politics


So we have had ourselves a nasty little election. And the fix is in.

It seems a bit tedious to recount all the, er, irregularities in certain states. The vote count was stopped, strangely, just as it was getting somewhere. (I was election judge twice, and by 9 pm we had all the ballots accounted for, en route to the Court House where they would promptly be counted. By hand. By some time after midnight.) Then, more ballots started showing up. Then, the count began to drag on, as some states refused to place a cut-off point on the reception of mail-in ballots. Pima County, AZ, for example, was extremely busy on Friday counting the overwhelming 6,000 ballots, and, having exhausted its worker bees, deferred the rest of the count to the week ahead.

Then, computer glitches have, oops, been reported. Antrim County MI, a red stronghold, had mysteriously turned blue. Manual recount reversed the situation, but what about the gazillion other counties using the same software?

The media called the winner… while election count continues unfinished. Fox News… they called Arizona for Biden just to keep Trump’s numbers low. They would not even give him Alaska. Fox is dead. Hated not only by lefties, but by righties now as well. How is that for killing your own golden goose?

At this point, Arizona still has not counted all the ballots, but its top bureaucrats have gone strangely silent after making promises not kept. Except for one lady who runs the elections system. She is blaming it all on covid. Riiight. (She is calling it quits. A wise move.)

Self-appointed sleuths keep finding dead people voting. As they always have. In America without voting IDs. And the MSM are stoutly maintaining nothing is going on, and have appointed Biden “president-elect.” Just cuz they know they can spew anything they want, and who will stop them? Not you or I. They have grown so depraved and full of hubris they cut off the president’s speech in midsentence. There has been a wave of deplatforming, banning, and silencing of those who criticize the election or publicize possible malfeasance. (On top of the tedious covid-related silencing.) I am back in a totality where near everything said publicly is a lie, from pollsters on down. Shit.

In Trump’s shoes, I would not spend the rest of my life hostage to the lawyers. I would declassify everything immediately via Marshalls walking in and impounding all files of the State Department and the FBI, CIA and their poisonous clones, and bring all the troops home. All of them. Now. (I stole that idea from Moldbug: https://graymirror.substack.com/p/reflections-on-the-late-election) Expose the extent of election fraud to full scrutiny. Pardon Julian Assange. Then ride off into the sunset and let the teetering house of cards fall on Kamala’s head. The corruptocracy wanted the Biden win so bad they cheated in an unprecedentedly brazen fashion. Let the chickens come home to roost. They should have been careful what they wished for.

A specter haunts the New Age community of self-proclaimed healers, gurus, yogis, crystal peddlers, body workers, and indigo babies. That specter is QAnon, a movement that defies description, but turns people into Trump supporters. Yes, the dark secret is out… even the “conscious wellness community” members are susceptible. OMG! So what do the “wellness influencers” do to defend their ranks from such alarming contagion?

Eventually, Ms. Corn and other concerned wellness influencers decided to fight back. On Sunday, they posted a “wellness community statement” accusing QAnon of “taking advantage of our conscious community with videos and social media steeped with bizarre theories, mind control and misinformation.”

You’d think that taking advantage of “our conscious community” belongs to New Agers alone! The gall some people have! (It turns out some soiled chickens are coming home to roost.)

Ms. Corn said that the wellness community’s emphasis on truth-seeking and self-improvement makes it particularly vulnerable to a conspiracy theory like QAnon, which is all about sowing distrust in mainstream authorities under the guise of “doing your own research.”

There are positive aspects of this particular community, but truth-seeking is a can of worms Ms. Corn would be better off leaving in the shadows. And distrust in “mainstream authorities”? Since when has that become a sin? Ms. Corn’s community has been spreading it since the beginning. And often rightly so. Isn’t there something strange going on when the supporters of an alternative lifestyle suddenly come out marching on behalf of the “mainstream authorities?”

“They’re using the same music we might use in meditation classes,” Ms. Corn said. “It does things to the body, it makes you more available and open.”

Including one’s wallet, I take it?

“I’m afraid that well-meaning folks who don’t understand the complexity of this misinformation will be seduced” by QAnon, she said. “They’re rolling out the yoga mat right now, and it scares me.

Another scare piece on QAnon. Yawn. But no, this is actually news. The tinfoil hat brigade has noticed they have competition! The same people who have fattened for decades on the gullibility of suckers who flocked to channelers of the Pleiadians, fake cancer cures, the Secret (riiiight), and the latest “herbal” or “magical fruit” remedy that was never researched but sure got the full Madison Avenue treatment.

I am a part of the alternative medicine community, and know these folks well. They are the same ones who promote Essiac tea for the cure of cancer. It costs pennies to make, sells at 35 dollars a pint, and all it’s got to back it up are a few vague stories. These same people who never prevailed upon the (massively wealthy) supplement industry to run clinical trials for at least some of the expensive and heavily hyped products they offer. These same people who fed the guru syndrome. These same people who never found it in their own interest to teach those who flocked to them to tell bullshit from the real thing are now complaining their followers are falling for yet another scheme (with profits being routed elsewhere, cough). I can hear the world’s tiniest violin playing in the background.

Where was your outrage when Ida Rolf and her masses of charlatans were snowing people under? Where was your outrage when Hilda Clark abused desperate patients via her pretend cure-alls, including a horrible shack of a “clinic” south of the border? Where was it when self-proclaimed gurus like Rajneesh (later rebranded as Oshi) and the likes of Muktananda were abusing power, money entrusted them, and the children of their acolytes? And I won’t even go into the scandals at Naropa or the “integral” community. Tell you what, “wellness” bullshiteers. What goes around comes around. You reap what you’ve sown.

Take the beam out of your own eye before yammering on about a sliver in the eye of your neighbor. Then you can finally set out on the path of the light workers. But not before then.


For a more detailed “treatment” of the QAnon phenomenon from the “yogi perspective,” see

Red Pill Overlap

Red Pill 2

A large pinch of salt advised.

When the color revolutions began, I got pulled in. Followed a Tunisian blogger, and later, spent a night eagerly catching the tweets from Tahrir Square in Egypt. Man, did I get fooled! I owe Ukraine a debt for waking me in several ways to the profound malevolence of the Spectacle. Not just a show to distract and confuse, you understand… I now see it a psychopathic sleight of hand, aiming to harm.

I began to follow the Ukrainian Maidan out of boredom, over Christmas 2013. Things were going well for both the demonstrators and the regime; I figured that the peaceful protesters would get some concessions and Yanukovich would opt for reinforcing his ties to Russia as more profitable for the country. Was I ever wrong! I went back into Earthaven and stopped following politics. When I reemerged, Maidan had turned into a putch, Yanuk had fled the country, snipers had killed over 100 people both protesters and police, and the country took a pronounced turn for the worse. Huh? When flight MH-17 was shot down, I combed the news for an explanation. Only later did I come to understand that we’ll never know who did it and why, and that the Dutch, who were entrusted with the oversight of the investigation have long since ceased to be the staid paragons of trustworthiness they once appeared to be. That’s when my world changed.

