Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Religious Dick

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 36
46
3DHS / Return of the Kings
« on: June 16, 2012, 04:10:03 AM »
Return of the Kings
by Charles A. Coulombe

A specter is haunting Europe?and pace Marx, it is the specter of monarchy. Whenever a ceremony of any sort is performed for or by a deposed ruling family?s members?as has happened in the past few years in France, Germany, and Austria?there is sure to be whining in the media and among the political caste.

This is understandable, since the latter are the heirs of those who seized power and aim to keep it forever?regardless of what their subjects might want. Sundry triumphant pols passed laws forbidding the physical return of royal heirs to their nations?even as visitors. One by one, however, these measures were voided until the European Court tossed out the last of them and allowed the House of Savoy to return to Italy.

The entrenched political class feared that once back, the royals might regain some of their property. To avoid this, recourse was had in several countries (most notably Austria) to the kind of legal chicanery we Americans are used to with the Supreme Court. But the dominant classes? apprehensions were fulfilled in all the Balkan countries?heretofore exposed to the reductio ad absurdum of ?democracy? in the form of exquisitely brutal communist regimes.

With the exception of Greece, which with Anglo-American help had avoided its sister countries? red servitude, the populations of the formerly Marxist region welcomed back their former monarchs (or their heirs) with open arms?going so far as to reverse the theft of much of their former property. The Balkan royals began once again to play supporting roles in their homelands? public life. Simeon II of Bulgaria was perhaps the most successful. Acting as the focus of a grassroots political movement, he was elected prime minister in 2001.

But after leaving office in 2005 with a solid record, the King assumed the same sort of quasi-royal role his brother monarchs of Serbia, Romania, Montenegro, and Albania had. He met secular and religious dignitaries, gave out decorations, and advertised his country abroad. He did everything a reigning constitutional monarch would do, save opening and closing parliament and receiving ambassadors. This satisfying if anomalous position, financed by his regained lands rather than tax dollars, annoyed the class in power. To choke off his activity, they used that weapon so beloved of ?democratic? oligarchs everywhere and took him to court to steal his lands once more. They just won a major victory: The country?s Supreme Court has ruled that Simeon?s hunting lodge at Krichim does not belong to him, opening the legal path to pilfering the remainder of his estates.

So steeped have we become in the politics of envy that the government robbing a rich man?better still, an ex-reigning sovereign?will bring joy to many. This is why the decades-old reduction of Britain?s landed aristocracy from a political force to a band of desperate folk trying (and often failing) to hold onto what is left of their inheritance begets either a smile or a yawn. If Simeon is to continue to play a useful role in his country?s life, he will need to seek justice?paradoxically enough?from the European Court of Human Rights. It is ironic that this is happening under Boyko Borisov?s scandal-ridden prime ministry. The contrast between monarch and politico could not be starker.

Meanwhile, Simeon?s brother sovereigns in the Balkans are doing a sterling job carrying on as shadow heads of state. Crown Prince Alexander of Serbia and his family live in the White Palace in Belgrade. (The president inhabits the Royal Palace.) Sixty-four percent of Serbs support Alexander?s restoration to the throne. After a tumultuous life filled with coups and exile, King Michael I of Romania?the only World War II-era ruler still around?now splits his time between Switzerland (the country that hosted him under communism) and Romania. His oldest daughter, Crown Princess Margarita, and her husband Prince Radu, live full-time in the country on returned property and play a large role in national life. Among other things the prince has become a sort of roving ambassador for Romanian business. Young Crown Prince Leka II of Albania has also found government employment. He acts as special advisor to his country?s ministries of interior and foreign affairs. This sort of ?creeping restoration? has gone furthest in Montenegro, where Crown Prince Nicholas II and his family have had an official position alongside (and paid at the same rate as) the president.

Despite Simeon?s apparent setback, the monarchs? position in the ex-communist Balkans is rosy compared to that of Constantine II of Greece. Since the plebiscite on the monarchy in 1974, he has not been allowed even to visit his homeland for any great length of time. He fought the government in the European Court of Human Rights for his estate at Tatoi and other property. The resulting judgment may have been a moral victory for the King, but it was a financial success for the government.

The Greek Supreme Court banned the monarchist National Hope Party from the May 2012 elections while permitting the allegedly fascist Golden Dawn Party. The court removed the ban for the June elections; perhaps Golden Dawn?s success in May convinced the judges that there are worse things than monarchy. As Europe struggles to retain its identity and its soul, this would be good for the continent?s elites to ponder.

http://takimag.com/article/return_of_the_kings_charles_coulombe/print#axzz1xw8rql6x

47
3DHS / The Turd World
« on: June 16, 2012, 04:00:36 AM »
The Turd World

by Gavin McInnes

June 15, 2012

Every time Islam pokes its head out of its towel, I get nostalgic. Oh, women in Egypt were sexually assaulted for protesting sexual assault last week? Ahh, that takes me back to the halcyon days of the Wild West. Pardon? Did you say a Muslim man screamed, ?God is great!? before throwing his wife?s head out the window in Berlin earlier this month? Ho ho, that takes me back hundreds of years to the old witch hunts in that fun little college party town called Salem. What?s that? Homosexuality is still a capital offense in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Mauritania, northern Nigeria, North Sudan, and Yemen? Ah, sweet old 16th-century England. When I was told yet another woman was stoned to death in the Sudan a fortnight ago, I was catapulted back to the way we were in the 4th century.

Peering into Islam is like picking up your great, great, great, great, great, great, great, grandfather?s diary. Muslims are simply way behind us. They?re merely slower than us??retarded,? if you will. We see the same thing happening in Mexico. We assume their drug wars are evidence of the natives gone savage, but they?re really just struggling to fill the vacuum Pablo Escobar left behind. We went through the same growing pains during Prohibition.

The Turd World will catch up with us in a hundred years, so leave ?em be and let ?em have at it. We need to get out of the Middle East because you can?t fast-forward progress. Let nature run its course.

The End.

Wait?I just saw footage of Iran in the 1970s before the fundamentalists took over. Sexy women in miniskirts were getting science degrees and driving cool cars. I can?t tell who?s gay or not, but the scene is virtually indistinguishable from 70s New York when our mayor was gay, so I?m guessing things were relatively groovy. Education was free for women in Iraq back then, too. Iraqi women today are back to where they were 100 years ago. In fact, the entire Arab world seemed way more modern half a century ago. They?re not slowly catching up to us. They?re going backward!

There are many theories to explain this regression. I posited here that it was from their extensive inbreeding. Irshad Manji takes a gentler approach (for which she received death threats) and insists that extremists hijacked Islam and bastardized it into a totalitarian ideology. Before now, I?d accepted both theories as plausible. Eventually, Islam would get over inbreeding, reclaim their religion, and become civilized.

However, a few beers with a scientist has changed my mind for good. He explained that in 2010, a group of physicists proved that Phillip K. Dick?s ?multiple-future? theories are not mere science fiction. It?s entirely possible that parallel universes exist. When you decide to take the right turn at a fork in the road, there could be an entire other world where the decision to turn left exists and another ?you? lives out those consequences. The ?you? who turned left isn?t going to catch up with your car and merge. He?s gone for good.

That?s when it hit me. Islam isn?t far behind. They?ve chosen a different path. Where our soldiers see death as a loss, they see it as a victory. They?re no longer in line with our space-time continuum. We shouldn?t get out of the Middle East because you can?t fast-forward progress. We need to get out of the Middle East because they?ve chosen to irrevocably regress.

Do you remember when we forbade calendars with pictures of kittens on them? Me, neither. How about that strange epoch when Christians insisted women could only hang out with men they breast-feed? Never happened. Islam isn?t a culture that needs to be coaxed toward Western values. It?s a culture that has gone off the deep end forever. I no longer care if it?s because of inbreeding or cultural hijacking or brainwashing. That part of the world is irretrievably lost and there?s nothing we can do about it. Let?s cut the cord and bid them adieu for good. They can hop on their camels and drive through whatever alternate universe they choose and take whatever turn they want as long as they don?t end up in our backyard.

http://takimag.com/article/the_turd_world_gavin_mcinnes/print#axzz1xw8rql6x

49
3DHS / Evidence Suggests Watergate Was A Setup
« on: June 10, 2012, 12:31:21 PM »
I found this to be a fascinating read - but it's way too long to post here....

A Growing Body Of Evidence Suggests Watergate Was A Setup To Nail Nixon
Russ Baker, WhoWhatWhy    |

Family of Secrets
Chapter 10: Downing Nixon: The Setup
Who Will Rid Me of This Troublesome Priest?
ascribed to Henry II

On June 17, 1972, a group of burglars, carrying electronic surveillance
equipment, was arrested inside the Democratic National
Committee offices at 2650 Virginia Avenue, NW, in Washington,
D.C., the Watergate building complex. The men were quickly identified as
having ties to the Nixon reelection campaign and to the White House.
Though at the time the incident got little attention, it would snowball into
one of the biggest crises in American political history, define Richard Nixon
forever, and drive him out of the White House.

Most historical accounts judge Nixon responsible in some way for the
Watergate burglary?or at least for an effort to cover it up. And many people
believe Nixon got what he deserved.

But like other epic events, Watergate turns out to be an entirely different
story than the one we thought we knew.


Read more: http://whowhatwhy.com/2012/05/08/watergate-revelations-the-coup-against-nixon-part-2-of-3/#ixzz1xP9bKbk8

50
3DHS / Europe's post-Nazi stress disorder has brought it to ruin
« on: May 31, 2012, 08:42:22 AM »
Europe's post-Nazi stress disorder has brought it to ruin
By Ed West Politics Last updated: May 30th, 2012


The European crisis threatens to re-awaken the old monster of nationalism, military historian Antony Beevor has warned. In an interview with the Telegraph, the author of Stalingrad and Berlin: the Downfall said that:

Quote
The great European dream was to diminish militant nationalism. We would all be happy Europeans together. But we are going to see the old monster of militant nationalism being awoken when people realise how little control their politicians have. We are already seeing political disintegration in Europe.

