A New Initiative in Defense of Liberty

Liberty - as a philosophy - is in the pressure cooker. It is facing growing onslaughts from both the Left and the Right. Assertive Islam is pushing collectivism and inequality. The nanny state is brazenly out of control.

Natural and constructed crises serve as a justification to enforce rules and regulations; the Government is everywhere. They 'create' jobs and money, bail out failing industries, and 'save' the economy.

The truth of the matter is, that Government generated jobs, only cost money. The Government can't 'make' money, but must raise it from the tax-payer, or print it - another form of legalized theft in itself. Nor can it 'save' economies with Keynesian tricks: they look good, because politicians are seen as 'doing something', but it's a fallacy that is making matters worse.

Rights (entitlements), grants, privileges and subsidies are provided by the ever expanding State, making the people dependant and subservient.

Expansion seems to be the natural state of everything. So, with Thomas Jefferson we say, "from time to time the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots and tyrants". Heads no longer roll, but push back is as necessary as ever.

The nasty noughties of the present century in many ways resembled the psychotic seventies of the last: boundless activism for the Leftist cause in which truth no longer mattered and facts - if not in some way expedient for effect - became irrelevant.

The seventies were followed by the common sense years of the eighties: the era of Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher - which, not coincidentally, saw the fall of the Berlin Wall and an end to the decades of the Cold War.

As in the US the Democrats will lose their unshakeble majority in the Senate coming November, elections will also also be held in the UK where Labor's stalinist stranglehold on power has lasted since the general election of 1997, which propelled Tony Blair into office. He now seems a rather naieve political tinkerer in the light of the currect bunch of postmodern Marxists.

The Dutch Government performed its final slapstick last week, when Premier Jan Peter Balkenende lost grip of his fourth consecutive failing Government. The Board of his statist Christian Democrat party doubled down, announcing hours after the fortunate event that Balkenende would be on board for a fifth term in office as well.

It's time for a change, but let's be specific this time. As we've seen, change for change's sake can be rather a futile affair. We need to bring individual rights back to where they belong: with the people. Dismantle unequal group rights and privilages, be they based on race, culture or religion. We are all equal in the eyes God and before the Law (talk of which, let's bring back objective justice as well!)

And let's try something really new and revolutionary! Let's go for a bold separation of state and economy. While central banks and judicial Courts have been granted independence and old, derelict state corporations have been privatized, the Left is calling for regulations and renationalizations of grids, utilities and other vital institutions. But let falling banks fail, and economically irrational businesses sort out their own mess.

The State starts respecting negative rights (freedom of ...) and returns to its core business of keeping the people safe, the defense of the realm. The US Federal Government and the European behemoth go back their respective boxes, the latter writing a zillion times, "the people are sovereign".

We live in the time of web 2.0, social networking and Twitter, which recently launched the group tool, in which members can communicate privately. We have taken the initiative of bringing like minded, Liberty loving groups in different countries together on a single platform, suitably called The Right Tweets.

To date we have created groups for the United States, containing factions like #TCOT, #TLOT and #TeaParty, the United Kingdom, consisting mostly of Tory party politicians, candidates and activists, and the Netherlands, which includes the Wilders' Freedom Party. We don't know how long that will last, as Wilders is championing more Leftist causes by the hour. The moment he'll go collectivist on us, he and his followers face removal from the platform.

There's also a Facebook Group you can join. Looking forward to strengthening our base, exchanging ideas and opinions internationally, perhaps even making a conversion or two to the cause of Liberty as we go along.

Let Freedom ring!

Related articles by Zemanta

• Dutch PM: Troops to Leave Afghanistan This Year (abcnews.go.com)

Playing Dice With Liberty (I): Questions to Our Leaders

A post under the title "Financial Journalists in Crisis: Did We Fail?" has been up on the main page for the better part of this week. It shows a video produced by the European new media service, EUX.TV.

It announces the upcoming convention "Covering The Crisis"  of the European Journalists Centre (EJC) to be held on November 9 and 10 in Brussels.  The aim appears to be a rare bout of professional introspection.

The matter struck me, because the press in general on almost every issue earned themselves a huge #fail tag for non-achievement over the last couple of years. But those members of the press corps, reporting on financial and economic issues are probably the least guilty of professional sell out. Nevertheless, it is them doing the self critique. Remarkable!.