So when I heard of the color revolution in Belarus this August, I was primed. Now, Belarus is not a place I know. I’d only vaguely heard that the Soviet system lived on in Belarus after independence, and that it had been heavily affected by the fallout from Chernobyl, many years ago. So I began to look for information close to the ground. The Saker has published a number of thoughtful pieces on Belarus, and I found a nonpolitical blog by a Belarus teacher — she reports on the desertification of agricultural land in her home region caused by local party people who thought cutting down windbreaks was a capital idea. Then I found a blog of a man who lives next to Belarus and reports on Ukraine and the Baltic states often. He occasionally posts on the situation in Belarus from fairly direct experience.

Belarus is noted for lack of mineral resources, and relies for its economy on the industry of its citizens and tourism, as well as heavy support from Russia, with whom it formed at independence a union of a looser sort. It is key in the sense that gas and oil from Russia is transported across it to the rest of Europe. President Lukashenko is managing the country along a latter-day version of the Soviet system. A number of freedoms are lacking. About 80% of the country’s assets are owned by the state.

It is understandable that there would be simmering discontent there. But a color revolution?! After the plunder of Ukraine?! Surely the people there know better, having watched what happened to the neighbors? Well, it’s more complicated than that. Apart from Tunisia, where the uprising was spontaneous and unexpected, a color revolution seems to be a very specific tool. It is a sneaky way to bring a country down, absent the possibility of an outright war of occupation.

Various non-profits supported by money from the West are established. Key people are trained in disruptive strategies that repeat from country to country. Propaganda against the current regime starts in earnest – X must go! Democracy must come in! Crowds of the disaffected are gathered through often misleading slogans. If successful, the state resources are privatized, bought for pennies on the dollar, thriving enterprises are taken over by new foreign owners who rob them from within, leaving a husk that eventually collapses. I figure the “effective managers” coming from the West get a bonus for eliminating what could be unpleasant competition. The country turns into a colony, to one extent or another. State gold reserve disappears. A country that once could feed its population largely from local farms turns into one where cheap food from elsewhere can be dumped. That’s the rough outline.

I am not a fan of Lukashenko. Nor am I a fan of Soviet relics. But at the same time, I am really really not a fan of bringing down functional countries. Do we need another Libya, another Ukraine? Fortunately, it seems so far that the country will hold. Perhaps it’s because, by now, everybody and their brother knows the color revolution pattern. Including Lukashenko and Putin. Luka tried to play it both ways, lured by western promises, but woke in time. He asked Putin for help, brought in supportive personnel from Russia, stopped the police brutality after a couple of days of regime panic, and is slowly steering the country toward stability. The demonstrations have not stopped yet but seem to be losing steam, organizers have been arrested or have fled, and foreign news outlets have resorted to lies.

What do the protesters want? I saw one small home-made sign that said, GOD EXISTS. I imagine that the people there want to be able to believe as they choose, and obligatory “scientific atheism” and other politically correct views stick in their craw. They’d want to travel more freely. They’d want to speak more freely and participate in governance. They’d want relief from the heavy-handed local apparatchiks. They’d want more of an entrepreneurial spirit. But not in exchange for ruining their comprehensive safety net and their economic and cultural self-determination, such as it is, at least such as it is.

What do MSM tell us? They say that the people object to the ruination of their safety net and increasing neo-liberalism. Huh? That’s what they’d get if they threw open the gates. They repeat the brutality of the first two days as though it’s ongoing. They cry that one of the top people openly organizing a “transition of power” (just after an election that did not go their way!) has been arrested. They denounce the elections. The elections, well, they are Soviet-like, but nobody cared all those 30 years. Why now?

Could one reason be the fact that Lukashenko refused to crack down and impose covid-related measures demanded by the WHO, along with a contingent loan from the IMF? Belarus, like South Dakota and Sweden, remains normal in the age of covid. Deaths are a minor blip on the radar (pop. 9.5 million, covid deaths 691, end of August). Nobody is wearing masks or distances. Life goes on as usual. Not a bad move for a country that would have been economically devastated by a shutdown and an unpayable loan.

The blogger I follow heard in MSM news that in Vitebsk, there were demonstrations and “gestapo-like” arrests. Since he lives near enough, he drove there. He found a group of couple dozen people on the far edge of town with signs and a woman dressed in voluminous white (good photo contrast, apparently). No bystanders, nobody else joining in. Eventually, the police arrived, and told the people to disperse. They did. It was a photo-op, after all.

Then there was a woman in the middle of the town collecting signatures for recalling local politicians. In full view, by the cathedral, near the police patrol. Not many signatures, but she did get herself arrested, and walks away between two policemen smirking victoriously. Another photo-op.

In this topsy turvy world, communist Belarus lives normally, while in shut down, democratic Victoria, Australia they are arresting people and confiscating their phones and computers for so much as mentioning compulsory-mask protests on the interwebs. Strange, is it not? I am rooting for a system I once fled, and on principle oppose. Because there are worse things that can come to a small naïve country. Like wolves in sheep’s clothing.

 

Something’s on my mind and I just can’t shake it,
I need some time and I want some space,
gotta get away from the human race…
— Grandmaster Flash: New York New York

Way back when, they used to berate us for having kids. You know… the Zero Population Growth, one kid or none crowd. If everybody did it, the population bomb would not have to go off. They lied. The people who did as they said are eliminating themselves from the gene pool. And the population bomb is blowing a bit of the planet up every day, species by species by species. Diversity of life going up in smoke.

Oh I know… they assure us that the “rate of population growth” has gone down. It has. But that hasn’t defused the bomb. There was a time a couple decades back when we were being lulled to sleep by assurances that by mid-21st century, population will level off and begin to decline. Nothing to worry about, right?

They are not saying that any more. The latest prognostications have been going up, 9-10 billion in 2050, 12 billion by 2100, and going up. I have looked upon this for some time as a farce… not for the planet, of course, but as one of the farcical stories unfolding among the more educated yet easily fooled humans. First, it was don’t worry, be happy. Now, the preoccupation is how we’ll feed the locust hordes. When will it be about how not to be locusts? When will farmers be asked to underproduce for humans, and give back to the soil and fellow critters? Never.

By the way, let’s pause for a moment. The august UN population agency tells us that we’ll reach 9.2 billion (that was in 2007, updated to 9.8 in 2017) in 2050. Really? We went 7 billion in the fall of 2011. That’s 6 and a half years ago. It took us only 6 and a half years to bloat another half a billion. The birth rate is not declining but holding steady. That would mean 8 billion in around, oh, let’s be a tad conservative and say 7 years. 2025. And let’s be equally conservative and add another billion in 15 years. That’s 10 billion in 2040. Are we being bullshitted? Why not? It worked to silence Paul Ehrlich

Because population has been, since the first Paleolithic aggrandizer takeover, a political question. Human elites always strive to grow their domesticated serf herds. More work, more food, more people. More people, more tools, inventions, slaves. More weapons, power, wealth, status for some. More work done, more food, more people. And so the seasons turn turn turn.

