Another Grandiose Godwin in the European Parliament

The German equivalent of Alan Grayson, Comrade Schultz, the leader of the Socialist faction, has been called a Kapo (concentration kamp supervisor) by none other than Silvio Berlusconi, and many things besides.

Personally he's very fond of loosely applying the style named after Mike Godwin. But he's much less amused if someone else is doling out a reductio ad Hitlerum.

The reason these statists appear to be democratic fundamentalists, is because mob rule is the only thing separating them from the total state. It may come to that yet.



How it ended ...



Strasbourg: EU Parliament votes to oust UKIP's MEP Godfrey Bloom, posted with vodpod

Europe, and that goes for all its institutions, is filled to the brim with neo-totalitalitarians, statists and Hegelians.  Nigel Farage explains why!

PJM: "“Just who the hell do you think you people are?” Nigel Farage poses an excellent question. We’re still waiting for the answer . . .", by Roger Kimball

(...) The problem is, Mr. Farage pointed out, that people all over Europe are waking up and saying “we don’t want this, we don’t want [the EU] flag, we don’t want the anthem, we don’t this political class, we want the whole thing consigned to the dust bin of history.”

And the response by the EU bureaucrats who run things? Well, Ireland was told that it would be inappropriate from them to have a general election; they had to agree on a budget first. Mr. Farage had the perfect response to this effrontery: “Just who the hell do you think you people are? You are very, very dangerous people indeed. Your obsession with creating this Euro state means that you are happy to destroy democracy.”

Mr. Farage got it in right: the political crisis facing Europe may be exacerbated by the domino-like collapse of the economies of the member states. But the critical issue is the future of democracy, i.e., the future of freedom. It is “more serious than economics,” Mr. Farage argued, “because if you rob people of their identity, if you rob them of democracy, then all they are left with is nationalism and violence. I can only hope and pray that the Euro project is destroyed by the markets before that really happens.” (...) >>>

The Culture War Moves to Twitter

A recent discourse in 140 miniblog positions on the peculiarities of the world we live in, resulted in a challenge from an unknown entity in the Twitter universe of what turned out to be a postmodern, self-confessed 'scientist'. His alma mater or field of work remains unknown to this day, but his bio sports such ethical pursuits as animal rights, humanism, consciousness research, evolution, cosmology, agnosticism, vegetar., portuguese coffee, science, and writing.

The first tweet pressed upon me the blessings of the state and of pomo dogma in regard of  morality and ethics. Didn't I know that religion has no monopoly on morality, and was I not aware that such tenets are simply subjective group conventions - a consensus on the norm if you will - and that the state as a neutral arbiter should put a ban on all religious manifestations and expunge it from the public domain? A diatribe on how  religion usurped morality from the societal domain ensued (the divorce between the secular and the sacred has been at least since Plato's time).

But here comes the full view on the Leftist mindset in its full, dictatorial glory: "It's the duty of lawmakers to regulate the behavior of people" (which is a marked deterioration on the view that it's the duty of politicians to offer hope and consolation). This point of view explains why so many - primarily in the Obama administration - are meisters in public manipulation at the perceptional level (e.g. Cass Sunstein and his Nudge). In this flat, two dimensional world this is the main level of consciousness (for a proper understanding read also "The O Team: Mental Babies With Razors").

"In democracies the average morality (to be understood as something akin to etiquette) is reflected in the law" (which is presumably why the US Constitution is a living and breathing document): truth has made place for fleeting 'norm' or 'consensus'. E.g. if the consensus has it, that children can have sex from the age of 12, then so be it. Once the law says it's okay, hey presto, having sex with children as of the age of 12 is no longer immoral. Here we have in a word, why 'consensus' is taking such a central place in the relativist narrative: it is the moral arbiter. In dictatorships the tyrant dictates law which equals morality: Corporal Hitler would have been proud!

Since years of rubbing shoulders with relativists and subjectivists has as yet to result in any fruitful interaction - and isn't likely to yield any in the foreseeable future - I tried to shake the challenger off with a few generalities about time constraints. As said, fruitless. Their dogma and self-righteousness compels them to attack objective thinkers whenever and wherever they may find them. More importantly, what really set him off were my claims in defense of Christian ethics against the onslaughts of n oxymoron: a liberal, moral dictatorship. That could not stand!