I feel slightly uneasy at the way historians are consulted as if history is going to repeat itself. It never does. It is misleading and dangerous to make sweeping parallels with the Second World War. Politicians like Blair and Bush liked to sound Churchillian or Rooseveltian at times of crisis, but the comparisons of Saddam Hussein to Hitler were preposterous. Eden compared Nasser to Hitler and that led us into the Suez disaster.

Indeed. On the same day The Guardian printed a letter, ?We are all Greek Jews now?, warning against Right-wing extremism, a letter that perfectly captures all the symptoms of Europe?s post-Nazi disorder.

Quote
We invite all citizens, political parties, unions, civil society, intellectuals and artists to fight the extreme right by promoting and bringing to life the European dream. We must always remember that this dream was built on the ruins of Nazism. We must never forget about the Shoah. Our dream is of a continent free from racism and antisemitism. It is the project of a society based on "togetherness" ? beyond boundaries.

Second, we must refute the dogma of "the European fortress", which favours the spread of anti-immigrant speeches and the lockdown of Europe's frontiers, especially when a core element of European postwar identity ? its social welfare system ? requires the economic input of immigration to remain sustainable.

Taking aside that they conflate genuinely nasty neo-Fascist parties like Golden Dawn with populist (often quite libertarian) groups such as the Dutch Freedom Party, the European dream is not under threat from a few Greek heavies who look like they?ve stepped out of a Vauxhall nightclub; it?s under threat from itself, because its vision is totally unworkable. The idea of a society without borders in a world where people share their countries is as radical and extreme as the idea that people might share their property ? so don?t be surprised when it doesn?t work.

No political or cultural entity can exist without boundaries; indeed there cannot be any ?togetherness? without boundaries in the first place. The very entity of ?Europe?, or ?Christendom?, came about in opposition to the rise of Islam, and Islam remains the only force that could ever unite Europeans (the Counter-Jihad movement is very pan-European, and Anders Breivik committed his terrible crimes, he said, to save Europe). Otherwise why not just have a ?World Union??

Neither can you build an ?identity? on a social welfare system; quite the opposite. A welfare system relies on a strong sense of national community, something that its earliest proponents, such as William Beveridge, all pointed out. (And I have no idea where they get the idea that welfare requires the economic input of immigrants; the ?replacement? theory of immigration has been blown apart by every body that has ever researched it, and minority communities in every western European country overall receive more welfare than natives.)

Where did this utopian vision come from? My grandparents, like most people in England in the 1930s, hated the Nazis; they hated their militarism, their criminality, their contempt for the rule of law and their racism (a word which was only coined in that decade). But my grandfather did not serve in order to create a world without borders or nation-states; no one did. And I suspect that, were he to see Britain and Europe today, he would conclude that it was in the grips of collective insanity.

Freud has rather gone out of fashion in recent years, but if we could psychoanalyse the people of Europe one might conclude that the continent?s leadership was behaving in a neurotic, self-destructive manner brought about by a horrific trauma.

As the letter writers say, this European dream was built in the shadow of Auschwitz, the aim being from the start the death of nationalism. The EU has been Godwin's Law on a massive scale.

But it?s never been explained why, because of what the Nazis did ? and the Nazis were not normal nationalists anymore than Mark Chapman is a normal music fan ? the Dutch, the French or the English should embrace a utopian vision whereby they become minorities in their own major cities and their countries become provinces of a new Holy Roman Empire.

And, moral though I appreciate this vision might be, is it the best way to stop conflict? Nazism, the Second World War and the Holocaust came about for a number of reasons unique to the period, such as the First World War and the threat of Communism. (Incidentally, on the same day as the "Greek Jews" piece, The Guardian had a letter ? perhaps a spoof ? praising the Soviet Union?s education policy. And yes, I know that the USSR was rather less depraved than Nazi Germany, in the same way that Peter Sutcliffe wasn?t quite as sick as Fred West.)

But Golden Dawn and Jobbik are not going to bring about a new Holocaust ? in fact the overwhelming, dominant threat to Europe?s Jewish community comes from the Arab and Muslim world, where anti-Semitism is unfortunately far more widespread than it was in Germany before Hitler. And the irony is that, out of collective guilt for what happened to Europe?s Jews, Europe imported millions of people from some of the world?s most anti-Semitic countries, made no attempt to counter these prejudices, and even began to adopt the idea that Israel was uniquely responsible for the world?s problems. Instead of preventing future atrocities by defending Israel?s very strong historic legitimacy ? a crucial step on the road to peace ? they are still trying to fight the last genocide, stuck in their solipsistic dreams.

There?s no harm in having dreams, of course, except that when they become nightmares, others are often forced to share them.

The European crisis threatens to re-awaken the old monster of nationalism, military historian Antony Beevor has warned. In an interview with the Telegraph, the author of Stalingrad and Berlin: the Downfall said that:

The great European dream was to diminish militant nationalism. We would all be happy Europeans together. But we are going to see the old monster of militant nationalism being awoken when people realise how little control their politicians have. We are already seeing political disintegration in Europe.

I feel slightly uneasy at the way historians are consulted as if history is going to repeat itself. It never does. It is misleading and dangerous to make sweeping parallels with the Second World War. Politicians like Blair and Bush liked to sound Churchillian or Rooseveltian at times of crisis, but the comparisons of Saddam Hussein to Hitler were preposterous. Eden compared Nasser to Hitler and that led us into the Suez disaster.

Indeed. On the same day The Guardian printed a letter, ?We are all Greek Jews now?, warning against Right-wing extremism, a letter that perfectly captures all the symptoms of Europe?s post-Nazi disorder.

We invite all citizens, political parties, unions, civil society, intellectuals and artists to fight the extreme right by promoting and bringing to life the European dream. We must always remember that this dream was built on the ruins of Nazism. We must never forget about the Shoah. Our dream is of a continent free from racism and antisemitism. It is the project of a society based on "togetherness" ? beyond boundaries.

Second, we must refute the dogma of "the European fortress", which favours the spread of anti-immigrant speeches and the lockdown of Europe's frontiers, especially when a core element of European postwar identity ? its social welfare system ? requires the economic input of immigration to remain sustainable.

Taking aside that they conflate genuinely nasty neo-Fascist parties like Golden Dawn with populist (often quite libertarian) groups such as the Dutch Freedom Party, the European dream is not under threat from a few Greek heavies who look like they?ve stepped out of a Vauxhall nightclub; it?s under threat from itself, because its vision is totally unworkable. The idea of a society without borders in a world where people share their countries is as radical and extreme as the idea that people might share their property ? so don?t be surprised when it doesn?t work.

No political or cultural entity can exist without boundaries; indeed there cannot be any ?togetherness? without boundaries in the first place. The very entity of ?Europe?, or ?Christendom?, came about in opposition to the rise of Islam, and Islam remains the only force that could ever unite Europeans (the Counter-Jihad movement is very pan-European, and Anders Breivik committed his terrible crimes, he said, to save Europe). Otherwise why not just have a ?World Union??

Neither can you build an ?identity? on a social welfare system; quite the opposite. A welfare system relies on a strong sense of national community, something that its earliest proponents, such as William Beveridge, all pointed out. (And I have no idea where they get the idea that welfare requires the economic input of immigrants; the ?replacement? theory of immigration has been blown apart by every body that has ever researched it, and minority communities in every western European country overall receive more welfare than natives.)

Where did this utopian vision come from? My grandparents, like most people in England in the 1930s, hated the Nazis; they hated their militarism, their criminality, their contempt for the rule of law and their racism (a word which was only coined in that decade). But my grandfather did not serve in order to create a world without borders or nation-states; no one did. And I suspect that, were he to see Britain and Europe today, he would conclude that it was in the grips of collective insanity.

Freud has rather gone out of fashion in recent years, but if we could psychoanalyse the people of Europe one might conclude that the continent?s leadership was behaving in a neurotic, self-destructive manner brought about by a horrific trauma.

As the letter writers say, this European dream was built in the shadow of Auschwitz, the aim being from the start the death of nationalism. The EU has been Godwin's Law on a massive scale.

But it?s never been explained why, because of what the Nazis did ? and the Nazis were not normal nationalists anymore than Mark Chapman is a normal music fan ? the Dutch, the French or the English should embrace a utopian vision whereby they become minorities in their own major cities and their countries become provinces of a new Holy Roman Empire.

And, moral though I appreciate this vision might be, is it the best way to stop conflict? Nazism, the Second World War and the Holocaust came about for a number of reasons unique to the period, such as the First World War and the threat of Communism. (Incidentally, on the same day as the "Greek Jews" piece, The Guardian had a letter ? perhaps a spoof ? praising the Soviet Union?s education policy. And yes, I know that the USSR was rather less depraved than Nazi Germany, in the same way that Peter Sutcliffe wasn?t quite as sick as Fred West.)

But Golden Dawn and Jobbik are not going to bring about a new Holocaust ? in fact the overwhelming, dominant threat to Europe?s Jewish community comes from the Arab and Muslim world, where anti-Semitism is unfortunately far more widespread than it was in Germany before Hitler. And the irony is that, out of collective guilt for what happened to Europe?s Jews, Europe imported millions of people from some of the world?s most anti-Semitic countries, made no attempt to counter these prejudices, and even began to adopt the idea that Israel was uniquely responsible for the world?s problems. Instead of preventing future atrocities by defending Israel?s very strong historic legitimacy ? a crucial step on the road to peace ? they are still trying to fight the last genocide, stuck in their solipsistic dreams.

There?s no harm in having dreams, of course, except that when they become nightmares, others are often forced to share them.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100161509/europes-post-nazi-stress-disorder-has-brought-it-to-ruin/#disqus_thread

52
Newark Star-Ledger admits to censoring race in savage mob attacks

By now many of you are familiar with the brutal racially motivated mob attack on two Virginia-Pilot reporters in Norfolk, Virgina. The pair was attacked by a mob of up to thirty young blacks down the street from the offices of the Virginia-Pilot.