Around the 1.50 mark the video shows an unspecified pundit stating:

"We've heard from every Head of State and Government Minister that we would reform Capitalism. This [speech] came from the persons who were responsible for this mess we're in."

The question who or what actually triggered the opportune crisis may never be answered and it is perhaps immaterial, given that the subprime mortgage situation was a bubble waiting to explode in our faces. But that's just one of the questions hardly ever posed, let alone answered.

Of course, as the journalist in the video states, we've all heard our respective Heads of State's and Government Ministers' comments, particularly in the run up to the last G20 summit in Pittsburgh, but perhaps we never took their assertions all that literally (unless you are a Socialist, in which case it must have sounded like collectivism come true!).

Nevertheless, the 800 pound gorilla this commentator set loose into the room cannot be whiped under the carpet.
 
Our leaders' comments to bring down - or "reform" - the capitalist system invite a very serious charge of treason against them. Of course most people are too 'ideologically evolved' to see the problem here, but it is nevertheless very fundamental (not to say, existential).

An exaggeration then? (Treason, indeed!) But here's the thing ...

Without going too deep into the field of epistemology, this is how the human mind works: concepts are formed from percepts, and concepts are expressed in words. Words are not rough approximations! A word has a very specific meaning. Language is not just a means of communication, it is also a convention which allows us to perform complex procedures, from neuro surgery to rocket science.

Technically, the expression of a concept into words is not the same as a definition, but the term will do for the moment to re-acquaint ourselves with absolutes. We need to get back using language with the respect it deserves! Find out the meaning of a word, before using it!

Reverting to cognition, this process is done by an individual. The individual is therefore the basic universal unit. It is the result of that natural process, derived from a higher power which we may call God, or Nature, if you are an atheist.

This is nothing less than the foundation of Western civilization: the all important primary, individual rights  derived from Nature, or bestowed upon us by God, who made us equal (it is no coincidence that it is individualism and reason that are most under assault!). This brings us to secondary rights.

On the political level primary rights lead to the rule of law and limited government in the service of individual voters whom they represent. 

Individual property rights, and rights to the fruits of one's labor form the economic basis of what Carl Marx pejoratively termed, Capitalism. 

To deny this system like collectivists and statists of various hue do, or to criticize it to the point of wanting to "reform" it, as our own leaders take the liberty to do, is not without consequences for our rights and how we organize the world.

A clarification would be in order before we embark any further upon this subtle shift from individual liberty to submission to the whole. What would this "reform" entail and from who or what do you derive the authority to do so? Furthermore:

- Do you still recognize individual rights? Or are you advocating collectivism under your leadership: special prerogatives and privileges for certain groups of people based on gender, race, religion or cultural identity, bestowed upon them by the Government?

- Are you still the servants of the people? Or are you a member of an oligarchy who know better what's good for us; and do we owe you gratitude for all the positive rights that you in your goodness, will bestow upon us through the Government?

- Do you still respect our economic rights to property, and mutually beneficial interaction and trade? Or will we keep a current account with the Tax Department through which you will determine the value of our labor and services under considerations of "social justice"?

To be continued. 

- Posters by "The People's Cube": Liberty and Tea Party Posters - Complete Collection - Free Downloads - 

Who Will Speak Up for Individual Rights in #IranElection?

As even the political show trial in Iran stands symbol for collectivist injustice, it must be said that the tone of some of the reactions to our withdrawal from actively supporting the Iran uprising, serves to confirm the correctness of this decision. As said, God's speed to the collectivists in establishing regime change in Iran, but we fail to see what good it would do to exchange an Islamofascist regime with a (crypto) Socialist one. 

But should anyone actually be interested in freedom, this film explains the philosophy of liberty in the simplest possible terms. 

Here's the translation of today's Afshin Ellian post in Elsevier:

Images of the Dead Keep Emerging

Over the last thirty years crimes have been committed in the name of religion and belief, so cry out the people of Iran.

Is that true? Is it already thirty years that crimes against humanity are being perpetrated? I have spoken at length about the mass executions of 1988, how the regime within the course of just a few weeks, killed thousands of political prisoners. Even today photos and films of murdered students keep emerging. I've seen photos of Hussein Akhtarzand's body. These images paint a picture of civilians being tortured to death. Akhtarzand was a bachelor from Isfahan, a hard working man of 33 who earned a living for his younger brothers and sisters.