Another exposé on the nature of morality as a group subjectivity, hit my In Box the next day, pressing upon me what is in essence the fascist narrative of polylogism. It enabled Nazi theory to see the fate of the German people as separate from other nations. But in the present case it's religious groups that may engage in whatever backward and appalling practice their faith may proscribe, as long as they don't hurt other people outside their tribe, or God forbid, animals. Apart of that, religions should have no longer have 'privileges' other than, say filatellist associations or boy scouts.

And was I aware, that apes and primates are actually very moral animals? And how could I say, that free will is at its root?! Free will is but an illusion in which humans are inherently caught up and is as futile as my claim that morality is about a choice between good and evil! I should know that  morality consists in the conscience ... (eh?) And since his morality isn't mine, how dare I claim my morality - what advances life is good, what abrogates it is bad - is objective! Death can be very beneficial to those suffering from it (life, that is).

Subjectivists live in a universe of their own making - quite literally. They are the masters of that universe but everyone else is a Narcissist! There's nothing you can tell them that makes any sense. See, they aren't seekers of truth, but ideologues with an agenda who interprete the world as it fits their narrative.

Free will must be torn out by the root, otherwise there won't be any victims fueling their dialectic world: a place propelled progressively forward by the struggle between the oppressors and their inequal victim groups (vintage Hegel and Marx, the essence of progressivism).

The state must usurp the place of God at the center of the universe. If the Government is the moral arbiter between unequal groups that are forever at each others throats, it renders them like children, for always dependent on the Government for goodies and hope of peace.

Animals on the other hand, must be fitted with a sense of morality if they are to claim any rights! Since in this approach morality is 'social convention', I suppose you could call it 'morality' of sorts. At least admits in animals this doesn't involve a conscious choice. Expect apes on trial next, for the murder of smaller animals! Just like in the Middle Ages when a pig was famously put on trial.

Truth and reality do not exist. Good and evil do not exist. The lie does not exist. There's just fleeting, temporary perception. Morality is state-mediated consensus.

Through the falsehoods at the root of their thinking, the result is ever the opposite of what they claim to achieve. "We love culture so much", one shrieked once, "that we think retaining ones culture should be a human right!" And they proceeded to throw them in the great multicultural witch's cauldron, and out came Balkan balls and sectarian goulash!

Higher education now produces no specimen of humanity, other than the one whose reality we just peeked into. The divide between the two philosophies on the nature of the universe and human thought is now so huge and so fundamental, that it's hard to think of one subject where the two aren't at the very opposite ends of the ideological spectrum. If anything, the gap is widening ever further.

The subjective side has now amassed all ingredients the fascists and National Socialists had at their disposal, save a sense of personal victimhood and a culture of militarism: pragmatism, group subjectivism (polylogism), passion and emotions as cognitive tools (anti reason), collectivism, a denial of truth and objective reality, the negation of good and evil, law equals morality, anti capitalism and anti individualism, and a end-justifies-the-means mindset.

In "The New Totalitarianism That Dares Not Speak it's Name" we introduced Professor Ernest Sternberg's publication, "Purifying the World: What the New Radical Ideology Stands For" into the mix of arguments. It is an investigation into the merging of Leftism and Islam. Sternberg explains that the Left has largely refrained from serious violence because they see their religious terrorist comrades as proxies. The target is evidently Western cultureas a whole, with the United States and Israel as the primary targets.

The onslaught continues.

Update

Obama has said Al Qaeda is a terrorist organization for killing innocent civilians racist, because they do not advance the careers of blacks in the ranks of the terrorist organization. Is it any wonder we're dog's breakfast! Morality, anyone?

Related

- "Why Multiculturalism Is Racist and Evil"
- "The Power of Ideas"
- "2009: Reintroducing Class Justice"
- "The New Totalitarianism That Dares Not Speak it's Name"

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)

We Are All Socialists Now

"Government is not the answer to our problems; government is the problem."
--Ronald Reagan
________________________________________________________________

An article on Yahoo!News, "On crisis, Europe to US: 'I told you so'" chronicles the European statists' Schadenfreude over the Obama talking point that American laissez-faire deregulation is to blame for the current financial crisis. German en French subjectivists are falling all over each other to get to the mic first and point the finger. Really?