The newspaper news staff refused to report the story. Two weeks later, a writer for the opinion page blew the whistle on her own newspapers' censorship. She also reported on a twitter message from one of the perps. The message boasted that the attack was revenge for Trayvon Martin. She said the police had been reluctant to do anything about the attack.

This story was picked up by Bill O'Reilly and several syndicated radio talk show hosts. Syndicated radio talk show host Alex Jones pointed out "if it was this hard for two reporters to get their own employer to report the attack, just think how many of these attacks are never reported at all." The newspaper, which was still under the leadership of Obama's new deputy HUD secretary when the attack took place, took a beating in the conservative media. Norfolk police were also put on the defensive. Suddenly the police made an arrest and charged the perp with a felony and numerous misdemeanors.

However, media censorship of black crime continues unabated. Over the weekend, the Red Hot Chili Peppers performed at the Prudential Center in Newark, New Jersey. About 20,000 fans packed the arena.

As concert goers walked to their cars after the show, a mob of what the Newark Star-Ledger is calling "teenagers," brutally attacked several people. Five people were injured, some of them very badly. Three of the injured victims are teens. Two of the victims suffered serious facial fractures.

Newark Police Director Samuel DeMaio said the attacks were motivated by a desire to cause injury. He says the perpetrators were laughing during the attacks.

Sounds like the attacks were racially motivated hate crimes right? Well the Newark Star-Ledger only describes the attackers as "teenagers." Any details that would clue the reader as too the race of the attackers appears to be intentionally omitted.

I called the Star-Ledger and asked if they had a policy of omitting the race of at large crime suspects. The first woman I talked to went to ask her superiors. She came back and told me that there is no formal policy, "but we generally do not publish race."

I then asked to speak to crime reporter James Queally who wrote Star-Ledgers' two articles on the attacks.

Queally told me that the police report did list the race of the perpetrators and that he censored this information in his two articles on purpose. He also stated that it was the newspapers' policy to censor race in crime stories.

Then the conversation took a comedic turn. I asked Queally what race was listed in the police report and he refused to tell me. He also said he interviewed three of the victims, but refused to tell me what race they were. Queally did however volunteer that "it's an 80% black area and the concert was full of white rock and roll fans."

​ Queally denied that the attacks were racially motivated. He said that if it was blacks attacking whites, then that was just a factor of probability. Keep in mind that Queally admits knowing the race of the perps and refuses to say.

​I told Queally about numerous other black on white mob attacks all over the nation and explained to him this was part of a trend of racially motivated hate crimes. At this point Queally went from a friendly demeanor to a very arrogant sounding tone. He replied "well somehow myself and everyone else in the media have missed all of these." I told Queally I have been documenting these hate crime mob attacks and would be happy to e-mail him lots of information. Queally then hung up the phone without a reply.

During the conversation Queally hinted at his reasoning for wanting to censor the race of the perpetrators. He asked "if all the attackers were black fifteen year-olds, would you avoid all black fifteen year-olds in Newark?" I told him I would, especially a group of black fifteen year-olds. I told him that avoiding a specific demographic known for brutally attacking my demographic at random was "common sense." Queally replied, "that's your opinion."

In other words Queally places political correctness above public safety, even though "public safety" is one of the topics he is supposed to be covering. The LA Times, for example, is very candid about having a policy of censoring race in crime stories. They say they don't want to "stigmatize racial minorities."

Recently I called WYFF Greenville, an NBC affiliate. I found two articles on their website about attempted burglaries, where a home owner scared the suspect off. One of the stories has detailed information about the perps' clothing, but omits his race. The other story lists the perp as white. I asked why one was censored and not the other. The woman who answers their main phone said that employees of the studio have staff meetings and decide which stories to censor race and which ones not to censor race. She said she wouldn't characterize it as "censorship," but as "making a decision."

She said she didn't know why race would be stated in one attempted burglary story and not the other. I think it is pretty self-evident.

My conversation with Queally reminded me of a funny comedy bit by comedian Patrice O'Neal. He lampooned the agony that a white liberal must feel when they see a dangerous looking black male coming down the street. He said they want to flee, but are afraid of being "racist." His advice was to run away and be safe, and feel guilty later.

I recently had a black man from Columbus, Ohio tell me about being mugged by two young black perps. He said he suspected the men were dangerous and could have gotten away in time. He didn't take evasive action because he decided  that he shouldn't "racially profile." He felt pretty foolish afterward.

Even left-wing icon Rev. Jessie Jackson believes race is a very important piece of information to know when it comes to crime. At a 1993 conference for the Rainbow/PUSH coalition in Chicago, Jessie Jackson said "There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody white and feel relieved?. After all we have been through. Just to think we can?t walk down our own streets, how humiliating."​

follow me on my new twitter: @kyle_rogers76

http://www.examiner.com/article/star-ledger-admits-to-censoring-race-savage-post-concert-mob-attacks

53
3DHS / Daily Mail endorses Marine Le Pen
« on: April 22, 2012, 08:57:04 AM »
Despite her flaws, the only responsible vote in France next Sunday is one for Marine Le Pen

By Richard Waghorne

PUBLISHED: 06:26 EST, 20 April 2012 | UPDATED: 09:20 EST, 20 April 2012


France?s politics would appear to be in deceptively rude health. As Sunday?s first stage of the country?s two-round presidential election approaches, the vital indicators return vivid signs of life.

Mass meetings in Paris and elsewhere have drawn numbers and passion hard to imagine in some parts of an exhausted Western Europe. Online politics has made an impact for the first time. There is a choice on the ballot paper of ten candidates, ranging as fully from right to left as from plausible to eccentric.

France?s rarely quiescent intellectuals have offered their customary profusion of commentary on the country?s choices.


What France has not confronted honestly is the likelihood that this is the final French election for some time in which the country will vote on its future with an acceptable degree of control over its own destiny. The erosion of French self-government has been commissioned from within and awaits to be ratified from without.

Nicholas Sarkozy has campaigned on the theme of a ?Strong France?. His speeches consciously allude to the Fifth Republic?s founder General de Gaulle, praising an ?Eternal France? Sarkozy himself has never been in danger of embodying. Rather, he is the latest architect of the decline of French democracy to something bordering on irrelevance.

The most urgent, the most assiduously avoided challenge facing France is the erosion of its self-government. Sarkozy?s European policy has abetted the long-desired European federalism of the French political class, through means of government by decree from Brussels and the outright replacement of recalcitrant governments in Greece and Italy.

In other European countries, the surface pretence of politics as usual has only been perpetuated by the craven compliance of hostage governments, as in Ireland. The fundamental deceit is that France herself is immune from the consequences of her president?s betrayal of other ancient European nations.

As the election campaign has demonstrated, this is not so to any extent which would return decisions over economic matters and identity to the French people. France?s banking system is critically exposed to the debts of the delinquent European margins, confirmed in Sarkozy?s last year in office by the trauma of a sovereign downgrade in a country where banks hold a status akin to proxies of the State. This very central standing in French public life, with its implicit expectation of support in crisis, was not enough to convince ratings-agencies of their durability - precisely because it is in question whether the French State possesses the capacity to deliver such support if required.

Although it is unlikely that this will come to pass, should Sarkozy secure re-election he would in all probability find himself faced with the appalling question of whether France herself could survive the humiliation of direction from Berlin and Brussels in the threatened eventuality of Spanish or Italian default.


Much as Friedrich Hayek caustically referred to ?socialists of all parties? in the age of British muddy centrism shared between Labour and the Conservatives before the rise of Margaret Thatcher, one might see the choice of leading candidates in France as that between Eurofederalists of various parties. Neither Nicholas Sarkozy nor the likely victor Socialist Fran?ois Hollande differ in their deference to ever-closer union. Much of their respective programmes must accordingly be discounted entirely as the outlines of an agenda they would never give themselves the liberty to execute.

The insurgent hard-left challenger Jean-Luc M?lenchon numbers the old French Communist Party within his alliance, calls for revolution in Europe, and speaks to supporters who bring Soviet flags to his rallies. The only other candidates polling in double figures, save one, is the centrist Fran?ois Bayrou who combines many of his opponents? defects with few redeeming virtues of his own.

In present circumstances, given present choices, the only responsible vote in France next Sunday is a vote for Marine Le Pen, leader of France?s National Front. This requires to be immediately qualified in several important respects:

Le Pen?s protectionist economic policies are both foolish and futile. Her campaign has often been poor and indistinct. This is particularly culpable during a European crisis which ought to have given her party an opportunity unparalleled since inception and suggests serious limits in her own capabilities.

Her efforts to regulate the political instincts of her party mitigate without cancelling out present reminders of its unacceptable past, most notable among which are her vocal and hot-headed father Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Her stalwart defence of France?s right to perpetuate its national identity has forced Nicholas Sarkozy to give the issue a seriousness of attention he failed to grant it while office, but has sometimes been made by appeal to the lower instincts of the French electorate rather than the higher.

Marine Le Pen remains, among an imperfect choice in urgent times, the only candidate capable of saving France?s control over her finances, borders, and identity.

She is the only candidate available to conservative voters advancing the case for an exit from the Euro, the one measure which if executed carefully might yet save France from being swamped by foreign debts amassed elsewhere in a European project largely of its own making.

While Nicholas Sarkozy raises the prospect of securing French borders through withdrawal from the Schengen area, she possesses the requisite disdain for European entanglements which he all too comprehensively does not. Her defence of French national identity in the country with Europe?s most numerous Muslim minority is credible, whereas Sarkozy?s betrays his increasingly impotent opportunism.

France next elects a president to the ?lys?e Palace in 2017. The most urgent question in this election ought to have been whether the next will matter much. There is no good reason as things stand to believe that France will escape the impotent slide into the morass of multiculturalism and bankrupt late European social democracy.