- Caption: Afshin Ellian - 

Neda
Information has emerged that journalist Ali Reza Eftakhari (working for newspaper Abrar Eqtesadi) was also tortured to death. Mir Hussein Mousavi says hundreds so far have been killed. But one victim has become the international face of Iran's green wave: Neda Agha Soltan. The 26 year old philosophy student was shot last month on Karegar Street in Tehran. On that day -  in order to terrorize the people - those in power decided to set a few examples. To date we knew little of Neda.

This week her mother gave a short interview to Voice of America and Radio Farda. In both interviews she emphasized that Neda did not belong to any group in particular. She just wanted Iran to be free. Here follows a short translation of the interview on Radio Farda.

Neda's mother: "We attended rallies together.  Recently she had taken up these activities. She liked going. That Saturday Neda asked me to go with her. I had other urgent matters to attend to. I asked her not to go, because things could turn nasty. But she insisted."

First she attended music lessons. Then, together with her music teacher, she went to the rally. It was a hot and busy day. They got out of the car. 

Teargas
Neda's mother: "She left the music school at 16:00. We spoke on the phone twice. She told me rounds of teargas were being fired. Then she fled into an ally to get back to the car. She was only 26 steps away from it. (Could the mother be confusing the age of her daughter with the number of steps, the distance to the car, the distance between life and death? A.E.). Her uncle had also had contact with Neda just ten minutes before her death. She said they had been lighting cigarettes to diminish the effect of the teargas. That was the last time someone has spoken to her. I was called at around 18:00 by the teacher who told me she was hit by a bullet and was taken to Shariati hospital."

Radio Farda: What did you find at the hospital?

Neda's mother: "I had called Neda's brother and sister. They arrived before I did. Her teacher told me she was hit in the leg. There was blood all over his clothes. I asked them: tell me what happened to Neda.

They told me she was hit in the shoulders. I asked: not the heart? In truth, Neda was long gone. She had died on the way to hospital. She was brought there to finish some paper work. I asked to see her. I begged them to let me see my daughter. No, they said, she's having an operation. But shortly after they told Neda's sister and her husband that Neda had died.

I saw from their faces what had happened. Then I went blank."

Buried
On the orders of the security services Neda was quietly buried the next day at 15:00 on an allocated site on Behshte-Zahra. The YouTube video of her death was available on the Internet since Saturday evening. On Sunday morning many (like myself) checked to see if it wasn't a fake. That morning I posted my article to inform you of Neda's death. Geert Wilders MP immediately demanded an emergency debate in Parliament. In the afternoon CNN, and afterwards also the BBC, started broadcasting the footage. That Sunday afternoon she was reborn as Neda, the voice of freedom. Has Neda's mother seen the film? Did she see how her daughter died?

Neda's mom: "No, I'm not allowed to see it. I heard it is a moving video that has impressed many people. Her brother cries every time he sees it. But I haven't been able to see it yet; I haven't been able to see the last moments my child was alive."

In a conversation with Voice of America she thanks the world's citizens of Europe, America and Asia.  She also thanked those politicians who declared solidarity with her daughter. Your Government is dead, our Neda (voice) is not, many in Tehran  said during the commemorations.

Afshin Ellian (wiki in English)


P.S. Next week I will answer your questions on the intelligence services and the power structure of Iran.




- Filed on Articles in "Ellian Blogs" - 

Parting Ways With #IranElection

This blog to date has been actively supporting the uprising in Iran. We have done so, motivated by the conviction that any trouble sending the regime off its nuclear collision course with history, can only be a good thing. Another motive was based on the off chance that a Jeffersonian democracy might actually spring up on Cyrus the Great's real estate. This seems more unlikely by the day.

Neocon scholar and author Francis Fukuyama published an article this week in the Wall Street Journal, "Iran, Islam and the Rule of Law". It is giving fuel to an impression, gathered from the various commentaries on Twitter and elsewhere on the Internet: there seems to be no awareness at all among the activists of a very crucial point; namely, that if the current Islamofascist regime is replaced by a softer version - or by a Leftist one for that matter - the result will not be freedom, but the replacement of one oppressive collective with another.

