relativism

You don’t hear that one very often any more. Seems we exist in a world where relativism reigns supreme. A place where ill-conceived schemes go awry, or go catastrophically awry, and yet the architects are lauded as heroes, and often promoted.

We see this a lot. It happens mostly in the public sector. Private companies cannot afford to keep people aboard who, for one reason or another, are just perennial non-producers, whether that takes the form of too many absences or just an inability to do the job.

Incompetence rules in most government bureaucracies. The best are often suppressed in favor of the less competent but more politically reliable. The unions aren’t out there to protect the leaders and go-getters… they are there to shelter the incompetent, thereby solidifying their hold over their membership.

The unions are a lot like the collective communist societies, in that the leaders live well on the backs of the ‘peasants’, while the ‘leaders’ redistribute funds (political influencing). Well, the result is the same… the ones at the bottom struggling to get by while the politically connected prosper. That’s the upside down world of the socialist. The many, in equal poverty, pay to support the few elites of the ruling class. They call it Marxism.

We’re seeing more of this than ever before and we’re going to be seeing much, much more in hearings that will be held by the new Congress. It’s time to tell our Republican members, both in the House and in the Senate, that we will not tolerate business their way. Never again. I’m beginning to get an uneasy feeling about some of the people we sent back to Congress, and especially the Senate.

It cannot be business as usual. The survival of the country depends on our determination to turn this country and its entire governance back to the conservative principles laid out in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. So I guess that’s the long and short of it, Republicans… Fish or cut bait.

Semper Vigilans, Semper Fidelis

© Skip MacLure 2010

Last Sunday in "A Landmark: the Moment of Infamy we reported on an outrage in Duisburg, Germany in which the police - in order to deescalate a explosive situation with a raving pro Hamas crowd - broke in and entered the private premises of a Israeli sympathizer in order to remove two 'offensive' Israeli flags (see the post for video footage of the event).

Occurrences that like cross the ethics Rubicon in that police officers, servants of the state (i.e. of all of us), are seen bowing to an angry, intolerant mob.

Israel Matzav today has further information on the case and states that the incident has rightly upset a lot of people in Germany; this may not be the end of it. We sincerely hope so.

The mob is now known to have consisted of members of the Turkish Nationalistic/Islamist organization Milli Görüs (caption: logo/flag), here described as a wolf in sheep's clothing for activities other than folk dancing. Whatever aim they pursue, it prevents Turks from assimilating in Western societies and as such, is a hazard. The incident is evidence of the organization's true character and the inroads it has managed to make on the psyche of the German authorities.

The tolerance the West is showing for the intolerant is temporarily culminating in unbridled antisemitism not seen here since World War II. The Duisburg flag owner was brave enough to take a stance against it, but failed to find the servants of the law on his side to defend his rights and property.

Police spokespersons meanwhile have gone from defending their actions, to apologies (probably not even realizing why they are at fault - or am I too pessimistic here?).

The Social Democratic Party (SPD), whom for years have pushed the "multicultural" agenda like there's no tomorrow, now want a debate in the state's parliament about the outrage. Why?

Have they renounced multiculturalism as a pernicious ideology and do they no longer believe in the premise that all cultures are equally valid? Do they think Israel, a. has the right to defend itself, and b. has no option but to destroy a terrorist hell hole which brutally murders its own citizens, children included? I don't think so.

The party describes the essence of the matter as follows (read that carefully): "Why was the potential for danger during the protest so underestimated that police were forced into a situation in which they had to concede to the demands of violent (protesters) rather than (protect) the right to the freedom of speech of others?"

Israel Matsav's blogger Carl rephrases that as follows: "Actually, the central question is why police conceded to the demands of violent protesters rather than protecting the freedom of speech of others (...) If Europe wants to save itself from the Islamic onslaught, it had better learn the difference between those two questions."

The problem as usual is the relativist default position which is killing Western culture and debilitates the ability to defend against hostile self-realizationists.

The irony is, that while relativists see any absolutism as the epitome of evil (full stop), the Postmodern dialectic translates that into "any absolutism emanating from evil Western culture, 'oppressed' minorities" exempted.

As long as that is the default morality propagated by intellectuals, the media and officials, the West is careering headlong into the abyss of cultural suicide.

The default position should be: Western laws and values prevail in this country and hence on we have a zero-tolerance policy with regard to any form of intolerance. Objectivity is key, no more compensating minorities for perceived inequalities. Any form of apartheid is unacceptable.

If that doesn't change - rapidly - we're doomed, doomed ...

- Filed on Articles in "In Defense of Liberty"