 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2132611/French-elections-2012-Marine-Le-Pen-responsible-vote-France.html#ixzz1sld8crx6

54
3DHS / Equality as an Evil
« on: April 15, 2012, 08:55:12 AM »
Friday, 13 April 2012
Equality as an Evil
The Moral Scourge of Modernity
By Alex Kurtagic
 
The dominant ideology of modern Western societies upholds equality as an absolute moral good, which must, therefore, be pursued for its own sake. The morality of egalitarianism is never questioned by the establishment power structure or by the vast majority of citizens; it is, in fact, a taken-for granted assumption that exists outside the scope of acceptable debate. Predicated on the arbitrary assertion that all humans are born equal in dignity and rights, and bearer of such rights by the mere fact of being human, able to reason, or endowed with dignity (note the circular reasoning) it makes of anyone questioning the moral goodness of equality into an individual of questionable humanity. Even conservatives dare not question the moral goodness of equality, focusing instead on critiquing the methods of application. Yet, equality, despite the high-flown rhetoric surrounding it, is far from an absolute moral good. On the contrary, when we examine the consequences of equality, it is an evil. This article will first explore some of the ways in which equality is an evil and will then put forth an alternative paradigm, founded on a theory of difference.

Unfair Distribution of Reward

The pursuit of equality?s most obvious consequence is the unfair distribution of reward. Because individual capabilities are always different, equality cannot be achieved without taking rewards from the deserving and reallocating them to the undeserving. Thus, talent, industry, thrift, diligence, discipline, initiative, and perseverance are penalised, while inability, idleness, profligacy, indifference, negligence, inertia, and inconstancy are rewarded in the name of social justice. This is egregiously apparent in the policies of universities in the United States, where the pursuit of racial equality has led to differential admission standards that privilege the scholastically inept at the expense of the scholastically apt. In the wake of unequal outcomes in SATs by different racial groups, millions of bright, hard-working students have been excluded from the universities of their choice, particularly where these have been ivy-league universities, in the effort racially to equalise outcomes.

The irony is that an argument for egalitarianism has been the need to combat the unfairness of what egalitarians commonly refer to as ?privilege?. Egalitarians deem ?privilege? bad because it is unmeritocratic, allowing some to enjoy unearned benefits. Yet, since, as we have seen, egalitarian policies still create privileged classes of individuals, who unfairly enjoy unearned benefits, it achieves the opposite of its stated goal, merely transferring ?privilege? from one group to another.

Unfair Distribution of Resources

Closely related to the above is the unfair distribution of resources that accrues from pursuing equality. An example has been provided by recent a news report about universities closing or scaling down science departments to make room for diversity or equality officers. It seems the salary for one such officer would be enough to fund two cancer researchers. Being an absolute moral good, for egalitarians equality needs no logical justification, but the truth is theirs is an ideology that inflicts misery and costs lives. Let us be specific with the implications. Imagine you have a young loved one who has cancer or some other degenerative medical condition. Prognosis is early death in ten or fifteen years without a medical breakthrough. The research is making slow progress. You hope science will make the breakthrough before it is too late. Then, suddenly, the relevant research centres begin closing down or scaling down science departments, while, at the same time, these centres create positions for well-paid diversity or equality officers, allocating their departments generous funds. The research now moves more slowly, pushing back that medical breakthrough you are hoping for. Your loved one now faces a more protracted illness, possibly death before a cure or a more effective drug therapy is found. And what if you are a primary carer? Misery is thus inflicted upon you too, since the cure, or the new drug therapy, takes longer or comes too late. The worry and the sorrow also affect every close relative. It is difficult quantify the extent to which this is the case, particularly as no one seems to have researched this area, but the above scenario is not unreasonable. Can equality be a moral good when these are the consequences?

Negation of Difference

In recent decades, diversity has been a catchword among egalitarians, yet the affirmation of equality is simultaneously the negation of difference. The occasional phrase ?different but equal? has been the egalitarians? attempt to have their cake and eat it, but it is a logical contradiction and therefore nonsense. The argument that the equality referred to is merely equality before the law does not hold, because were it so there would be no need for a policy of differential (unfair) treatment of university applicants. The argument that the equality referred to is merely equality of opportunity does not hold either, because were it so there would be no consternation at unequal outcomes in test results among students in different racial categories, and therefore no need for unfair admissions policies. The affirmation of equality is a straight negation of difference across the board, even to the point of denying the biological existence of one of the primary sources of difference?race and gender?and of pretending that these are pure, arbitrary fictions.

Diversity is predicated on difference. The elimination of one implies the elimination of the other. Modern egalitarianism?s celebration of diversity, and its proclamation of diversity as a good worth pursuing for its own sake, are, therefore, contradictory. What is more, by criticising opponents of diversity as immoral, egalitarians fail to meet their own professed standards of morality, making egalitarians themselves immoral.

The negation of difference implies, by extension, a negation of quality, both in the sense of distinguishing attributes and of superiority. The logical end product of equality is, therefore, sameness and mediocrity, a denial of all the things that make life good and worth living. A system of belief that takes the joy out of life, a system of belief that is, ultimately, anti-life, cannot be considered moral.



Negation of Individuality

Difference is what makes us individual. To assert that everyone is equal, therefore, is to negate individuality, because individuality implies uniqueness, autonomy, non-interchangeability. None are compatible with equality. The demand for uniformity? even when made in the name of individualism?entails a demand for conformity, a renunciation of the self, a demotion or degradation of the individual. This is not just another contradiction, but an affront to so-called ?human dignity?, and since dignity is human, equality is inhuman. A philosophical outlook that simultaneously exalts and affronts dignity is not a coherent outlook.

There are two forms of collectivism: voluntary and imposed. The state- and institutionally sponsored pursuit of equality falls under the second category. Consequently, we can describe egalitarianism as imposing a degradation of the individual in service of an abstract collectivity?a collectivity that, because abstract and therefore dehumanised, does not exist empirically. Is this moral? Not in any way we could accept.

Agent of Oppression

As we have seen from the development of egalitarianism in modern Western societies, the logic of equality presupposes the equivalence of all humans. A result is that unrestricted immigration and racial diversity become ideologically unproblematic. Because humans are differentiated on multiple levels, racially diverse societies have become, by contrast, problematic, necessitating the proliferation of norms, regulation, laws, surveillance, penalties, bureaucracies, and additional taxation in pursuit of harmonious and continued functioning. The progressive limitation of freedoms never ends, because the above-stated measures address only symptoms, not the underlying cause: difference remains, and results in different responses to each measure, which in turn create the need for further measures. Worse still, because of the need to address an increasing number of areas in an increasingly disparate population with few or no shared values or assumptions, the regulatory effort becomes not only ever more invasive and prescriptive, but also increasingly ill-fitting for everyone. (Jack of all trades, master of none.) Freedom is also eroded economically due to the growing costs of regulating, policing, enforcing, penalising, and administrating social behaviour.

Modern Western societies provide innumerable examples of this process? oppressive nature. This goes beyond the lost careers, ruined reputations, fines, and imprisonment that may result from expressing a politically ?incorrect? opinion, because being consequent with politically correct opinion can also result in adverse outcomes, such as rape, robbery, rioting, and murder, all of which are linked to and are a function of racial diversity. Forcing people?and specifically one class of people?to live under increased levels of personal danger lest they wish not to lose their livelihood, reputation, and freedom constitutes oppression. Since oppression is immoral, on this count too so is equality.

Cause of Apathy and Alienation

Robert Putnam linked racial diversity in communities to apathy and alienation: individuals in racially diverse communities tend to exhibit lower levels of community engagement, higher levels of mistrust, and greater reliance on television. According to Putnam?s study, the phenomenon becomes more pronounced with greater racial diversity. The conclusion is that individuals living in racially diverse communities enjoy a lower quality of life than individuals living in racially homogeneous communities, and that the greater the diversity, the lower the quality of life. The elevated levels of crime concurrent with a declining proportion of Whites in a community further accentuate this trend. Since racially diverse societies in the West have resulted directly from the pursuit of equality, equality is causally linked to declining quality of life, and not the opposite.

Equality is not immoral if pursued voluntarily, even if those pursuing it experience a decline in their quality of life as a result. However, it is immoral if it is imposed, by the state (with its implicit threat of violence) or through social pressure, upon those who have no wish to pursue it. And it is doubly immoral if the nonconformity of those in the latter group are, as a result, and as we have seen, denied their humanity.

Destructive System

As has become apparent by now, equality is a destructive force on several levels. Firstly, it is destructive of individual quality, since traits that contribute toward making individuals salient in some way, including activities or ways of behaving, are disincentivised, degraded, or denied. Secondly, it is destructive of the things that make life worth living, for the same reason. Thirdly, it is destructive of human dignity, even though it claims to be for it. Fourthly, it is an agent of oppression, even though it claims to be against it. And finally, it is destructive of quality of life and communities, even though it claims to aim at improving both.

Immoral Practitioners

Aside from the intrinsically destructive nature of the equality ideology, the latter is further tainted by the immorality of its practitioners, for equality activism almost invariably works?though this is not always explicitly stated or even acknowledged?to the detriment of one particular class of individuals: Whites. By their actions, equality practitioners can be safely assumed to have anti-White attitudes, or be anti-White, even though in most cases they are White themselves. It is, therefore, ironic that equality practitioners deem themselves highly moral, and even arrogate to themselves the preaching of morality.

Perhaps more egregious are the crimes of communists, who justifiably comprise the most notorious class of equality zealot. Communists have murdered, imprisoned, and condemned millions to a life of misery, including artists, writers, teachers, and intellectuals. Communists have deprived Europeans of some of the latter?s best people. Communist atrocities are, indeed, the worst in world history. Even on a smaller scale, communist and congenial egalitarians have often been prone to street violence, and as their breed of activist seems more eager than any other to engage in violence when faced with divergent opinions. This may be because egalitarianism has a terrorist history, beginning with the French Revolution, a movement comprising criminals, psychopaths, alcoholics, defectives, and sociopathic geniuses. This may also be because egalitarianism attracts the worst elements of any population, since they are the ones with most to gain by equality policies.