Make no mistake - it is not Leftism or Rightism that defines freedom - both do not. Neither does some watered down, culturally determined form of 'democracy' based on inequality among groups (related to gender, race, religion or otherwise). The pre selection of candidates in accordance with the ruling elite's idea of political correctness does also not constitute a free democracy.

Relativists among us tell us not to expect Jeffersonian democracies to blossom everywhere around the globe. They assure us that democracy is merely a sort of general recipe, and that the end result is to be determed by racial, religious, historical or cultural considerations.

Implied in this is a preunderstanding that, whatever the outcome, we will accept this entity as a 'democracy' or that at least, that we will consider it morally equivalent to a democracy.

Spoken like a true nominal relativist: the Left have performed this labelling trick before: in the German Democratic Republic and in the political abomination known as Social Democracy. In their book the prefix 'democratic' makes it synonymous with the real thing, a clear case of Orwellian double speak!

Those who look beyond labels know that what constitutes freedom, are individual rights, rather than the temporary privileges bestowed on subjects by the state. That said, it helps a great deal in establishing the state of freedom if rights are derived from God or Nature, placing them well beyond reach of the long arm of the state, whose temporary privileges can be revoked at a moment's notice.

While this blog will continue to endorse regime change in Iran, I believe the time has come to part ways with the revolutionary forces of the green wave. Sadly there's this tendency to turn against the western allies at the drop of a hat. The capitalism versus socialism dualism is never far of. Religionism is good at confusing their heavenly collective with a temporal one. I wish them God's speed and loads of wisdom. 

We will also continue to translate Afshin Ellian's posts, which often contain important inside news from the region - as it does today. 

The Iranian regime is more dangerous than North Korea

Yesterday the assassination of Neda Agha Soltan was commemorated in the Iranian cities of Tehran, Isfahan, Shiraz, Rasht, Mashhad, Tabriz, Sari. The young philosophy student [ed. who might have been a Christian* (click the link for an enlarged image)] was shot in broad daylight before the eyes of the world.

Other students who were killed by the regime were also commemorated. In Behshte-Zahra thousands of citizens were gathered for this purpose. Later on they were abused by the troops of the Ayatollahs and dispersed. Also on Wanak Square the regime acted harshly against innocent civilians. Shots have been heard.

But not everyone is engaged in rallying for the cause of freedom. Some solely occupy themselves with money and treasure.

This week state controlled media reported that 18,5 billion dollars have been confiscated by the Turkish Government. They were forced to disclose it, because Turkish TV had beat them to it. The Turkish PM remarked that in these times of crisis help is forthcoming from the 'invisible world', in this case the Islamic Republic Iran.

Take note: Turkish customs confiscated an unknown number of trucks in which 11 billion dollars worth of gold bullion and 7,5 billion dollar in bank notes had been loaded.  (...) Iranian state media reported the treasure belongs to the Iranian business man, Ismail Safarian.

Which business man in the world owns 11 billion dollars worth of gold bullion? Which business man in the world carries bank notes by the truck load? If it's true, this money belongs to a state or a state-person who wishes to transfer capital abroad for fear it might not be safe if left in the country. This is ironic, because the last Shah of Persia also transferred 15 billion dollars abroad before he was forced to leave.

Another explanation is that this money was earmarked for the reinforcement of terrorism. What do I mean? The Islamic regime must divert attention away from the situation in the region. Tehran made a deal with the Obama administration in the runup to the elections [sic]: in exchange for the American-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberi a number of Revolutionary Guard members were released from Iraqi jails. (...)

- Cartoon: Cox and Forkum - 

The guardists got a hero's welcome in Tehran. They were arrested a few years ago for terrorist activities. Five of them were so-called diplomats. Actually they were officers of the Revolutionary Guard who got themselves arrested in Arbil (Iraqi Kurdistan).

Now the situation has changed again. Creating unrest will shift attention to other areas and if the Americans plan to take counter measures, that would also be welcomed as a diversion. At this stage we don't know what the purpose of the money was. What we do know, is that the Revolutionary Guard is more active outside Iran's borders than in the past.

Terrorism and the Iranian regime are two sides of the same coin. Every year much treasure is funneled to southern Lebanon, Hamas, Iraq, the Gulf states and also Sudan. Iran has allies and friends in almost all Arab states. Taking hostage innocent civilians is a method by which Tehran negotiates with other countries, especially Western ones. During the 80s on the orders of Tehran the Lebanese Hezbollah held scores of Westerners hostage. After years of negotiations between the UN and Rafsanjani they finally were released.