Could it perhaps be Bill Clinton's third way mixed economy, that forced banks to behave like 'social security outlets' by compelling them to act in a way that is alien to their nature, i.e. eyes firmly fixed on the bottom-line, that is the architect of this fiasco? Another Social Democrats success story, Jimmy Carter laid the groundwork. John McCain warned early for the collapse, Obama now says "he wrote a letter ..." while he was up to his eyeballs involved in ACORN, a main contributor to the Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac scam (study the "Just Say No Deal" flow chart and weep). Or watch this short vid, "What Just Happened?"

Now that the system is blowing up, the statists (see them scramble for default position) point the finger at Capitalism, which is to blame. It is a darned gotzpah!

It's always the same tired trick and it keeps on giving. When will we learn?! Force your ideology on a self-sustaining system and when it breaks down because of it, blame the system and shout 'I told you so, it needs more revision and supervision! That will prevent me interfering in the future!'

Deontology does the rest for a clear conscience: our intentions are so ethical because for the common good, that we are a priori absolved for adverse consequences ... the perpetual 'get out of jail card'.

Blaming the' fallibility' of markets is like blaming the weather for storms. We will see much more of that: the Left are always prepared to establish the Socialist Utopia on the smoldering ruins of whatever crisis (induced or otherwise) - the reason why revolutions were incited in the first place. Entire tribes of community organizers, eh ... agitators were insinuated to bring them about.

The statist is so focussed on the evil of free markets and the benevolence of the state that he cannot see what's in front of his nose: that he and his cures are the problem. But that very thought is so alien, that it simply doesn't occur to him.

So now he goes on pumping public money into the system in order to send a message of stability and confidence. What he is actually signaling is that the system is so broke that it needs more and more medicine.

As usual THEY and their quack remedies are the problem, not the weather! For Heaven's sake, stop burning our money!

Believers of free people in a politeia which they own, had better be on red, hot alert the coming months. If we know our statists, they wouldn't be half the collective they are, if they didn't try to pull a fast one.

... oh, and for the record ...

Boston Globe: "Frank's fingerprints are all over the financial fiasco"

Take that!

Related:

- Morning Bell: "Here they go again"
- The Lighthouse: "The Lightness of Being Socialist"

- Filed on Articles in "The Economics and Monetary Dossier" and "The Ethics of Capitalism" -

The Postmodern Thuggism of the New Storm Troopers

Last week saw the latest gathering of the blogging Counter-Jihad movement, this year in Vienna (data collection point on the Mission Europa Netwerk). There's some cause for pause. Some speakers and attendees pronounced the wish to move on after the rift that developed about a year ago between the publisher of Little Green Footballs, and everybody else in the Counter Hirabah. Scouring the paperwork doesn't allow for much optimism in that department. We'll go over some texts produced in the meeting in the coming days.

Essayist Fjordman cannot help himself either in that respect and has a part retrospect running up on The Brussels Journal. After initially harking back what follows is a shocking expose about the state of affairs in Scandinavia. He describes the almost institutionalized thuggism in Sweden by what might accurately be termed the new Storm Troopers.

Our own investigations on the philosophies contained in Postmoderism meanwhile have hit rock-bottom. Scraping the base of that particular pond reveals that the dichotomy of political Left and Rightism is in essence artificial and non-existent. We've all been had by the wrong markers.

Just as an American once queried me on the subject, arguing that the Left cannot be identified with the Right 'as they do not do antisemitism,' just as wrong-footed is the notion that the Left is Socialist, whereas the Right isn't. Then, what is the Right? Is it a movement entrusted with the interests of royalty, the elite, or capitalism? Evidently not!

Much as it must never be trivialized or belittled, the antisemitism of Nazism is not a typical marker of the Socialist Right. Mussolini's Socialist Republic of Italy didn't have race laws until Hitler pushed their implementation much later, when very reluctantly and halfheartedly some antisemitic measures were put in place.