When people in the richer countries obliged the ZPG and stopped breeding like rabbi… er, domesticated animals, the elites began to berate them and started importing folks from countries where people were still cranking out babies like there was no tomorrow. In Europe, they are still berating them, and claiming that they need to grow their demographics despite the fact that huge numbers of their young people are unemployed with no prospects, robots are taking human jobs, and the Earth groans under the weight of the human mass. Japan is a notable exception, apparently assuming that fewer people on those crowded islands is not a bad thing at all. They have always marched to their own drummer.

The frog. Is it boiled yet? A friend of childbearing age and I are talking Ishmael. On one hand, the planet needs less of us. Less of us in numbers, less of us in human mass (yeah, fat shaming, baby!). On the other hand, both she and I love the culture we come from; we don’t look gladly toward the day when the language, history, culture, and genes of our motherland will blink out and go dark. Once a culture having risen like a phoenix from the ashes of imminent germanization, the Czechs seem poised to be overrun by other peoples from all sorts of other places because they are losing the demographic war.

So what do I tell her? She wants three children. My youngest cousin has four. I used to be counted among those preaching replacement or less. I am no longer. How does one square the circle? Do you value your home, your cultural inheritance passed to you in trust by countless generations, your kin? Have babies. Without them, there is no future for what you love. But what about the love of the Earth, love of Gaia?

Gaia will take care of Gaia. Humans blather, but haven’t got it in them to self-regulate our population. No species does. Effective regulation of population evolved by nature involves cycles of feedback due to predation. We have eliminated our large animal predators. What remains? Microorganisms and psychopaths. And those are the tools Mother Nature will use for the Big Cull. Psychopaths, rising in numbers along with the burgeoning population, will scheme ever more conflict and mayhem, and the tiny critters — whose evolution toward greater potency we have enabled by waging antibiotic wars on them — these microorganisms will keep trying for another global plague until they succeed. Of course, they adore increasingly crowded conditions — all the better to leap from host to host.

Reading Scott’s Against the Grain made my last square peg fall into its round hole. Humans have become a demographic plague on the planet because they have become too tame and too stress tolerant of the wrong kind of stress — overcrowding, sedentariness, monodiets of crap foods made for “human cattle,” boredom and anomie. It fucks up our hormones and neurochemicals, just like it fucked up the hormones and neurochemicals of the tame Russian foxes who started going into heat twice a year, whining, begging and wagging their tails. Selecting for docility and tolerance of the intolerable makes for domesticated humans. It makes us sheeple — even our brains, like the brains of domestic sheep, have shrunk. All domesticated critters are overbreeders because they have been selectively bred to be overbreeders. We are one of them.

The future that today’s babies will be meeting face to face won’t be like our present. Teach them to be smart and resourceful and resilient in a variety of situations. Mix in a hefty dose of practical skills into their education. Gift them strong immune systems, and pass on the knack to maintain these via fresh foods and hardy lifestyles fit for real human beings. Help them find highly capable and good-hearted but wily, wild-at-heart mates to have their own babies with. Teach them to recognize and foil those who would rather weed out all wildness, courage and spunk out of us, to control and manipulate us all the better. Begin in earnest to re-member lifeways fit for Homo sapiens to bequeath them. Weave for them stories and songs full of meaning that will buttress their psychological and spiritual health. Guide them to be brave, adventurous, fierce and strong, and to defend what they love.

Teach your children well.

It may seem like a detour from the usual topics of this blog, but it really isn’t. By and by, I will tie my thoughts regarding Islam into the overarching topic of uncivilization. But first, I need to share with you my journey, and what I have found.

I used to think that Islam was just another religion. Bzzt! Then, when I discovered it wasn’t, I thought that my exploration would lead to me separating the religion and its strictly religious concerns from the rest of Islam, and talk about the rest. But that too proved impossible. Islam is a political ideology firmly wedded to its religious aspect. But let’s begin at the beginning.

First, I discovered that Europe, and western Europe in particular, is in the throes of massive in-migration by people from Middle Eastern and African nations who are largely Muslim. And that there seems to be a major incompatibility between Muslims and the largely secular, post-Judeo-Christian Europe. This in-migration is a recent add-on to something that began in the 70s. Immigration policies were changed from protecting the locals and accepting people who were more or less compatible with local values, to aggressive multiculturalism that promoted people from far-flung parts of the world, and loudly deplored the locals as boring, not rainbowy enough, and racist. There were already Muslims in Europe at that time, in France from Algiers, in Germany from Turkey, and so forth. And in the Balkans, Muslim areas have existed since the Ottoman conquests. But from about the 70s on, progressive policies were implemented that over time made it possible for greater and greater numbers to come in, while enabling many of these incomers to live on welfare and to separate themselves into ethnic enclaves. The goal of integration was replaced by “sensitivity to other cultures,” and the rest is history.

Now, Europe has millions upon millions of Muslims who live in separate neighborhoods more or less according to their own rules. Perhaps most troubling, these areas are noted for their lack of women in the cafes, for plenty of burkas, rapidly rising street hooliganism and crime, and for sheltering those peculiar aspects of Islamic culture having to do with keeping women forcibly sequestered in the home, never learning the language of the host country, and never having a chance to participate in the rights and freedoms guaranteed to all women by that country’s laws.

Since I last spoke about Sweden, things have gotten both worse, and a little better. The wave of crime, said to be fueled notably by Somali and Afghani migrants, has gotten worse. The reports of rapes and vicious murders continue unabated, despite the efforts of the Swedish political elites to hush them up. But people’s voices are getting through. Just last week, a policeman published the details of the cases he’s been working on recently. The vast vast majority of those crimes were committed by migrants. He’s received massive support from Swedes on social media; nevertheless, the authorities are cracking down on him for racism.

In Germany, the critics of Merkel’s open door immigration policies have become more outspoken as well, defying intensive efforts of authorities to spy on them and to prosecute them for even slightly injudicious words. And the British have taken in many young men pretending to be children. When folks seeing who was coming in complained, barriers were erected to keep them from the public eye, and pleas for medical vetting were for naught. This after similar practices had been disclosed in the Scandinavian countries along with the abuse of the generous benefits that ought to be reserved for, you guessed it, children, and most grievously, after a “15 year old” 6 ft man in his early twenties had stabbed a Swedish child-shelter worker – herself a refugee from Lebanon — to death. Politically, anti-open-door parties are set to win in Holland and France, while even the teflon Ms. Merkel may be poised for a brisk slide toward defeat by a fellow Europhile.