Europe also needs to be on the alert. The regime has a vast network of spies and intelligence people at its disposal in Europe. If cornered, they can get exceedingy aggressive.

That is why I keep hammering on the need for the West to support the democratic movement in Iran. This regime is extremely violent and dangerous. Even more so than North Korea. Iran has funds, whereas North Korea has not.

Iran also has regional and international ambitions that North Korea lacks. North Korean leaders just want to survive. The danger of the Islamic state would increase exponentially if those in power have a number of nuclear devices at their disposal.

The transfer of billions of dollars abroad, whatever its purpose, should convince anyone that things are getting pretty serious indeed.


* It has been reported on Atlas Shrugs that on an original photo Neda Soltan is wearing a crucifix; curiously it was later cropped out of existence. It occured to me that the Cross may also be a Zoroastrian symbol. It may have merged with the Christian Cross in Roman times; many Roman soldiers appeared to have converted to Mithraism, a Zoroastrian off shoot.

What They Don't Teach in School and the Media Won't Tell

On Labor Day 2009, when discerning Leftists are removing themselves as far as possible from the original red folklore dating back to 1889, it is perhaps a good opportunity to expunge a few political fairy tales.

Of course Leftism has not ceased to exist: it has taken distance from the “Cuban jackboot” as some Dutch Social Democrat just expressed it - epitomizing duplicity, and the use of terror against its own people as part of 'Socialist theory' - it has reinvented itself and taken on the Postmodernism mask, a guise few as yet are able to recognize for what it is.
But the time of the classical Left versus Right alignment in politics is well and truly over! In fact, it never existed in the way most observers understood it.

Ever since Europe at the beginning of the last century was confronted with a false dilemma, the choice between either Fascism or Socialism, people have been misled by Rightist and Leftist ideologies that are together responsible for the loss of over 110 million souls - and counting.

What was cleverly and purposely left out of that equation was Liberty. Then - as today - the “capitalist system” is said to have failed. But Liberty is unlike any other political and social system: not only has it lifted humanity out of poverty and enslavement, it is also our birth right! As such to speak of a mere 'system', hardly defines the width and depth of the underlying philosophical principles.

To explode yet another myth, the political domain of Liberty is not situated roughly somewhere between the extremes of the Left and the Right. Both Left and Right deal in collectives: either social or economic class, or ethnic, cultural or religious groups. Liberty - the home of individual rights - is situated at the opposing end of that spectrum, standing firm for true universal equality of all individuals, irrespective to which group one 'belongs'.

Liberty is a corollary of the inalienable rights bestowed upon man by God or by nature. Rights are not generously shared out (or forfeited) by the State for good or bad behavior, but are inherent in the nature of humans as rational beings (this is why collectivists like to deny the existence of reason itself (“just a Western social construct,” or hold that man on the contrary, is a creature of passion).

Collectivists may spun fairy-tales of their hives having a 'living group soul', assuredly a collective - the modern equivalent of the totalitarian tribe - has neither a mind nor a brain, let alone a soul. That is the prerogative of creatures with self consciousness.

Rather than being on the Left or Right side of the political spectrum, the relevant question politicians ought to answer is, do you unconditionally uphold the freedoms of the individual, or should they submit to the will of the collective? In other words, do you swear to uphold the negative rights that represent the narrow boundaries within which the State may act? President Obama would beg to differ, but it's the positive rights of the 'nanny state' that are the velvet chains by which Governments secretly re-shackle the citizens to their collective.

The current Government interventions in the financial systems might well represent a coup toward a new, Pragmatist form of transnational collectivism, and whether it is Left, Right or center, is frankly immaterial. The difference between Hitler and Marx is the collective of choice: ethnic Socialism versus world Socialism.

Most politicians these days subscribe to Pragmatism. It is a basically amoral, relativist philosophy in that it does not recognize any 'right' or 'wrong' way per se of taking care of business: what counts is the expedient in relation to a specific case, in this particular moment in time. To whose and what end we can only guess: this type of politician seldom specifies anything beyond vacuous sound waves like “Change” and “Yes, we can,” the precise meaning of which is in the eye of the beholder.