In the insightful book "Explaining Postmodernism" (p. 106) Objectivist philosopher Stephen Hicks writes: "By the early twentieth century (...) the dominant issues for most continental political thinkers were not whether liberal capitalism was a viable option - but rather exactly when it would collapse - and whether Left or Right collectivism had the best claim to being the Socialism of the future. The defeat of the collectivist Right in World War II then meant that the Left was on its own to carry the Socialist mantle forward. Accordingly, when the Left ran into its major disasters as the twentieth century progressed, understanding its fundamental commonality with the collectivist Right helps to explain why in its desperation the Left has often adopted 'Fascistic' tactics."

Coming as both do, from the anti-modern German Idealism based on the musings of Swiss-French agitator Rousseau, the Left versus Right dichotomy is highly artificial and arbitrary, and post World War II a means used by the Left to differentiate from their opponents.

For example the Left (or Young) and Right Hegelians differed and fell out over in the acceptance of the role played by religion within the state. What sets Communism apart from Fascism and National Socialism is argued to be public versus private property, but the prestigious Von Mises Institute has successfully argued that - since private property was up for confiscation by the all powerful state at any time - private property existed only nominally in Nazi Germany and the Socialist Republic of Italy.

The far Left keep emphasizing the Fascist nature of their opponents in an effort to put some distance between themselves and their own resort to thuggism. In so far as it's attributable to psychology, it's a clear case of projection. The fact is, on the philosophical level Left and Rightism belong to one and the same group of ideologies that developed from anti-modernism. The new Leftist brown shirts are no mystery.

The false dichotomy has fathered the erroneous reasoning that since the Marxist Left catered for the proletariat, the Socialist Right must be a party of and for the elite. This cannot be the case. But it is true that throughout, both have been violently attacking the middle class and bourgeois values. And barely noticed, they still do. And that's your main marker to watch out for!

For more read the compilation in "The Dystopia of Paradise." Here's the Fjordman story:

The Brussels Journal: "To the Readers of Little Green Footballs"

(...) Also in Sweden, Antifascistisk Aktion (AFA), a group that supposedly fights against "racists," openly brag about numerous physical attacks against persons with their full name and address published on their website. How come AFA gets away with their violent, extra-legal activities for years without being stopped by the authorities? Is it possible that the political elites find them to be a useful tool against dissidents who criticize mass immigration?

The thugs of AFA in the spring of 2008 destroyed the car of a 90-year-old woman and wrote "nasse" (Nazi) on top of it. As it turned out, they picked the wrong car, but who cares? It's all for a "good cause."Leading national newspaper Aftonbladet has close ideological ties to the Social Democrats, the country's dominant party for most of the past (...) >>>


- Filed on Articles in "The Assault of the New Storm Troopers" -

State vs Nation: Migration and Racism

In this article, I'm trying to distinguish the notions of "Nation" and "State" and show how the second one stole the first. I'll take a concrete example, the problem of immigration.

The article is inspired by Pascal Salin. You can find his outstanding writings at "Le Québécois Libre" (however, only in French ...).

Before exposing the core of the problem, there is a parenthesis to open. As I was about to write this - being a Frenchie - I had to check in the dictionary for the translation of the word "étatiser", which means "decide that a "private" matter becomes a "public" matter, ruled by the State." What a surprise! In English, "étatiser" is translated "to nationalize"! THIS WORD IS FALSE!!! State and Nation have to be opposed. So in this article, I'll create a word for "étatiser": STATALIZE.

Let's try to explain. A free society is a society in which every individual has the right to do whatever he wants to, provided that it respects the legitimate rights of the other individuals. Ergo, a free society is based on the acknowledgment and defense of property rights.

This libertarian vision is based on a realistic perception of the human being. The collectivist detractors insist that the libertarian theory conceives human beings as lonely particles, hostile to one another but it's truly the opposite: the libertarian individual is fundamentally a social being.

Indeed every human being belongs to societies, big or small, and he has the feeling to be part of these groups. The Nation is such a groups, the largest one. Nation represents combined social ties born in history and revealed through culture, language and religion. Nation comes under spontaneous order, it is multiform, evolutionary and difficult to grasp. It's the result of multiple perceptions, somewhat different among members.

That is why it is a mistake to assimilate Nation to State which is, on the contrary, a very precise and institutionalized reality. And it's pretty striking to observe that today, just as in the triumphant statism era, we see once again the rise of nationalism. That is proof that States forced the creation of social systems, and not Nation as perceived by citizens--to whom they allowed themselves to give this name. And of course the State exerted all its energy in convincing people that nationalists are all somewhat Nazistic ...