In my bewilderment at the seeming madness of what I was witnessing, I began to study the Koran, and frequenting sites that were more “right wing” than any I had frequented in the past, mainly because they were dedicated to spreading information that was leaking one way or another from these various countries through social media, activists, and artists. And thus began my real education about Islam. I had trusted well-known religion expert Karen Armstrong, a former nun whom I admired for her honest portrayal of her early and miserable days in the cloister, to provide me with similarly honest information regarding Islam. But she let me down.

In reading the Koran myself, I suffered a shock. I discovered first hand all the hatred dished out in the Koran toward the likes of me, a kafir. Its incitement to violence. Its misogyny. Its vilification of Jews and Christians. And Mohammed’s unabashed and transparent use of the religious vehicle for self-aggrandizement, self-enrichment, bullying, lechery, lies and vengeful viciousness. Trying to recapture my shock now, so many months later, I realize I cannot do it justice. Islam needs to be experienced as I did, directly at the source. Do yourself and humanity a favor; please give it a few hours of your time.


A side note: when the Koran was compiled many centuries ago, it was organized from the longest passages to the shortest. This makes it confusing and virtually unreadable. That’s why getting a chronological Koran is essential. There are others besides the ones I point to below. Chronological Korans organize the contents by beginning with the early verses communicated when Mohammed was still living in Mecca, following up with the later Medinan verses. The verses are interspersed with the unfolding story of Mohammed to make more sense of the narrative. An Abridged Koran and A Simple Koran are the ones I have used, sometimes comparing the translation with others on the web.


Then, looking to communicate with Muslims directly, I joined one of the online forums dedicated to countering anti-islamic propaganda. It was a creepy experience. I ended up walking on eggshells for two months lest I say something I’d be castigated for, was castigated anyway, and had to leave the site because the stress of being in such a hostile environment was wearing me down. What I found was that honest and well-meaning if rather blunt questions were met not with a moderately-worded discussion suited for a forum ostensibly helping people see Islam and Muslims in a good light, but with vituperation. I was memorably told that we Americans are degenerates, our society a cesspool of immorality, and our values nonexistent. My every word was scrutinized and found wanting, and my free ranging inquiry resented as hateful American arrogance. Yikes! Later I found these folks are known for cyber stalking and doxing bloggers critical of Islam. I did meet one interesting Muslim there who maintained a civil discourse throughout, and introduced me to the fact that some contemporary Muslims cleave to the Koran only and are critical of the reliability of supporting information from the early hadith and the sira (collected sayings and biographies of Mohammed).

After that, my education came from several “counter-jihad” sites that I still follow regularly (here is one sample), and from reading a number of books, notably Irshad Majid’s The Trouble with Islam Today, Wafa Sultan’s A God Who Hates, and an obscure free online book that was once banned in the Netherlands, and speaks of the experience of a Muslim from Pakistan who once began a long trek west, looking for a culture more user-friendly than his own. He fell in love with the Netherlands, and makes no bones about his incredulity how willing the Dutch are to ruin the good thing they have. Wafa Sultan, a Syrian doctor who emigrated to the States, is an amazing woman. She became famous in the Arab-speaking world when she was interviewed side by side with a cleric who was all set to outshout her. Not a chance. She told him to pipe down, it was her turn! She is a sight to behold. These books not only opened up to me many of the issues contemporary religious and cultural Muslims struggle with, but they also shine a light on the mentality of people in heavily Muslim countries. I recommend them all, and commend these courageous souls for speaking so generously and freely of their experiences.

More recently, I have tussled with Muslims and their progressive allies online. I discovered first-hand the dishonesty that is described by counter-jihad folk as “taqiyya artistry.” Taqiyya as I understand it is a shia term for the permissibility of lying in the propagation of Islam and also to shield oneself from enemy backlash (the Shia’s main oppressor being the Sunni Muslims originally; Muslims all too routinely accuse each other of apostasy when opinions vary and feelings run high). I have come across people who will say anything, no matter how outrageous, in their effort at misdirection, at infusing Islam with a benevolent glow, or at casting aspersions at anything western. Since I follow Czech media, I ran into Muslims there who, relying on general ignorance, hit people over the head with a barrage of colonial guilt – this against a people who never had any colonies, were typically the butt of wider European power clashes, and suffered under the onslaught of Turk invaders who mercilessly pillaged southern Moravia and colonized neighboring Hungary for 150 years.

It’s not that Muslims don’t mean well. Often they believe alternative facts because western historians are not to be trusted, in their view. Or they are happy enough just to repeat islamic propaganda. Overall, though, it’s that their religion tells them all sorts of heinous acts – including crass deception — are piety itself, and lushly rewarded in heaven, if done “in the path of Allah.” Ah, there’s the rub of intensely self-righteous ideologies.

The left allies of Islam, on the other hand, deflect criticisms of Islam by venting scorn on Christianity, their usual whipping boy. They have a point; there are of course some equivalencies. But the intolerant Christianity of religious wars, burnings at the stake, and inquisition against heretics is largely and long since a thing of the past. In fact, Christians are now being shockingly brutalized, suffering frequent pogroms in many Islamic countries. Christianity no longer lives in the 16th century. As far as I can tell, Islam never left the 7th.

Looking back, it’s been for me a year and a half of shocks relating to Islam. Yet another such “rude surprise” concerns its history. But I will leave that for another time. You may ask – have I discovered any positives along the way? I am told that the language of the Koran is quite lovely in a whimsical sort of way, in Arabic, using puns and word play to get its message across. And my interaction with a small range of ardent Muslims gives me the impression that they are fellow utopians at heart, dreaming like us radical greens of a better social order, of that shining city on a hill that might usher us forth from this miserable time of Satanic mills gone doubling down. They certainly show a passion and a dedication to their task of spreading what they love we might do well to emulate. And clearly, their faith is a strength unto them.

There is something about human beings, when it comes to the unknown. We don’t seem to be able to just wonder about something and speculate creatively, maybe have a bit of fun with it. No, not us! Instead we like to decide beyond all possible doubt without a single shred of evidence.

We prefer to nail our colours to the mast before we even know if there is a ship attached to it, and often we’ll defend that position to the death.

— Pat Condell

German résistance (song, English subtitles):

https://vid.me/e/WBlA?stats=1

The time has come, the walrus said, to reopen this blog. I promised a tribal post, but that will have to wait for final touches. Meanwhile, to go along with the current political frenzy (and yes, I am voting this time, in case you wondered), I offer you a timely post that emerged this afternoon from a discussion on the Small Farm Future blog, which itself was provoked by that blog’s response to JM Greer’s recent musings on liberalism.

First, I hastened to refresh my understanding of classical liberalism. I compiled this vignette from quickly perused sources.

Classical liberalism is a political philosophy and ideology in which primary emphasis is placed on securing the freedom of the individual by limiting the power of the government.

Main features: freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets; rule of law and equality before the law; government by consent (constitution, checks on power, robust autonomy of local governing bodies); property protection; and commercial and industrial activities of citizens not subject to “undue restraint” – which led many early classical liberals, but not all, to fight protectionism (e.g. tariffs) and collective organizations (guilds, unions, et al.)