Psychopathology

From the above it is difficult not to see White egalitarians as suffering from an undiagnosed psychopathology, particularly when their equality activism?s long-term effect is to cause massive damage to their race, perhaps even its eventual destruction. Being perfectly analogous, such behaviour can be conceptualised as a collective tendency towards self-mutilation and / or suicide. In the case of Whites, it is reasonable, then, to treat egalitarianism as a moral defect or mental disturbance. (In the case of coloured people, egalitarianism is paid lip service in the interest of extracting concessions; in the case of a subset of Jews since the nineteenth century, egalitarianism is a strategy aimed at making Western societies more amenable to Jews.) Mental disturbance and defective morality are often linked.

The term ?mental disturbance? may seem disproportionate to some, given that many egalitarians sound and act like normal, well-adjusted members of society, and given also that, at least on the surface, egalitarianism represents the consensus opinion. It must be remembered, however, that this semblance of normality is a fairly common phenomenon. ?Racism? is now commonly considered the epitome of evil, but ?racist? attitudes and opinions, not to mention ?racist? legislation and government policies, represented until recently the consensus opinion, and were considered perfectly normal?so normal, in fact, that they were not always easy to identify, and even now new forms continue to be ?discovered?. Identifying, and then changing, them has been the modern egalitarians? self-imposed mission and raison d??tre. We must not, therefore, allow ourselves to be deceived by apparent normality or by the apparently normalising effect of a consensus. Also, we must keep in mind that dominant ideologies always seek to perpetuate themselves by representing orthodoxy as healthy and normal, and heterodoxy as pathological and abnormal.

Difference

The pursuit of equality has been tied up with notions of social justice for so long that many may find it difficult to separate the two, and may therefore find an alternative unthinkable, or at least an evil to be avoided. Certainly, this is how egalitarians think and would like everyone else to think. We would propose, however, that the reverse is true, and that a superior paradigm might be one based on the desirability of difference.

A theory of difference is not ?diversity? as egalitarians understand the term. The ?diversity? of egalitarians refers to humans who may look different, but who, apart from individual personality and socially constructed differences, are essentially equivalent and interchangeable. This, of course, is too one-dimensional to constitute diversity, for it denies the validity of group attributes that contribute to identity. A theory of difference defines diversity as it is meant to be defined, and embraces the multidimensionality of human difference, both at the individual and collective levels.

Under a difference paradigm, therefore, we would expect individuals and groups to be different, even to diverge significantly from our own baselines, rather than expect them to be the same or to have failed when they showed no sign of convergence with us. We would respect difference as a matter of individual or group prerogative. And even where difference may result in instances that are repugnant to us, we would not for that reason cease to consider difference generally a font of riches, for the possibility of difference is a precondition for excellence and the extraordinary.

Sample Policy Implications

Alert readers who are familiar with my earlier writing on Haiti and Sub-Saharan Africa should immediately see the policy implications. Below are some examples.

Firstly, if difference is good and a matter of prerogative, it follows that allowing genetically and culturally distant settlers from the Third World to settle in Western nations is detrimental to the uniqueness of those nations. Immigration is not necessarily an evil, but under a difference paradigm immigrants would be immigrants, rather than settlers, and therefore appellants to the established authority, whose prerogative it would be to grant or deny admission on the basis of the incomers? potential for assimilation. Diverse regions or nations would be seen as inimical to a diversity of regions or nations, for the ability for each to define themselves on their own terms would be a precondition for that diversity.

Secondly, an earthquake in a country like Haiti would not be a call for reconstruction. Haiti cannot be regarded as a Western nation, even if it is geographically in the West and was originally a European colony, for it is not populated or run by descendants of Europeans. At the same time it is right and proper, and often advantageous, that nations cooperate with one another. Under a difference paradigm, Haiti?s economic performance and political instability would not be seen as a failure, as it is under an equality paradigm, but rather the result of artificially imposing Westernisation on what is essentially a remote West African outpost. Any international assistance, therefore, would aim at de-escalating Westernisation and facilitating convergence with West Africa?s historical baselines. (I say historical, because West Africa is presently also still suffering from a European colonial syndrome.) Efforts would aim at environmental recovery and Haiti?s gradual, managed conversion to a sustainable non-industrial society. It would then no longer be measured or included in international corruption, transparency, or ?development? indices because these Western parametres would have become irrelevant. Should at any point Haitians decide to pursue a Western-style model, it would be their prerogative, but they would be left to do it?indeed succeed or fail?on their own terms, not by terms imposed by any Western nation.

Thirdly, while it would be possible for a Black African-descended student to apply for admission at any Western university, admission would be conditional on the availability of spaces and on meeting the same minimum standards of academic aptitude as those of the White European-descended students. The curriculum would be defined by Whites, for Whites, and it would be assumed that any non-White student attending the university was there to study that curriculum and to be measured against Western academic criteria. No effort would be made to increase the proportion of Blacks simply on the basis of statistical under-representation, as all else being equal this would be considered the result of difference, rather than a problem. Tests would be revised for accuracy of measuring the academic aptitude of Whites, not for improving the academic performance of Blacks or any other group?s. Conversely, Black-run universities would not be expected to meet criteria set up by Whites for other Whites, but rather to meet criteria set up by Blacks for other Blacks.

Finally, a non-Western nation?s success or failure would not necessarily be a function of their degree of Westernisation. A prehistoric society could well be considered successful if it thrived on its own terms; its prehistoric nature would not necessarily be seen as a deficiency, for it may well be that a recorded history, complex organisation, and techno-industrial development are not relevant to, or needed, in that society, in its particular environment. We would no longer use the euphemism ?underdeveloped? or ?developing? or even ?poor? to refer to nations that do not meet Western baselines of wealth and complexity. In fact, techno-industrial or economic development would not be an objective measure applicable to all nations, for difference theory would in many cases regard these as irrelevant. A desirable consequence would probably be the reduction of debt, for many regions of the world would eventually fall off the horizon of the money system?a matter with significant ramifications.

Concluding Remarks

This, and the theory of difference in general, is a big topic and I can only sketch it out here in very general?and for some perhaps vague or overly abstract?terms. It will need much more serious elaboration across a range of contexts and disciplines, so for now it will be up to the reader to tease out the talking points and formulate them in ways that resonate emotionally. The potential benefits, however, are huge, for if the morality of equality were to be dismantled completely, the egalitarian Left would be delegitimised in the public discourse as an untenable proposition, and the equality project would implode as evil and absurd.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/equality-as-an-evil/

55
3DHS / Roger Scruton: Want to Save the Planet? Turn Right
« on: April 15, 2012, 08:49:39 AM »
Roger Scruton: Want to Save the Planet? Turn Right

By RAYMOND ZHONG

Brinkworth, England

Environmentalists might think they've scored an unlikely ally in Roger Scruton, arguably Britain's most famous philosopher?and a proud conservative. But Mr. Scruton's case for environmentalism is classically conservative, centered on the love of home, the importance of local institutions, and especially the suspicion of state power.

With "How to Think Seriously About the Planet" (out next month in the U.S.), Mr. Scruton casts his lot with environmentalism but not with the contemporary environmentalist movement. The book is something of a cry in the wilderness, keeping wary distance from all sides of the current political debate. "It's an attempt," as he puts it, "to say, 'Look, wake up, here is what it's all about really.'"

On a radiant spring afternoon, I have tea with Mr. Scruton at his farmhouse in the Cotswolds. Over more than four decades, he has written tracts on Spinoza and Kant, among other heavyweight subjects from sexual desire to music and hunting. But Mr. Scruton seems most at home fighting to defend traditional culture against its despoilers: fragmentation, nihilism, disenchantment, postmodernism.

Dressed in a rumpled sweater and corduroy trousers, his craggy face crowned by an unruly thicket of dust-colored hair, Mr. Scruton certainly looks the part of weathered back-country scholar. Lush hills spill in all directions outside the windows in his living room, where the 68-year-old is settled into an easy chair. The culture warrior is in his element.

Not that Mr. Scruton, ever the anti-radical, would describe what he wages from his desk in rural Wiltshire as "warfare." His practice is to tear through liberal convictions without abandoning his calm erudition.

On immigration policy: "The real cure to immigration, obviously, is to make sure that there is prosperity around the world so that people don't have the motive. Not just prosperity, but freedom."

On pornography's effect on young men: "Most people are not sexually attractive. Certainly they don't have?what the people on the screen have?all the attractions. And so they just think, 'Oh God, I'm out of all that game. It's just something to look at.'"

On climate scientists: "Many of the people who brand themselves as climatologists are not in the first rank of scientific minds, you know? I'm not really entitled to say that. But you do have a sense that these are guys who are not particularly good at mathematical modeling, they're not particularly good at computer science, they're not particularly good at physics, not particularly good at chemistry, but who put all those together . . . [and] become an 'expert.'"

Mr. Scruton became a conservative in May 1968 among the student rioters in Paris, where two centuries earlier another group of agitators helped crystallize the thoughts of British philosopher and statesman Edmund Burke on political change and social order. By publishing "The Meaning of Conservatism" in 1980, he outed himself within academia?he was teaching at Birkbeck College in London at the time?and became persona non grata among his British peers. America suits him much better, and he's now a visiting scholar at Washington's American Enterprise Institute when he isn't teaching part time in Britain.

"The Meaning of Conservatism," however, may be as explosive to some American conservatives today as it was to the London intelligentsia in 1980. Conservatism, Mr. Scruton wrote, had been "betrayed by the free marketeers" and misunderstood by almost everyone on the left and right. Conservatism's relationship to capitalism is tenuous, he argued. And conservatism takes no position on liberty, individual or otherwise.