I insist that Nation results from a feeling of belonging to a community, and that is why the "State-Nation" is a lie: it is not possible to statalize feelings. Then as always, when statalization occurs the State creates a monopoly for itself and defends it. And so it fights against regional particularisms; State destroys spontaneous Nations.

As an example, the struggle in France to destroy regional languages in the name of the republican equality in the 19th Century. That is followed by the most perverse move: in order to deceive you, STATE IS PERSONIFIED to ease the assimilation of Nation to State.

So they say: "Germany decides to..." or "France exports..." In the first case, they make you think that the entire German population decides, as if some type of collective mind did exist. In the second case, they make you believe that export is a collective act, that it's a common interest and that ergo State is able to determine it. LIES! Germany doesn't decide; the German government decides. France doesn't export; some French producers do.

- Caption: the 85 m/279 feet tall statue of Mother Motherland commemorating the Battle of Stalingrad in Volgograd, Russia -

This shows that a mythic, collective interest does not in fact exist, but that some particular interests do: those of the ones who are holding power or the ones who are producing goods. The use of these abstractions has a well defined goal: to abuse you. To make you think that Nation is assimilated into State; even that Nation is a property of State which ergo reserves the right to manage the national territory.

From there emanates the myth of "public property". The intellectual legitimation of "public property" consists in saying that State can "produce" some goods and services in an optimal way, while private companies can't. ANOTHER LIE.

Let's consider the immigration problem. The starting point of a libertarian reasoning about immigration would be to say that immigration (as emigration) is a fundamental right of a human being. How can you advocate the free exchange of goods and oppose free movement of human beings? Thus the best immigration policy would be not to have one at all!

Let's compare free trade with immigration. How can we define the free exchange of goods? Free trade simply means that public power should not use its monopoly to hinder the trade, wanted by both partners. So free immigration doesn't mean that an individual has the right to move wherever he wants, but that he has the right to move wherever he's welcome. In a private property system individual rights are conditional: you may enter someone else's property if you're welcome and respect the rules established by the owner.

In such a system, a free exchange one, both immigrants and inhabitants of the welcoming Nation should benefit from the deal. Otherwise there should be no immigration. If immigration is allowed and accepted, it's because there's a win-win situation.

In a collectivist system (our States) - with the notion of public property/public services - the situation isn't so fair. Because the public goods are produced in a collective way, they have a hidden cost. And so, these goods/services are for free or are inexpensive: it's financed through taxes, the productive citizens paying a high price, the less productive ones paying little or zip.

This is why the State induces bad immigration: it becomes advantageous for unproductive immigrants to come and benefit of all the services that are free or almost free, while contributing as little as possible; whereas potential productive immigrants are less enthusiastic: they know they'll pay too much through taxes for what they get in services.

Lets take an example, California vs Texas. An article in The Wall Street Journal in 1993 explained why immigration from Mexico was three times higher in California than in Texas, while the Texas-Mexico border is far longer than the one separating California from Mexico. It's because the social security system in California is much more developed than it is in Texas. As stated by an immigration official in Texas: "It's impossible to live from welfare here".

In the actual situation where the immigration policies are defined for the Nation by the State - I mean where social policies tend to subsidize the immigration of the less productive people - some who favor immigration as we know it, claiming their generosity through speeches against racism, are not touched by the problem; whereas others, who see their environment degraded by this system are opposed to it, seek help through the State to solve their social problems--a waste of time.

So the State is creating RACISM. What can we expect? The people leading the State are pretty comfortable come election day: all these assisted men who came in and got their voting rights will vote for them to perpetuate the system; whereas they don't have to worry too much if productive citizens get fed up and leave the country for a less unfair one: after all, they would have voted against them!

Immigration is not the problem. THE PROBLEM IS THE STATE. We, the people, citizens, have to find a way to recapture what it has stolen from us, the Nation, our Freedom, control over our Fate!

Here it is, only a short introduction about a matter I value very much. And the subject is worth further in-depth development.

- Filed on Articles in "The Post Democratic Preferences of the Neotots", cat. Neo Totalitarianism