Chris Smaje added something essential: “I think a more important point concerns what liberalism has had to say about the form of politics rather than its content. And in a nutshell, that form is – argue your point peacefully, using reason; if you lose, accept that you’ve lost peacefully, with grace; and don’t intrude on things politically that have nothing to do with public wellbeing, such as the private pursuits of the individual that affect no one else. In order to realise that political form, a lot of work was needed to create a public sphere where people met as citizens and equals, and could expect even-handed treatment by the state.”

Needless to say, I consider this old-fashioned liberalism, stripped of its way-out laisses-fairytales by the recognition of the need for  “due restraint” regarding commercial and industrial activities of citizens, as a fine summary of what is so admirable — in a very practical sense — about the foundations of America. This liberalism is about the values and habits that undergird political discourse and indeed, everyday life.

Strangely, Mr. Greer calls liberalism a “movement” which is fading. As far as I can tell, he is speaking about a movement that married liberal attitudes to progressivism. I would agree that this uneasy marriage is ending — largely because progressives have jettisoned the liberal part. But what comes next is not likely to be the end of classical liberal mind & heartsets, but rather their infusion into more populist conceptions of politics; not a crusading progressivism setting its sights on the elusive purity of vaguely defined “social justice” toward favored victims, but rather a politics of specificity, place, loyalty, and responsibility.

greendrop

Chris has himself identified as an agrarian left-wing populist. Having had my curiosity piqued for some time with promises of explaining what he means, I decided to wait no longer, at least for the populist part. Here is what I found, elsewhere and in myself.

At its root, populism is a belief in the power of regular people, and in their right to have control over their government, rather than accepting control by a small group of political insiders or a wealthy elite. Populists believe that the politicians are the people’s public servants, not just another, more modern, version of their masters.

Fareed Zacharia writes that “historically, populism has come in left- and right-wing variants, and both are flourishing today, from Bernie Sanders to Trump, and from Syriza, the leftist party currently in power in Greece, to the National Front, in France.” His article has very little to say about left-wing populism, which is perhaps not surprising since Syriza can only be regarded as an embarrassment, no better than faux populists and sellouts. On the other hand and predictably he has plenty of negative things to say about right-wing populism. After all, we all know that we can’t have “pandering to people’s worst instincts”, can we? And right-wing populism always seems to have that bugaboo hanging over it, that “rising support for a [demagogue] who would dispense with the checks and balances of liberal democracy.” As if left-wingers were immune!

I think it is more accurate to say that the French National Front, while regularly described as far right, is in fact, apart from their views on open borders and immigration, sticking to welfare state policies. Has it occurred to Mr. Zacharia that “we the people” do not want to dispense with the checks and balances of liberal democracy? Instead, we are angry to see these checks and balances routinely disrespected and eroded by the entrenched elites! What “we the people” want to dispense with are the corruption and special privileges that have saddled this country with unprincipled, cheating, lying, “living in a bubble” people with lots of money and high-level connections that enable them to lord it over us, and who end up making a lot of stupid, self-serving, counterproductive, even brutal and calamitous decisions without any accountability whatsoever, progressively “freer” from even the notion that they are subject to the same laws as the rest of us.

In truth, there are only two differences I have been able to discern between left and right-wing populism: lefties are more likely to dwell on the misdeeds of the banksters and Wall Street and demand substantial monetary and financial reforms, while righties are more likely to demand restrictive and well-regulated immigration policies. We are all for localism, for having our voices heard, for more accountable democracy, and against remote and contemptuous elites, ruinous trade treaties, and galloping globalism that disregards real people’s wellbeing.

I propose that there is only one populism: the commitment to heed the voice of the people, and to govern with the consent of the governed by servant leaders who are responsive to that voice. Which turns us right back to classical liberalism, integrating it with better mechanisms for ongoing public deliberation that includes ordinary voices, and for heeding the results of this public deliberation, having those then reflected in the policies subsequently crafted.

Both illiberal, authoritarian left and illiberal, authoritarian right slide into selectively-tolerant intolerance and thuggery. They are no populists, they are totalitarians. The major disagreement dividing us populists is not over reining in banksterism and crony capitalism, but over immigration policies, borders (both economic and geographical/cultural), and Islam. This is the current political edge and nobody has yet arrived at anything close to satisfying answers. Recognizing that fact and embracing the ongoing open-minded exploration of these confounding issues in the best “classical liberal” sense of the word would end the divisive and demeaning split of populism into the “virtuous” left and “far-right” bigots. This is a “divide and rule” lie and cannot be allowed to stand. I propose that all of us populists stand by each other and dispense with the name calling and with pushing people out of the conversation that ought to be held by us all.

 

wethepeople

Mohandas Gandhi was once asked: “What do you think of Western civilization?” “I think it would be a good idea,” he replied.

Like a babe in the woods, I waded into the thicket of political correctness surrounding ongoing mass migrations and Islam. Statements that I thought unexceptional, like “if you have uncontrolled massive immigration from north-to-west African nations, known for their poor health care systems and widespread tropical diseases, new (and old eradicated) diseases will spread into Europe” (here I was told that Mr Trump is spreading these same bogus claims about South American immigrants) or that “if you have uncontrolled massive immigration to Sweden from nations where women’s rights are nearly non-existent and violence against women pervasive, you will those same problems coming in” where I was attacked on multiple fronts, apparently because to claim such a connection is plainly racist or islamophobic unless it’s “proven beyond the shadow of the doubt” — while it turns out that Swedish authorities stopped collecting pertinent data because to do so would be, yes, racist, and such proof is therefore unavailable. Don’t you just love Catch 22?

Not long after that heated exchange, Denmark announced that indeed, diphtheria, which had been eradicated decades ago, has staged a comeback, along with several other diseases. And a wave of women-targeted crimes has swept Europe, disclosing not only the issues touching on women vis-a-vis the newcomers, but also the extent of imposed censorship regarding such crimes. Coupled with the intransigence of European elites regarding massive immigration over the last year, and their painfully obvious lack of any preparations or plans for handling the refugees, much less for trying to integrate them, it all added up to a concerted effort, to my mind, to stubbornly NOT face any of the realities on the ground while hiding behind slogans — for example Ms Merkel’s “We can do it, we will do it” blithely asserted in her New Year’s Eve speech while the migrants were already out wilding. (Oh wait, it turns out the Cologne police did have a plan after all: to stand by doing nothing, erasing public camera recordings, and lying.)