Rather, conservatism is a rejection of utopia for reality?a preference for improving society bit by bit over fixing society by rubbing it out. If conservatives maintain any principled allegiances at all, they are to one's own people and place, and to the rituals, customs and social knowledge contained therein. Anything beyond that depends on the circumstances.

A friend once told him, as he recounted in a 2005 essay, that "Conservatism is a political practice, the legacy of a long tradition of pragmatic decision making and high-toned contempt for human folly. To try to encapsulate it in a philosophy was the kind of na?ve project an American might undertake."

What of liberalism? "My own view," he tells me, "is that left-wing positions largely come about from resentment?I agree with Nietzsche about this?a resentment about the surrounding social order. They have privileges, I don't. Or, I have them and I can't live up to them. Things should be organized differently.

"And there's always some sense on the left that power is in the wrong hands. You know, that the world is misgoverned. And in particular, the nearer something is to yourself, the more you feel that on the left. There's this rejection of your own country, of your own government."

"That emotion is very strong," he continues. "I think it's the fundamental source of left-wing politics throughout the 20th century. And when it turns itself into an environmental movement, the resentment remains."

Mr. Scruton's alternative is an environmentalism based on localism and reform, not alarmism and radical upheaval. He notes that the first modern environmentalists were English Tories who resisted industrialization and the imposition of the railways on the countryside. But reverence for our surroundings and love of home?or oikophilia, as Mr. Scruton prefers?go deeper. There is a basic human impulse, he says, to derive significance from the places we settle. We make them into homes; we give them names.

It isn't just that we like to keep our hedges well-trimmed. Long-term political order, he says, depends on responsible stewardship. Here Mr. Scruton calls upon Burke's concept of trusteeship, which broadens Rousseau's social contract to encompass not only current members of society, but the dead and unborn too. Our responsibility to them offers us a natural incentive to conserve our habitats?one that strong, centralized states usually crowd out, as the environmental devastation in Russia and China suggests.

The temptation for transnational solutions to environmental ruin is equally apparent. "But of course they never work," Mr. Scruton says, "unless the people who subscribe to them have a motive for obeying the result. It's finding that motive that is the real problem."

In other words, while it's straightforward for most people to see why they shouldn't litter, it's harder to attach importance to treaties concluded faraway by mostly unelected officials, the effects of which will be felt only indirectly. The environmental movement's task, Mr. Scruton argues, is to remind people why they should want clean air and green land in the first place?and to empower them to make the change themselves.

Part of the problem today, says Mr. Scruton, is that even if people want a stable habitat they aren't always willing to do what's necessary to conserve it. It's too easy for individuals and big businesses to externalize their costs: We dislike the accumulation of plastic in landfills and public spaces, but we aren't willing to give up the convenience of grocery bags. We dislike air pollution but won't stand for higher fuel taxes or reduce our driving and flying.

Here, decrying addictions to "fast food, tourism, luxury and waste," Mr. Scruton sounds familiar notes. I suggest that there's a fine line separating this sort of position from the old left's resentment of bourgeois lifestyles.

Mr. Scruton says the Marxists objected to those things because of the inequality they saw in people's ability to access them. He, on the other hand, objects to the things themselves. They "are eroding something important in the human condition?that actually human life is not just about consumption, it isn't just about enjoying yourself and having fun." With that last phrase, his face crinkles.

"There are goals in life of a more spiritual and moral kind, which actually require us to control our appetites. I think this is an old religious idea, which is there in Christianity, in Islam, at least some forms of Islam, and of course in Confucianism as well. . . . And that is not a lefty position. It's rather an old-fashioned moral and spiritual position, which isn't asking governments to do something about it. It's asking individuals to clean their own souls."

He continues: "I think this whole environmental movement has arisen because people recognize that we do need that spiritual discipline, and they're looking for it, partly in the wrong place by trying to get the government to do that discipline for us."

Mr. Scruton is hopeful that environmental degradation will be reversed from the bottom up, as countless other problems have: through civic associations, community groups and local organizations. Even larger, international outfits like the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders get credit, he says, for not being "career structures" like the European Union. "What is to be done," he says, "is essentially a work of education, opening the space for volunteering, reminding people in one way or another that the responsibility is theirs, and not confiscating the space in which they can act."

None of that can happen without the love and transcendent bonds that sustain any society, Mr. Scruton says. And so we circle back to the matter of home and country, and to a world in which those old allegiances are dissipating rapidly. But less so in America, says Mr. Scruton: "America has this wonderful ability to recover from its own mistakes, which is why it's so hugely superior to China. People worry that China is going to take over, but there is no reverse gear in China, there's no corrective procedure. . . . It will always come up against a wall."

The philosopher of the English countryside knows that most of his intellectual kindred are to be found across the Atlantic?and probably across much of the coastal U.S., too. "America is the one place," he says, "where you can talk of 'this nation' and everyone knows exactly what you think. People put a flag on their porch, and they do have a desire to localize everything and celebrate things locally.

"You know" that, he says, "if you go to a rodeo in the West, or a point-to-point race in Virginia or somewhere like that, or a pigeon-shoot . . . where you see ordinary people getting together to have a beer or celebrate their community. It's happening all over America just the way it always did."

Mr. Zhong is an editorial page writer for The Wall Street Journal Europe.

A version of this article appeared April 14, 2012, on page A13 in some U.S. editions of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Want to Save the Planet? Turn Right.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304444604577341521643541262.html

56
3DHS / HURT: Brutal week for Obama, the worst of his presidency
« on: March 30, 2012, 04:26:50 PM »
HURT: Brutal week for Obama, the worst of his presidency
By Charles Hurt Thursday, March 29, 2012

ANALYSIS/OPINION:

The past seven brutal days will go down as one of the worst weeks in history for a sitting president. It certainly has been, without any doubt, the worst week yet for President Obama.

Somehow, Mr. Obama managed to embarrass himself abroad, humiliate himself here at home, see his credentials for being elected so severely undermined that it raises startling questions about whether he should have been elected in the first place ? let alone be re-elected later this year.

Consider:

? Last Friday, Mr. Obama wandered into the killing of Trayvon Martin. Aided by his ignorance of the situation, knee-jerk prejudices and tendency toward racial profiling, Mr. Obama played a heavy hand in elevating a tragic situation in which a teenager was killed into a full-blown hot race fight.

Americans, he admonished, need to do some "soul-searching." And then, utterly inexplicably, he veered off into this bizarre tangent about how he and the poor dead kid look so much alike they could be father and son. It was election-year race-pandering gone horribly wrong.

? By the start of this week, Mr. Obama had fled town and was racing to the other side of the planet just as the Supreme Court was taking up the potentially-embarrassing matter of Obamacare. While in South Korea he was caught on a hidden mic negotiating with the president of our longest-standing rival on how to sell America and her allies down the river once he gets past the next election.

? Meanwhile, back at home, the Supreme Court took up the single most important achievement of Mr. Obama's presidency and, boy, was it embarrassing. The great constitutional law professor, it turns out, may not quite be the wizard he told us he was.

By most accounts, Mr. Obama and his stuttering lawyers were all but laughed out of the courthouse. They were even stumbling over softball questions lobbed by Mr. Obama's own hand-picked justices.

? Mr. Obama closed his week pulling off a nearly unimaginable feat: He managed to totally and completely unify the nastily-fighting Democrats and Republicans in Congress. Late Wednesday night, they unanimously voted ? 414 to zip ? to reject the budget Mr. Obama had presented, leaving him not even a thin lily's blade to hide behind.

So, in one week, Mr. Obama got caught whispering promises to our enemy, incited a race war, raised serious questions about his understanding of the Constitution, and then got smacked down over his proposed budget that was so wildly reckless that even Democrats in Congress could not support it.

It was as if you lumped Hurricane Katrina and the Abu Ghraib abuses into one week for George W. Bush. And added on top of that the time he oddly groped German Chancellor Angela Merkel and got caught cursing on a hot mic.

Even then, it wouldn't be as bad as Mr. Obama's week. You would probably also have to toss in the time Mr. Bush's father threw up into the lap of Japan's prime minister. Only then might we be approaching how bad a week it was for Mr. Obama.

Not that you will see any trace of embarrassment in the face of Mr. Obama. He has mastered the high political art of shamelessness, wearing it smugly and cockily. Kind of like a hoodie.

? Charles Hurt can be reached at charleshurt@live.com.

HURT: Brutal week for Obama, the worst of his presidency

57
3DHS / Multiculturalism: When Will the Sleeper Wake?
« on: March 29, 2012, 02:21:15 PM »
Multiculturalism: When Will the Sleeper Wake?
by John Derbyshire

London Mayor Boris Johnson spoke the other day about the riots that devastated London and other English cities last summer:

The biggest shock for me from the riots was the sheer sense of nihilism?perhaps I should not have been shocked, but in my view literacy and numeracy are the best places to start. In seven particular boroughs in London one in four children are leaving functionally illiterate. In a few schools it is nearer 50%. We have to intervene at an earlier stage, and I think the mayor can help.

Here is a thing that The New York Times said on Tuesday, March 20. The subject is the shootings at a school in Toulouse, France, the previous day. The victims were Jewish, but the gunman?s identity was unknown, so the Times defaulted to basic liberal assumptions:

The political debate around the shootings, and whether the deaths of an instructor and three young children were somehow inspired by anti-immigrant political talk, is likely to continue.?In the middle of a long and heated presidential campaign, with President Nicolas Sarkozy trying to win back disaffected supporters who have drifted to the far-right National Front party, the shootings at Toulouse have raised new questions about the tone and tenor of the debate here about what it is to be French.

Here is a thing that General Wesley Clark, then the supreme commander of the NATO alliance, said back in 1999. The subject was the NATO bombing of Serbia:

?Cultural diversity within a nation causes nothing but trouble?what could be more obvious??
There is no place in modern Europe for ethnically pure states. That?s a 19th century idea and we are trying to transition into the 21st century, and we are going to do it with multi-ethnic states.