The result is a cacophony of cognitive dissonance and an ideological hotchpotch in which we find the unpalatable, putrefied remains of the Communist command economy, as well as elements of free market capitalism, all held together by ligaments that have more in common with corporate Fascism than anything else.

The financial sector especially finds itself in a Fascist limbo: not altogether nationalized, but up for commandeering whenever the State sees fit - on behalf of the tax payer, of course, who wasn't asked for his opinion to begin with. It's back to the future once again: the financial sector may well end up like one of these obsolete utilities we just got rid of.

Related, recently diagnosed by Dr Sanity:

- "Capitalism and the Culture War Being Waged Against It"
- "The Nub of the Crux of the Gist of the Problem"
- "Liberal Amnesia = Hysterical Amnesia"

- Filed on Articles in “The Case for Neo Communism” -

The Brutal History of Rights

It cannot be reiterated and emphasized often enough what precisely is the nature and origin of the basic rights that many of us enjoy to this day! Few today appreciate their value and at what price they've come!

Sadly, over the last decades younger generations have been willfully indoctrinated with over abstracted and perverted versions of the basic concepts of liberty and individual rights. Some Americans hope themselves to be united in these values, but they should know these are emphatically not shared by those on the far Left side of the aisle.

- Caption: logo of the 912 Project based on "Don't Tread On Me" -

The purpose of postmodern 'interpretations' - usually a series of subtle shifts in definition until a word begins to mean its opposite - have always been entirely clear: to subordinate individuals once more to the collective and to the tyrants who take it upon themselves to realize their ideals - without fail in the name of a 'higher morality', the greater good, an illusionary common will, or whatever false ideal is brought to bear as a sad excuse on the road to hell.

Europeans have become so used to the reality of "third way" politics and mixed economies, that they firmly believe them to represent a fair balance between cut-throat Capitalism and benign collectivism. But sadly, what is experienced as a compromise is merely a brief stage in the transition process from less freedom to total tyranny.

Progress is not a timeline, but comes in loops, in cycles. Read all about it in a series of posts contributed to this blog some time ago by an author who is currently entrusting to paper his memoirs of the Korean War and must therefore be temporarily missed. Read "Understanding Change" by Dr Sam Holliday of the Armiger Cromwell Center.

Growth is the natural order of things. Survival depends on it. The same is true of corporations and governments. What starts out as an entity to protect the people's liberty - with no authority greater than the sum of rights held by the people they represent - if unchecked, the entity inevitably morphs into an autocratic Leviathan that dictates shopping hours at best and the content of our minds at worst.

One has to admire the wisdom and sense of realism held by America's founders; for instance Thomas Jefferson who proclaimed that "the people cannot be all, and always, well informed", a prerequisite for democracy, which is not an end in itself by the way, but one possible aid in the protection of individual rights. He also asserted that "the tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." (full quote)

Most may not realise it yet, but the gaping chasm between the understanding of those basic principles and the current postmodern interpretation of what constitutes freedom and government, has brought Western civilization to the brink of collapse.

Here's another great essay by Dr Sam Holliday, this time about the ominous parallels between our present time and the German interbellum, better known as the Weimar Republic: "Red Flags".

As the devastating results of the "Community Reinvestment Act" are suppressed, thanks to the spin that the current financial and economic crisis was only to be expected since 'greed' is inherent in the Capitalist system, some are already tentatively suggesting that the same dilemma is true as was pondered between the two world wars: namely that Capitalism has sadly failed us and that the only recourse is a collectivist system.

Back then the false choice was between Communism and Fascism: Left or Right collectivism. Things are not all that outspoken this time around: no right-minded politician or spin doctor would call these ideologies by their proper names.

Instead, while the global Obama honeymoon drags on and the pillars of the economy remain frozen like mesmerized deer in the headlights, a public discourse on such subjects fails to materialize and the financial crisis - too good an opportunity to pass up - is used as a leverage to implement the measures necessary for the establishment of a crypto collective.

The only question is in fact what its degree of malignancy will be?

Here's a reminder of the brutal history of our rights as promised at the head of this post. And here's the entire series. Let's see how we'll get ourselves out of this crap pit. I'd say - for starters - let's shock the silent majority out of their catatonic stupor! As usual the Americans are at the vangard while the rest of us very slowly catches on (but no guarantees there).