Now, none of these actual happenings should surprise anyone. Migrating peoples from areas rife with poorly treated diseases will spread them. What’s to argue about?! The wall of denial, however, has an uncomfortable likeness to the wall of denial we crunchy greens have so rightly criticized regarding issues like resource limits, the destruction of planetary ecosystems, rapidly deepening inequality, and others. For a number of years now, I have been participating in the green/doomish community with the assumption that I am flanked by people who have both the courage and the intellectual acumen to face reality. So participating in the exchanges around Europe’s refugees, and by extension Islam, has been a rude awakening for me. My trusted allies, always somewhat prone to collapse porn and popular panics, seem to have wandered off on a tangent I find hard to understand, and harder to excuse. There is no blindness like politically correct blindness, it seems. Because I lived all my formative years in a communist system where serious problems were swept under the rug and empty slogans ruled the day, I have a nose for this bullshit even when it hides under other labels. If we (former or current) eastern Europeans don’t yell out a warning, who will? If not now, when?

I will begin by reporting what I have seen while out in the bush, exploring. You may have noticed some of these things before, but to me, having been busy looking in other directions, they were surprising or new. The shocking transformation of Sweden from perhaps-a-bit-boring but exemplary “spread the wealth” country to a state teetering on the brink of failure as profound problems connected with the “welcoming culture” have accumulated, and citizens have been silenced by a heavy blanket of aggressive anti-racist, pro-tolerance rhetoric. The impending breakdown of Germany, likewise a well-run, prosperous country where more than a million of refugees were taken in without any border controls whatsoever, in defiance of current laws, and where the authorities have been forced to admit that many of them (hundreds of thousands!) are completely unaccounted for. The transparent vilification of those who wish to peacefully protest the current state of affairs as racists, neo-nazis, extremists, and islamophobes lumped with the fascist fringe, while all right-thinking people should ignore their vile propaganda, or at least allow themselves to be intimidated into looking the other way. (I have watched videos of protests staged by the German anti-islamization group Pegida where the demonstrators had to be protected by the police from the physical threats by young people yelling “Heart over hate.” Irony? Nah. Shortly thereafter, a report came out showing that one of the political parties was paying a good wage for folks willing to go out and disrupt the demos.)

While hanging in the online anti-islamization underground, I witnessed the weirdness of disturbed men who used the sex attacks in Europe as pretext for putting women in their place, peevish as hell over the nagging they have gotten from us over the years for being male chauvinist pigs. Now, we feminazis need them to defend us from third world gropers and they are damned if they’ll lift a finger on our behalf! Never mind that men have abused women for millennia, quite notably in the ‘western civilization’ parts of the world, while we women have made a public fuss about it for a few generations at most. Bring out the violins!

Censorship in Europe is proceeding at a frightening pace now that the “real news” about refugees is out of the bag, thanks to the internet. And this narrowing noose of “allowable speech” – Facebook has begun eliminating disagreement with refugee policies from its medium in response to Merkel’s request, and a Saudi prince has just bought up a big share of Twitter — makes peaceful solutions less and less likely. Anecdotal reports are beginning to appear in the alternative media that folks in Holland are being visited by the police to warn them about their internet statements critical of certain government policies. And only yesterday the Guardian announced that when it comes to immigrants and immigration policies, comment is no longer free. No wonder; Guardian’s politically correct “welcoming culture” articles have lately been met with a solid wall of critical comments from readers. Monty Python’s John Cleese shares a few thoughts on the clampdown here.

And then there is the bizarre behavior of both American and European elites who have goose-stepped into a box that says, no matter what happens, repeat after me, “It Has Nothing To Do With Islam.” They seem to be emulating the memorable scene in Animal House where the marching band, led astray by pranksters, keeps on marching into a wall. As a cherry on top, there is the grisly freak show of the “Stolen oil-R-Us” Islamic State, accompanied by the war frenzy of all who have a vampiric stake (may it pierce them through the heart) in the weapons trade, and the utter destruction of Syria which knowledgeable people, ah irony, describe as one of the truly multicultural societies of the world — until recently, that is — and the descent of Turkey into tinpot dictatorship while it tries to impose blatant extortion on EU, Ottoman empire style. Well, those are just a few highlights to report, to give you the flavor of my travels, so to speak. Sleep? Who needs sleep when the Spectacle turns up its horror show?

Sorry about the run-on sentences. Lack of sleep will do that to ya, and I badly need to vent. I will say just one more thing, and leave analysis for next time. I have no loyalty toward “western civilization” as such. Western civilization went astray long time ago I my book, and its ugly underbelly should have become head-banging-against-the-wall obvious to anyone by the time Assyria rolled along. My loyalty is to civil culture where ever it may be found. Like Gandhi may have once said, western civilization would be nice. It would be nice if we stopped obsessing over our bogus, absurdly bloated standards of living, stopped pretending that we can be rescued by a pack of shills who in turn pretend to be statesmen, put a brake on the runaway train of consumption, filthification, and waste, stopped defending our indefensible and destructive “way of life” that’s really a “way of death” for the planet, and focused instead on civil, “civilized” behavior toward each other. And that includes dispensing with politically correct bullshit where ever it stinks up the body politic, and willingness to go out on a limb if necessary to stand against behavior that does not cut it. Earth to Europe: sane people defend their boundaries, personal, local, political. Those who don’t, get steamrolled.

steamrolled

I began a very strange journey with my series on civil culture, vs the culture of thuggery that continues taking over the world. (And no, by that I don’t mean Islam.)

In my last post, I originally included this paragraph:

I also don’t buy that people who criticize Islam are islamophobes any more than people who criticize Christianity are Christianophobes, or people who criticize Marxists are Marxophobes. That’s just plain old bullying. People’s thinking influences their behavior, and inasmuch as Islam inspires and encourages anti-social behavior, it ought to be criticized, as should any other religion or ideology. Islam is — in part — ideas, and no ideas ought to be beyond the pale when it comes to criticism. “Abusing” a religion may be offensive to some, but it’s abusing people that should draw opprobrium.

I ended up deleting it, because I wanted more time more to think it through. I do believe strongly that criticizing is overall a beneficial activity, and part of the necessary – even crucial – feedback loop that keeps human behavior within certain agreed-upon norms. In addition, we in the west, children of classical Greece which pioneered wide-ranging, intrepid exploration of abstractions, generally do not think any ideas ought to be shielded from challenges and outspokenness, and that the only kind of speech that should carry legal penalties is personal slander and direct physical endangerment (yelling “fire” in a crowded place, or telling an abused spouse “next time, I will kill you.”).

That line gets fuzzy when it comes to speech that vilifies people traditionally put-upon, and might contribute to their physical endangerment in the long run. We Americans have mostly held the line where angry verbal insults are not – apart from the most egregious exceptions — the province of the law. Europeans tend to side more with the “hate speech” paradigm due to some highly unpleasant historical events in the 20th century that relied heavily on hate-mongering propaganda.

I have sympathies for both sides. When push comes to shove, I defend free speech. But I am not insensible toward people who want to maintain a certain level of cultivated discourse, of civility in relationships. It’s been my own experience that when two married people begin to use brutal invective against each other, the good will within the relationship takes a big hit. So, similarly, within a society. To bring that back to the discussion of “insulting religion” – I feel that while to jeer at or to attempt to discredit people’s cherished religious artifacts should never be a legal issue, I see it nonetheless as an undertaking that sows division, and often leads the critics themselves to dishonesty, unnecessary vehemence, sectarianism, and just plain angry disrespect. Would you walk into a house where your neighbors have an altar to the elephant deity Ganesha, and because you disagree and feel offended, pie the statue? Clearly a dick move.

