposition before the elections on Sunday. They pointed out that this kind of repression doesn't forecast anything good for democracy in Russia.

Well, well, well... Look at this picture. Date: September 11, 2007. Location: Brussels. Event: a peaceful demo aimed at commemorating the WTC and Pentagon attacks on 9/11 and to draw attention to the creeping Islamization of Western society - a demo forbidden by Brussels Socialist mayor Thielemans. Freedom of speech? Not in Brussels.

The guy assaulted by policemen in the picture is not a common individual. He's the President of a party voted for by 20% of the electorate, a former Belgian senator, and currently a MEP. I fully agree that this party doesn't look friendly to the remaining 80% (and me) and that the guy isn't very sympathetic. A far right guy... But anyway : he represents many citizens, was voted in democratically.

Nobody in the Belgian media protested against his brutal arrest. Why? To me, there's no difference between the two cases: between the arrest of Kasparov and our Belgian bad guy. It's not the responsibility of authorities to decide who is pleasant (or whom to vote for) or not.

The problem is, we have to deal in Belgium with an archaic Left-wing nomenklatura. In the end, I believe what distinguishes Left from Right is the level of confidence in a population. Leftists believe people can't be trusted. In their minds, the totalitarian temptation will always prevail. Ergo, they believe they have to tell people who is votable or not, who has a reasonable political vision or not.

To push this belief the whole way, they even created what they call a "cordon sanitaire" (line of quarantine) around this particular party: the party won't be part of any coalition, there'll be no debate with its leaders, and the media must do their best to ignore them.

That's what they call protective democracy, and that's what I call the beginning of a dictatorship.

After all, the essential thing is not that the Belgian Leftists isolate a party and its leaders, IT'S THAT THEY ISOLATE 20% OF THE ELECTORATE - AND ABOVE ALL - THAT THEY ISOLATE THE POLITICAL ISSUES NOURISHED BY THE FAR RIGHT MOVEMENT, NAMELY INSECURITY AND UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION.

Tackling those problems would be considered a break in the cordon sanitaire, as far Rightist parties end up being the only ones bringing these matters up. My opinion instead is, that in a democracy, no subject should be ignored. The best way to fight extremist parties is to find solutions to the problems they point out.

That is what Nicolas Sarkozy did so courageously during the French campaign last spring, shocking Leftists who accused him of flirting with Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of Front National, the far Rightist party dealing with the same kind of ban we find in Belgium. Result: Sarkozy was easily elected while Jean-Marie Le Pen suffered his worst defeat.

Back to the situation in Belgium, it's pretty obvious that Leftists don't act towards certain parties out of political ethics. We are experiencing a clear demonstration of their lack of political morality these days: an exhibition is taking place in Stavelot (in a former (medieval) abbey!!!) to record Ernesto Che Guevara and his "works". And on this occasion, local authorities were very proud to welcome Camillo, son of the famous MURDERER WHO FOUGHT DEMOCRACY FROM THE MOMENT HE CAME INTO POWER.

So, is a far Rightist leader believed to have an undemocratic vision equal to a former far Leftist leader, convinced of an undemocratic vision? Not in Belgium, ladies and gentlemen!

There are many examples of undemocratic sliding in Belgium. Just one of them: because of the Belgian voting system, voters in (French speaking) Wallonia never get the opportunity to reward or penalize the former Prime Minister in an election, because the guy is automatically Flemish and Walloons can't vote for a Flemish candidate!

And undemocratic sliding isn't exclusively Belgian either ... I believe we can find it all over Western Europe. For instance in Italy the Leftist coalition of Romano Prodi is working on a law called "Levi-Prodi Act" to silence Italian bloggers! This law foresees that you should be able to create a blog only if you're backed by an accredited journalist. Moreover, you should pay a tax for the blog, even though you don't make money out of it!

I could also talk about EU and our mysterious MEPs ... and so on. Fellow readers, I'm curious to know if you are also experiencing some strange behavior in your countries. Drop us a line ... (or visit the Forum)

I may be missing something, but my feeling is there's something rotten in the state of Europe ...