Cannot imagine who's copyrights that footage infringed on, but here are a few alternatives:





Boston Tea Party site

Why Multiculturalism is Racist and Evil

What do the pictures in this post have in common, apart of human esthetics and artistic excellence?

All spring from the genius of Nazi propaganda artist Leni Riefenstahl. But the icons share other characteristics.

Polylogism (here defined, and here seen in postmodern action) is a form of collectivist subjectivism that also produced the National Socialist racial theories. A postmodern term for polylogism is multiculturalism.

A people, racial or cultural group is seen as having to follow its own particular destiny apart from the rest of humanity, a historical path culminating - according to a number of subjectivist philosophers (Kant and Hegel) - in teleological endgames, often a secularized version of the Second Coming.

The irrationality of multiple 'logics' apart, this form of self-determination negates universalism and is in fact racism, with apartheid as a direct consequence.

Universalism endows the human race as a whole with basic rights, as poetically summed up in the American Declaration of Independence: (...) that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

In its result it makes no difference whether these inalienable rights are bestowed by God, are a result of Natural Law, or are seen as inherent in man's nature.

But it makes all the difference if such rights are relative, conditional and temporarily bestowed by society, or worse, by the state or a government - up for suspension at any time when the collective deems its own common causes of primary importance over the individual's as we have witnessed in Nazism, Communism and Fascism. See it succinctly explained in this animated video - the entire P1 series is heartily recommended, also as an educational tool).

Modern forms of collectivism are the inevitable consequences of a fatal mistake made by the thinkers of the so-called Radical Enlightenment, the first relativists of our time, skeptics, deists and atheists, notably Cartesian philosophers as Pierre Bayle and Baruch Spinoza: they 1o1 substituted absolute monarchy with the rule by the state. Diderot and Jean-Jacques Rousseau put the cherry on the evil edifice by fitting it out with an illusionary 'common will' of its own.

The erection of total states was not their intention, but it was the result of their oversight to safeguard individual rights against the ever expanding bodies of state. Whereas in universalism rights are absolute, either sacred, natural, or inherent and thus inalienable, collectivists derive their temporal, conditional and positive rights directly from the state or the government. These aren't servants and representatives of the people, but ends in themselves.

Universalism produces negative rights and liberty, limiting the powers of the state in favor of its individual citizens; on the racial level the result is 'melting pot' and given time, Dr Martin Luther King's 'color blindness'.

Polylogism or multiculturalism on the other hand produces subjects, drones, apartheid, gang morality, segregation, ghettos, no-go areas, balkanization, tribalism, and the oppression of dissidents of any particular group, whose rules they happened to have violated. These have nowhere to go since the multicultural prime directive - all groups being morally equal - is not to interfere in any other group's affairs.

Contrary to what the proponents tell us, the definition of a multicultural society is not a society comprising multiple cultures, but one consisting of segregated minorities, each following their own 'common will'. History learns that the result is oppression and a perpetual state of tribal warfare.

Given the fact that humanity can now look back on literally centuries of ill experience with collectives - each of course laying claim to its own version of Utopia - it's truly stupefying that we are still in the process of reproducing more of the same.

The analysis was never properly made, nor were the evils in essence ever exposed and addressed. As a result we're not looking ahead to a happy post-racial melting pot, but to the ultimate nightmare of a postmodern version of tribalism.

Eurozine recently published an exchange of polemics between proponents and opponents of multiculturalism. Note that the proponents defend their morally charged views on the basis of their good intentions, not on the logical consequences of their ideas. That particular strain of Kantian ethics is called deontology, or the perpetual get-out-of-jail-card for the good-intent-bad-result-never-mind brigades.

If anything stands out between the 17th century originals and the postmodern lot, it's that the former were rather keen on the absoluteness of the freedom of expression. But since the onset of the Counter Enlightenment that value has been subject of erosion, now temporarily culminating in the inexplicable wish to return to barbarism and obscurantism.

Need to have the matter explained the hard way? Watch (or listen to) "Tough Absolutes". (I can up that figure of 57 million: it's actually closer to 110 million over the last century alone.)

Related: "'Triumph of the Will', or Defeat of Delusion" (a full length Nazi propaganda film by Leni Riefenstahl)

- Filed on Articles in "The Dystopia of Paradise" -