Ganesha

Why spend energy on denouncing other people’s holy writ, be it the Christian Bible, the Islamic Koran, or the Jewish Tanach? They are precious to other people, and even though you disagree with their estimation, why would you go out of your way to malign what others hold in such tender regard? This behavior becomes especially unproductive in view of the fact that denouncing other people’s holy writs makes absolutely no dent in their belief, and likely reinforces their stance under duress.

We live in a world plagued by ideologies that do mischief, no doubt about that. Cults, religions, and secular ideologies are all linked to grievous damage to human communities throughout history. But these same movements have borne good fruits too, depending on who was doing what to whom. It seems to me that it would advance the cause of “civilized civilization” if we got a grip on how to deal with ideologies in a way that defuses their malignant aspects while leaving the positives in place.

There is no question that our way of thinking influences our behavior. But true intentions are notoriously difficult to ascertain, especially when they are not your own but someone else’s. So why not focus on behavior instead? If a woman is murdered, does it makes sense to analyze whether the perp was inspired by a biblical passage, a sura, secular misogyny, or psychopathic entitlement? The behavior is what matters, and the harm lies squarely in the behavior. Anything less serves those who wish to obfuscate this basic and clear fact.

And so this is my prescription for those who wish to battle toxic ideologies: focus on the very human and fallible embodiment of the underlying script. Interpretations, and the behaviors they inspire, are never beyond the pale when it comes to critical questioning. However divinely-inspired the scriptures are held to be, their applications in the here-and-now are entirely and only human. No matter what Exodus 22:18 says, whether a heretic is tortured or killed depends on what the believer does with those and many other ideas. And once we abandon the war of words about the Koran, we can focus on what Muslims actually do with the writings and traditions they have inherited. It is this foundation I will use to explore, in future posts, some of our current cultural dilemmas.

old book

My personal confrontation with the refugee/migrant crisis in Europe has placed me in an awkward position. I don’t mean my going out on a limb with a non-PC exploration. I mean having to confront the dissonance between my unciv convictions – in other words, my opposition to civilization as we know it – and my gut-level reaction to those who privilege the interests of strangers over those of their home cultures, who are unwilling to make value-laden comparisons between cultures (or civilizations), and who promote the ideology of multiculturalism without regard to their policies’ consequences.

The ‘clash of civilizations’ meme has been assiduously promoted by mainstream media. “Our” western civ against Islam and its barbarian hordes. I am glad to see that this form of propaganda for “our way of life” has been firmly rejected by crunchy greens. At the same time, I have found it profoundly troubling that these same people, my allies, are all too ready to throw their concern for women’s wellbeing, or that of any group of peaceful citizens readily abused, under the bus when discussing crime caused by Europe’s flood of migrants.

I have clashed with people, normally friends, on Resilience.com over this issue, and felt quite betrayed by those who in other context say they promote “localism” but when it comes to protecting local cultures of Europe, that localism seems to vanish, making room for a reflex reaction in defense of a politically correct line against boundaries and for the indiscriminate acceptance of all comers.

But why, I thought to myself, am I standing up for a civilization that has let me down in so many ways? Where before, the faults of this civ loomed large but somewhat theoretical, now, in the clash of Europeans with the forces unleashed by migration out of control, I stepped into a box with a label that said, “compared with a culture that forces its women into harems, into sacks with openings for eyes, and into tolerating brutal violence against them as normal, hey, I’ll take western civ any day!”

Seductive though the clash of civilizations narrative is, I keep reminding myself of the fact that I loathe the way this culture treats women as well. I detest the hypersexualization of girls, the parading of women’s naked or near naked bodies everywhere one looks, from booze and lingerie ads to celebrities who vie for attention through concocting ever more risqué gowns. I choke on the backlash against us as some men brazenly return to jeering outspoken women who skip make-up as ugly broads, and on reports of politically correct campuses that manipulate elder feminists through threats of “no platform” simply for the “thoughtcrime” of disagreeing with trans definitions. The list goes on and on.

What a choice the ‘clash of civilizations’ story places before me: black sacks with eyes, or decadence and demeaning bullshit! Two faces of one civilization gone awry.

No, I don’t buy that Islam is evil. Religions go through their abusive, violent periods when many abusive, violent people use them as justification for their abusive, violent behavior. Islam is going through that now. Christianity went through it some centuries back; after all, it was a Christian pope who invented the holy war at a time when Christendom was launching the crusades, yet to gear up for the full-out persecution, torture and mass murder of its own brothers and sisters in Christ. Religion and power mix poorly. That’s why people came up with the separation of religion and state. Folks with first-hand knowledge warn against Islam’s violence as enshrined in its holy writ. I am sympathetic to that point of view as my younger self argued against Christianity on the same grounds. But I no longer buy the argument. Once, Christians used the Old Testament’s “thou shalt not suffer a witch to live” as an excuse to torment and murder women and heretics. Today, they don’t. Once they used the Bible to justify chattel slavery. Today, they don’t. I am more persuaded that all religions have skeletons in their closets, and that the behavior of followers has to do with their everyday values and character; they will use excuses and justifications for their behavior when those values and character are lacking.

islam slander

Thuggery wrapping itself in religion.

There is a real clash of civilizations going on now, unreported. And that is the clash between those who are willing and able to behave in civilized ways in the best sense of the word, and those who are not – who would rather wreak mayhem upon the world. Western and other elites, all those who profit by wars and plunder without end, who pretend to be fighting terrorism while aiding and abetting it, all those turning our world into Orwellian nightmare, they are on the other side of this clash. So are everyday people – regardless of their ideological affiliation — who harm their fellow humans in innumerable small and sometimes large ways and find endless excuses for it; those who delight in demeaning domination games, taking advantage, pulling the wool over your eyes, making other people’s private worlds hell. They are with the Dark Side. Every other human division is just a diversion from this stark reality.