The common thread there is multiculturalism, the notion that entire populations of different cultures can coexist in reasonable harmony together under a common sovereignty.

In Europe and the Anglosphere, this is the Age of Multiculturalism?an age when the doctrine is so much taken for granted, at least by elite types such as the Mayor of London, editorial writers at The New York Times, and American generals, that it has seeped into the tissues and bones to the degree that contrary notions cannot be thought.

My three quotes all illustrate that. The Mayor of London cannot think the following thought: Last summer?s riots were initially and essentially race riots, with what is left of England?s native underclass only joining in later as scavengers.

As for ?functionally illiterate,? well:

Across the 14 boroughs that make up Inner London, there are 98,000 schoolchildren whose first language is not English, compared to just 79,000 native English speakers.

So the dismal educational outcomes the mayor cites were not the cause of the riots. Rather, both London?s mass functional illiteracy and the riots are effects of a common cause: fifty years of insane immigration policies turning the capital into a Tower of Babel (while simultaneously gifting it with beauties like these). Multiculturalism?s horrible consequences can, this fool mayor tells us, be cured with a little extra algebra.

The thought that New York Times editorialists cannot think about anti-Semitic murders in Europe is that Jew-killing has nothing to do with ?anti-immigrant political talk? or the ?far right.? It is instead an activity favored, encouraged, and committed pretty exclusively by radical Muslims who have been admitted to Europe in ululating multitudes by the same lunatic multiculturalist immigration policies that gave London its riots.

Here?s the thought that General Clark could not think: Far from being a discredited 19th-century relic, the ethno-state has been the very foundation of Europe?s long post-WW II peace. The multiculturalist assault on ethno-nationalism will return Europe to strife, conflict, and national instability.

In the year 2099, a hundred years on from General Clark?s pronouncement, all three of those quotations will sound chimerical. Reading them, our great-grandchildren will shake their heads in wonder. ?Couldn?t they see?? Cultural diversity within a nation causes nothing but trouble?what could be more obvious?

In that future world, nations that had the sense to remain ethnically intact and which had ?Arctic? distributions of intelligence, behavior, and personality?China, Japan, Korea (presumably united by then), Finland maybe, Israel if she survives, just possibly Russia, some outlier oddities such as, perhaps, Hungary?will have steamed ahead of those who inflicted the multi-culti blight upon themselves.

The rest of us will either be dragging ourselves along wearily, towing behind us the millstones of unproductive, unassimilable, low-human-capital subpopulations left over from the Age of Multiculturalism, along with the associated frictions and rancors; or else we shall have broken up in complete ethnic disaggregation, casting off those subpopulations to fend for themselves in mini-states of their own while we join?rejoin, really?the ethno-nationalist march of mankind.

Historians of the future will amuse themselves by coming up with theories to explain why European civilization, at the height of its powers, rich with unparalleled achievements in science, music, art, literature, mathematics, and technology, gave up its lands and its treasures to people for whom those achievements were mere hated tokens of oppression or the impious and superfluous productions of infidels.

For those of us living through the Age of Multiculturalism, the interesting question is: When will the sleeper wake? When will the obvious become undeniable, even to those as sheltered and blinkered as Boris Johnson and New York Times staffers?

Given the well-nigh unlimited human capacity for self-deception and wishful thinking, together with the power of unanimous elites to enforce their version of reality on a distracted populace, my guess is that we have a decade or two to go. Multiculturalism is barely half a century old; Soviet communism lasted seventy-four years.

http://takimag.com/article/multiculturalism_when_will_the_sleeper_wake_john_derbyshire#ixzz1qWktsemz

58
3DHS / Overshot in Florida
« on: March 29, 2012, 02:18:15 PM »
Overshot in Florida
The no-go area of no-go areas
By Colin Liddell

Here in Japan we have had a no-go area since the great earthquake of last year. Such areas are something of a rarity in these parts. This one is rather large stretching across a radius of 20 km. It is centred on the Fukushima nuclear reactor, which was badly damaged by the tsunami caused by the quake, and is meant to protect people from radioactive contamination. In the usual, slightly nannying way common in these parts, it has been marked with all the paraphernalia that one would associate with no-go areas: manned roadblocks, no-entry signs, flashing lights, occasional automated announcements, and a range of gentle fines.

But while no-go zones are extremely uncommon in Japan, where walking about at night is perfectly safe, this is certainly not the case in America, where the trial for the murder of two British tourists shot in the Florida resort town of Sarasota has just ended in the conviction of Shawn Tyson, a Black 17-year-old youth.

No doubt if Obama had a son, he would also look like Tyson.
While Japan makes great efforts to mark its no-go zones, the same cannot be said for America. There it is regarded as something of a social faux pas to put up appropriate signage.

Regarding the case, it seems that the murder victims, James Cooper and James Kouzaris, after an evening spent at a couple of downtown bars, the last of which closed at 2 am, decided to walk to a well-known 24-hour diner, located about one-and-half miles away, for an early hours breakfast. After failing to take the right turning, they continued on their way to what newspapers in their coded way described as a "ghetto," "run-down estate," and "public housing project." The pictures of the murder site, however, showed a pleasant enough row of tree-shaded bungalows, each with its own spacious yard, and a car, SUV, or pickup truck in every driveway.

Certainly this is not the kind of obvious no-go area that innocent, liquored-up tourists could be expected to recognize, but no-go area it certainly was as quotes from the local police captain Paul Sutton to the press made clear. He admitted that detectives had ignored "lifestyle differences" between Britons and Americans and assumed the tourists would never have dreamed of trying to get around on foot. Sutton also talked about the men "losing their bearings" and "overshooting" the "correct turning." In other words, there are certain places it isn't safe to walk and no signs to let people know they have taken the wrong turning or wandered too far.

Sutton wanted to make it sound as if what happened to the two men was some kind of accident; as if they had haphazardly walked off a cliff or gone scuba diving without the correct equipment. In a sense this is true. There is an almost impersonal quality and predictability about Whites wandering into America?s no-go zones at night without the requisite number of guns, mace, bullet-proof vests, and police back up.

Cooper and Kouzaris were clearly targeted because they were White. One of the witnesses at the trial Jermaine Bane said he had a phone call from Tyson in which he heard him say: "Who are those crackers walking past the park?" When Tyson found out they had no money he decided to kill them for pleasure. The court heard that Tyson had boasted to a female friend, Latrece Washington, that one of the men had begged for his life but he shot him anyway.

In the press that followed the killings, it was routinely referred to a "botched robbery." Remember that term for future reference, as it occurs every time Blacks rob Whites and then shoot the victims for a racial buzz. Other notions floated during the initial period of the investigation included the suggestion that Cooper and Kouzaris were trying to buy drugs, were the victims of a "honey-trap" operation, or were even "ghetto tourists."

The cumulative effect of all this speculation was to make the victims seem like they were the problem, not the killer. In the days that followed their murder, with Sarasota baking in the media spotlight, Cooper and Kouzaris were effectively presented as bar-crawling drunks with poor orienting skills. They were also depicted as womanizing dope fiends with a thrill-seeking death wish. The clear message was: "Don't worry, tourists, you have to be a really sick fuck to get blown away in Sarasota." Just the reassuring message the local holiday trade needed!

While most American Whites, especially White Liberals, have mastered enough doublethink to successfully avoid America's honky-shooting no-go areas without being too overtly conscious of the racial dimension, it is unfair to expect this sort of advanced Orwellian thinking from foreign tourists whose picture of America has been shaped by a Hollywood where Morgan Freeman is God, Dennis Haysbert President, and all the crooks Whites (often with Southern, German, or English accents).

On its website, Sarasota looks like a lovely place. Back at the time of the killing its beaches were advertised with the disturbingly elitist slogan "All beaches are not created equal." This has now been changed to "So many beaches so little time." Echoing these slogans we could also say that not all the neighbourhoods of Sarasota have been created equally safe?for obvious reasons?and that wandering into some of them will give you a lot less time on this planet.

Given that Sarasota is a holiday destination that attracts na?ve foreigners and then tries to get them drunk and high, it might be a good idea to fence off certain parts of the town with barbed wire and put up warning signs exactly as you would if there were dangerous cliffs or a stretch of water with a deadly undertow or sharks. As some of the tourists may not be fluent in English, these should also be very visual, with appropriate images of trigger-happy racist Black thugs.

In Japan they try not to have any no-go areas, but when they do they at least make strenuous efforts to clearly delineate them. America by contrast is riddled with dangerous no-go areas, but instead of this being openly admitted and measures taken to keep out potential victims, any mention is suppressed. In America it seems that the most obvious no-go area is the subject of no-go areas itself.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/hbd-human-biodiversity/overshot-in-florida/

59
3DHS / Open Society or Survival
« on: March 24, 2012, 02:35:14 AM »
Open Society or Survival
By Mark Hackard

Of all the idols of our age, none has demanded so much blood sacrifice and the dissipation of resources as that of democracy. From the Hindu Kush to our television screens, the liberal order betrays its totalitarian nature. We send armies and airborne robots into Asia?s wastelands to kill for the universal rights of man. Mass democracy can never be recognized for the deviant political philosophy it is, nor can it be restricted to the West alone; equality must reign everywhere unchallenged. Modern man is infallible, and in his militant faith he pursues no less than the entirety of the world subjugated to his will. How else may a New Jerusalem of pleasure and profit be realized, if not through the monumental force of a united humanity?

Eurasia remains the key to fulfilling this mad dream. Even as the United States continues its grinding and bloody counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and across Dar al-Islam, Washington has found the cash to promote ?civil society? and ?the rule of law? in Russia. The Obama Administration is looking to apply $50 million to NGOs and similar initiatives in Moscow and other regions throughout the country. Thus stated Ambassador Michael McFaul:

We have proposed to the US Congress to create a new civil society fund for Russia. We proposed that 50 million dollars in a neutral way, by the way, in terms of new money. That?s what I hear in Moscow that when you talk to real human rights organizations and what they really need, they need that kind of support.