The first civilizations were built by people among whom anti-social behavior was firmly limited by boundaries created by the demands of community and survival. They were peaceful, more or less egalitarian (meaning a social arrangement that evens out native differences between human beings in the interest of crafting a low-conflict polity), and the surpluses and prosperity were broadly shared. By the time this civilization came along, those ancient peoples were but a faint memory. We can use that faint memory made more vivid with the help of recent archeology as inspiration to build a real civilization again. We can choose to raise a culture that is grounded in the values of being truly civilized, values that have been showcased in their best form by a number of tribal societies: generosity, trustworthiness, empathy and kindness, open-mindedness, fairness, civility, common sense, mutual respect, recognition of fundamental worth of all humans and other living beings, courage and resilience, loyalty, deep connection, love of beauty, gratitude, humility, willingness to accept limits and responsibilities as the other side of freedom, and a commitment to a lifelong effort to cultivate these virtues in oneself and in the local society one inhabits. This is the road ahead: walking the Path of Beauty into whatever the future holds.

oaks

Men, said the Devil, are good to their brothers:
they don’t want to mend their own ways, but each other’s.
— Piet Hein

Remember Darwin’s finches? From the ancestral finch population, Galapagos forged seven distinct species that provided for Darwin the impetus for his evolutionary theories. Out of one, seven. Greater diversity, as each group adapted to a different geographical and ecological niche. Greater richness and resilience for the living world, and a delight for human observers. [Actually, the web says there are 10 or more of these finch species out on those islands. And they are related to tanagers.]

Galapagos finches

Galapagos finches

Now, maybe these new finch groups are not altogether species, maybe they are more like wild landraces. After all, they can and do interbreed when thrown together. But who would argue against the notion that the finch world of the Galapagos grew more diverse and interesting than formerly? Who would argue that importing finches from, say, North America would be a good thing for the finches of the Galapagos, or for the diversity of the global finch family? Wouldn’t the “diversity of the melting pot” cause them to lose their distinct adaptations?

Similarly, we tend to believe that tribal societies, say the Mbuti or the Cree, ought to have protection from the western civilization at large, so they can maintain their culture and way of life, self-determined, rather than other-determined by the logic of modernity or conquest.

Yet when it comes to the societies of Europe or the local communities of the western world, another logic seems to apply. Apparently, if you have a “white European”-derived culture not protected by the aura of exotic ethnicity somewhere far away, your culture actually needs to import diversity from parts half way across the globe! Your culture is accused of being too uniform, too homogeneous, too close-minded, and paying no heed to the need for “diversity.” But what kind of diversity is this, that argues for giving up your own culture – a culture which contributes to a more diverse human world – for some abstract ideal of mixing people from a variety of cultures and ethnicities into a mishmash where nobody feels at home?

I have been following, aghast, the invasion of Europe by people whom the PC crowd insist on calling refugees, and others call migrants. Aghast, not because Syrian refugees don’t deserve the support of their neighbors. They do. (They are a minority among the incomers.) But because the crisis has been insanely politicized to a point where anyone who disagrees with the official “welcome refugees” line is pilloried as a racist and a xenophobe, and a discussion of the issues has become near impossible.

Baffled, I turned to exploring the one society in Europe – widely known for its very inclusive and generous social safety net and rather egalitarian and progressive society – which decided in the mid-70s to implement a multiracial experiment. Feel free to pitch in, as I’ve never lived in Scandinavia and my understanding is imperfect. The Swedes, wishing to further improve their already outstanding society, and having been told in no uncertain way that to do so they must open their border and begin to take in people from a variety of far-flung countries in Africa and Asia because anything less would be churlish and mean, not to mention racist and discriminatory. As far as I can tell, they have brought on a disaster that is perhaps unique in the history of Europe.

The Swedes were told, and may have believed, that their culture was way too stale, pale, prejudiced, and in need of a drastic overhaul. At the urging of people who grew more shrill as the years passed, the multicultural vision began to be officially implemented from 1975 on. People of mixed racial parentage were celebrated, white Swedes were denigrated; those who wanted to craft a whole new society in Sweden and be done forever with the “old Sweden” prevailed. The influx of immigrants looking to partake of what Sweden had to offer grew until today it’s a flood. The result? In the city of Malmő, indigenous Swedes are now a minority. There are no-go zones all over the country, controlled by immigrant gangs. Police cars are the targets of grenades. There has been a housing shortage for quite some time, and Swedes are being told to house newly come asylum seekers in their garages. There are no jobs for most of these newcomers. Sweden is now contemplating borrowing large sums from abroad so that it can feed and house the influx, and its politicians are being slowly forced to admit that the ideology of compulsory anti-racism and anti-discrimination has turned the country into something that horrifies many of the immigrants themselves, not to even mention the feelings of the original inhabitants. Corruption is rampant; politicians live in wealthy neighborhoods with other ethnic Swedes while pontificating on racism to their less fortunate countrymen and women.

To add insult to injury, the country is under some sort of a McCarthyite spell so that the actual situation cannot be discussed openly; anyone who questions the status quo is accused of racism and bloggers, youtubers and facebook users are the only ones who dare to speak out against the monomaniacal, politically correct “party line”. And Sweden has long since stopped collecting and publishing the ethnic background of people committing the wave of crimes sweeping over the land.

Racist!

Racist!

Why is it that indigenous Europeans are denied their own culture going back thousands of years? Why is it that these various distinct regional cultures for which Europe has become famous, and which have fueled its tourism, have been under attack? The Hopi or !Kung deserve to be their own, but the Finns or the Slovaks do not? Why? It seems clear to me that turning Europe into a melting pot serves those who are enemies of diversity, in the global sense, and not the other way around.

And to bring the discussion to America, why is it when whites verbally attack blacks they are racist, but when blacks likewise attack whites, that’s ok? Why is it that American communities were long ago shorn of their local self-determination? Must the only vision be a forced integration pioneered by the school-busing fanatics of years gone by? What is wrong with communities that would rather be white, or black, or Latino, or green, hanging with their own kind? If these communities did not drain resources from others, what’s wrong with it in principle? In America, the only communities where people are allowed to hang with their own kind are the rich, in their gated neighborhoods, and the artsy-craftsy tourist traps like New Hope, PA or Sugarloaf, NY, where the locals determine together to sell or rent only to fellow craftspeople. Nobody else is allowed to choose their neighbors.

racism peanuts

I come from a nation (a group unified by history, language, culture and its own unique relationship to the land) that nearly disappeared in the conquering wave of germanization. It took a hundred and fifty years of massive effort on the part of the dreamers who wished to record and encourage the vanishing Czech culture. Even the dreamers did not believe it could be done. And yet, the dream swept the land with a reawakening that gives me shivers to this day. (Knowing that was possible, I know that a crunchy green awakening is possible too.) And now, all that – in its many European permutations — is being swept away by millions of displaced people from as far as Bangladesh, as far as western and central Africa. The Europe I knew is vanishing before my eyes, not only because of the intentional chaos caused by global elites permanently at war, but also because a fifth column of aggressive ideologues have turned their backs on the cultures of their birth in their quest for some crazy rainbow utopia. And we all know how much success radical utopians have had forging viable new sociopolitical systems.


This is a contentious topic, and last thing I want is for bullies to pile in here, abusing other commenters. Keep in mind the fundamental rule of engagement on Leaving Babylon: argue with passion by all means, but attack the argument, not the person. Thank you, and thank you for listening to my bewilderment and grief. Let’s help one another think through these difficult issues. Oh, and check out the animation (10 minutes) below. When exactly does “multiculturalism” morph into “genocide”?

 

Next Page »