While $50 million would be negligible in sustaining the Pax Americana?s military operations, it makes for a tidy sum when directed toward political subversion. (Among other projects, expect a new stream of nauseating parades and Pussy Riot church provocations.) Vladimir Putin?s third presidential term will begin this spring, but U.S. policy planners have been emboldened by a recent surge in opposition activism in Russia. Along with continuing pressure on Moscow?s peripheries, their strategy is still centered on creating the infrastructure for revolution, the most cost-effective way that an embattled Third Rome could fall to American power. After all, the United States seeks to destabilize Russia with an ultimate view to her dismemberment and exploitation by the lords of international usury.
The Freedom Agenda grants Washington carte blanche to undermine sovereign nations on whim in the name of ?human rights? and a long-term mandate for global governance. Exporting to the world its model of social chaos, the United States aims for the establishment of a unified, market-driven Open Society across the earth. Should some insolent tribe refuse the imperial model, it must prepare for the inevitable assault- if not by bombardment or sanctions, then at the very least through intelligence operations and psychological warfare.

Peoples who would defy postmodern Mammonism must have a clear ideological framework for resistance. In the case of Russia, such a basis for thought and action is conspicuously absent among ruling elites. Popular legitimacy can only derive from the quantitative ?will of the people?; the Kremlin carries out elections in imitation of Western stage-management and assiduously tracks approval ratings from the middle class. Putin and his assorted clans will have nothing to counteract a deadening reductive-materialist worldview if they share it with their geopolitical adversaries.

Russia spent a century enacting the social experiments of the modern West; she can afford neither lives nor time for yet another ruinous undertaking. Babel and its missionaries must be repudiated. War for the national soul begins at the visceral level of shared faith and kinship; these values form the traditional organic state, guardian of sacred heritage and culture. And there is no greater weapon in this struggle than the loyal heart.

Rendering judgment on democracy, the White ?migr? leader Ivan Ilyin gave us a principled and articulate rejection of the liberal dispensation and its incipient totalitarianism. It is no accident that today?s Free World is on the fast track to tyranny. The bloodless abstractions of liberty and equality bequeathed to us by Locke, Rousseau and their disciples have birthed mechanisms of control undreamt of by ancient despots. ?Government by the people? has in fact served to corrupt and dissolve whole peoples according to the design of an antitheist and anti-human Money Power. Is escape from the democratic Panopticon even possible? Yes, though it demands of us a fateful choice: languishing toward oblivion in the Open Society, or our arrival at the harsh conclusions necessary to chart a future.

 

***

On Formal Democracy

Essay by Ivan A. Ilyin. Taken from the collection ?Nashi Zadachi? and translated by Mark Hackard.

There are two different understandings of the state and politics: the mechanistic and the organic. The mechanistic asserts instinctive man and his private interests; it measures life quantitatively and formalistically. The organic derives from the human spirit and ascends to national unity and its common interests; it is qualitative, searching out spiritual roots and solutions.

We shall first examine the mechanistic view.

It sees in man first and foremost the instinctive individual with its ?desires? and ?needs?: every person wishes to work less, enjoy himself more and relax; procreate and accumulate; maintain his irresponsible opinions and express them without hindrance; to find the like-minded and associate with them wherever they may be; to depend upon no-one and wield as much power and influence as possible. After all, men are born ?equal?, and hence each of them must be provided equal rights for the assertion of their desires and needs: these are the inalienable rights of liberty which cannot abide restriction. Therefore every person should have an equal voice in affairs of state. For so many people there will be so many equal voices. Whatever a man may fancy is to be affirmed, and let there be no interference in this. Allow like-minded men of all nations to unite freely; let the votes be counted; the majority will decide?

As to the quality of the desires, plans and enterprises of all these men of one mind, and especially the motives and intentions of voters, no-one may concern himself. All of this is protected by inviolable ?freedom?, equality and the secret vote. Every citizen as such is considered already reasonable, enlightened, well-intentioned and loyal, incorruptible and honorable; each man is given the opportunity to discover his ?valor? and veil all his designs and schemes with words about ?the common good?.

Until he is caught, this man is not a thief; until taken red-handed, he demands complete respect. He who has not been implicated at the scene of a crime (for example, treason, foreign espionage, conspiracy, bribes, waste, fraud, call-girl rings, counterfeiting) ? is considered a political ?gentleman? independent of his profession and a full citizen. Most important are liberty, equality and vote-counting. The state is a mechanical equilibrium of private (personal and group) agendas; the state is built as a compromise of centrifugal forces, played out in the performances of political actors. And politics should move according to the results of mutual distrust and competing intrigues.

Unfortunately this view (as much as I know) is nowhere expressed in such a frank and precise form. It is not a doctrine; it is simply an unspoken political dogma, rooted in the world and taken as the self-evident essence of democracy. All men are formally free; all men are formally equal and contend with each other for power, for the sake of their own interests, yet under the pretense of a common benefit.

Such a formal and quantitative conception of the state renders its fate dependent on whom, how and what shall fill a vacuum of content, as well as that indifferent-drifting quality people afford themselves through formal ?liberty?. State and government are but a mirror or arithmetic sum of what is made in the soul of the human mass and its sense of justice. Something stews within this at once opaque and unassailable cauldron: any interference is forbidden as ?pressure?, and any constraint or action is denounced as ?an infringement upon freedom?. Every citizen is secured the right to crooked and deceptive political paths, to disloyal and treasonous designs, to the sale of his vote, to base motives for voting, to underground plots, unseen treachery and secret dual citizenship- to all those crudities which are so profitable to men and so often tempt them.

The citizen is given the unlimited right to temptation and the corruption of others, as well as the subtle transactions of self-prostitution. He is guaranteed the freedom of disingenuous, lying, and underhanded speech, and the ambiguous, calculated omission of truth; he is granted the liberty to believe liars and scoundrels or at least pretend to believe them (in self-interest simulating one political mood or its complete opposite). And for the free expression of all these spiritual seductions he is handed the ballot. Motivations for voting must be free; the formation of parties tolerates no constraint; to limit political propaganda is to exercise coercion.

To judge and condemn for ?political views? is not permitted: this would signify an assault upon another?s ?conscience? and persecution of his beliefs (in German, Gessinungsjustiz). Freedom of opinions should be total; government officials will not dare infringe upon this or attempt its curtailment. And the most stupid, most harmful, ruinous and foul ?opinion? is sacrosanct, already by virtue of the fact that there is a destructive fool or traitor who has proclaimed it, all the while hiding behind its inviolability. Is it possible to make him only passively hold his beliefs? How are we to keep him from putting these thoughts into action, through whispers, conspiracy, secret organizations, and the covert accumulation of arms?

It is understood that all of this immediately disarms the state before enemies and subversives; at the same time it guarantees these enemies and subversives total liberty and impunity. The government is obliged to secure the people the freedom to be seduced, while revolutionaries and traitors are assured the freedom to seduce. It is natural that another election?s results will show the success of this guaranteed seduction. And so the regime will continue until the seduction undermines the very idea of voting and readiness to submit to the majority (for according to the recently stated revolutionary formula of the Belgian Spaak: ?The minority is not required to submit to the majority?). Then voting is replaced by rebellion, and the organized totalitarian minority seizes power.

This means that the formalistic-quantitative concept of the state opens the doors wide open to every political adventure, coup and revolution, as we observe from year to year in South America, for example. And in truth, the scoundrels of the world would have to be complete fools if they did not notice and exploit this excellent opportunity for the seizure of power. Admittedly, American gangsters did not reach this point and kept their atrocities out of politics, and the Sicilian Mafiosi have also been satisfied with private income. But to arrive at such a conclusion is not at all difficult. Nature abhors a vacuum; as noble motives (religious, moral, patriotic, and spiritual) weakened and withered in human souls, into the empty space of formal liberty would inevitably surge ridiculous, evil, perverse and avaricious plans advanced by totalitarian demagogues of the Left and Right.

Formal liberty includes the freedom of secret treason and overt destruction. From the very beginning the mechanistic and arithmetical competition of private desires prepared within people?s hearts the possibility of blind escalation and civil war. As long as centrifugal forces agreed to moderate their demands and find a compromise, the state could maintain balance over the chasm; but the prophets of class struggle rebelled and brought upon us the moment of civil war. How can the formal-mechanistic conception of the state oppose them? By the urging of great persuaders? Cries over our perishing freedom? Or ideas of sentimental humanitarianism, forgotten conscience and trampled honor? But this would mean ?interference?, thereby denouncing formal liberty and the mechanistic conception of politics! This would entail a loss of faith in political arithmetic and a fall into pure democratic heresy!

For formal democracy does not allow any doubt as to the good intentions of the free citizen. Jean-Jacques Rousseau once taught that man by his nature is rational and good, and the one thing he lacks is freedom. We need only to not hinder him in drawing from his good-natured heart the guiding ?general will?, wise, unerring and salvific?Just don?t bother him, and he shall draw it forth!

People came to believe this two centuries ago. The French Encyclopedists and revolutionaries believed, and after them anarchists, liberals and proponents of formal democracy around the world. They believed to such a degree that they even forgot about their faith and its dangers: it was decided that this system is the truth most undoubted, and that in politics it demands veneration before liberty, a respectful formalism and an honest count of the votes. And now two centuries of this practice have set contemporary politicians before the greatest political earthquake in world history?

What can they do? Curtail formal liberty? Reject the mechanism of private desire? Abolish the arithmetic of voting? But this would mean to doubt the sacred dogmata of modern democracy! Who shall risk such a feat? Who will disavow himself? And how will he oppose totalitarians from both the Left and the Right?

If this is a dead end, then what next? Assent to the deformations and atrocities of a totalitarian regime?! Impossible!

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/exit-strategies/open-society-or-survival/

60
3DHS / How to piss off a frog
« on: March 18, 2012, 04:07:35 PM »

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 36