A politically incorrect examination of Islamic terrorist attacks, the importance of political oscillations between the Left and the Right, the naivety of much of our political activism, our addiction to desire-fulfilment, and the erosion of values and morals.
YET ANOTHER MUSLIM EXTREMIST ATTACK on innocent people occurred yesterday, this time in Manchester, England. Such occurrences are becoming common place as we will no doubt hold yet another candle vigil, light up more buildings with coloured lights, and repeat ever more meaningless but comforting slogans to do with unity, strength and spirit. Such acts of terrorism are regarded as senseless violence, without any rational causation. After all, what could push someone to blow up young people at a music concert? But until we understand some of the basic political mechanisms, we will continue to allow the establishment to write off such acts as a series of "one-offs", perpetrated by lone political lunatics with mental health issues.
The public response to this sort of terrorist activity is generally polarised between those that follow the official line (taken by governments and the mass media) of dismissing these acts as the work of deranged loners, and those that point the finger at the religion of Islam. Generally, the first response is that of those more left of centre on the political spectrum, whereas the second response is that of those further to the right.
The reason for these different responses is that those who are more right of centre tend to be more nationalistic, and therefore more defensive of their culture and national identity. Their focus is the collective culture and values. The left wing, on the other hand, look past culture and values and focus on equality and human rights at the individual level. Their focus is on individual human rights. So when an act of terror happens like this, the Right red-flag multiculturalism, supporting more stringent immigration policies as part of the solution; whereas the Left dismiss the terror as blow-back from the West's undoubtedly murderous foreign policies (undoubtedly a BIG part of the problem), and on this basis they will extol the need for ever more multiculturalism, so that the nationalistic bigots are drowned and eventually bred out of society.
These two perspectives are summed up by the reaction to Islamic terrorist acts. The Left put out statements such as “We will not be divided,” hold candle vigils and hash-tag campaigns to unify society, because in their ideology all cultures, all races and all religions have the same value — by definition. Any focus on Muslims in particular is regarded as racist, discriminatory and counter-productive, only dividing society further and sowing the seeds of more terrorism. “Muslims are our brothers and sisters,” they say, “don’t tar then with the same brush as some lone radical.”
For the Right, however, statements such as “We will not be divided” only obscure the fact that society is already divided. Integration has not happened because uncontrolled multiculturalism does not work, and this sort of terrorism is caused by a clash of cultures and values. Therefore the solution is a strict limit on multiculturalism and more controls on what goes on in Islamic communities. For them, Islam is the problem because it is not a tolerant religion and is not compatible with Western values, and so the solution for them is to limit the spread of this intolerant ideology wherever possible.
And so we get furious exchanges between the two political sides with little hope of finding common ground. The Left brand the Right racists and bigots; and the Right brand the Left traitors and destroyers of Western culture and values.
Two radically perspectives on the same problem. But which actually has more justification?
* * *
In the video below we see the Dalai Lama showing great diplomacy but little understanding of what religions actually are.
The following is a transcript of what he says in this short clip:
“Buddhist terrorist. Muslim terrorist. That wording is wrong. Any person who wants to indulge in violence is no longer a genuine Buddhist or genuine Muslim, because it is a Muslim teaching… once you involved in bloodshed you are no longer a genuine practitioner of Islam. All religious traditions carry the same message: message of love, compassion, forgiveness, tolerance, contentment, self-discipline. All religious traditions. So these are the common ground and common practice. On that level, we can build genuine harmony based on mutual respect, mutual learning, mutual admiration.”
Wonderful words from a wonderful religious leader, although it has to be said that they are not true and only represent his particular idealistic perspective of religion. The Dalai Lama is a rampant bridge builder, a skill which allows him to connect with all sorts of individuals and organisations. Politics for him is secondary to shared humanity and compassion, a consequence of his Buddhist beliefs, although the more cynical might add political expediency of a government in exile to the mix. But incessant bridge building can obscure important issues, allowing them to go unchallenged.
I would like you to consider the Middle Ages when the Christian Church brutally murdered tens of thousands of witches (both women and men), displaying an appalling level of barbarity. From the Dalia Lama’s perspective, these evil men of the church should not be called Christians because they did not live up to the Dalia Lama’s ideals for Christianity. But back in the day, you can be assured that the Church positively sanctioned this bloodbath. By the same reasoning, the Catholic church could be absolved of responsibility for its paedophile priests because… paedophiles are automatically not priests and so it is no longer a Church problem.
The simple fact is that religions on the whole, especially theistic religions, are not tolerant of opposing views, and their members can act in ways that are far from loving and compassionate when instructed to do so by their religious leaders and their scriptures. Even Tibetan Buddhism has a history of appalling violence, sexual predation and abuses of human rights. By distancing evil acts from religion, by definition, whitewashes those religions and absolves them of any responsibility for the consequences of their indoctrinations and their institutions.
Today, the religion most associated with violence and terrorism is Islam. But politically correct governments and media outlets do everything they can to remove Islam from the equation of terrorism, reducing all these barbaric acts to the works of deranged and maniacal “radicals” and “terrorists”, and in the process they absolve Islam of any responsibility. This gives Islam a get-out-of-jail-free card that allows it to continue to churn out extremists that are hell-bent on destroying modern civilisation, while looking away and innocently labelling itself a "religion of peace". This whitewashing may be politically correct, but it escalates the problem by sweeping it under the carpet.
If adherents to any religion perpetrate terrorism in the name of that religion, then the religion itself has to officially take responsibility to eradicate that justification in 21st Century societies. Otherwise, such justifications grow stronger, acts of terrorism multiply and the religion itself has ever more blood on its hands.
* * *
Have a look at the following video:
Here you will see feminists chanting “Allah Akbar” in support of their Muslim sisters. If you know anything about Islam this will send a shiver up your spine, because women in Islam are strictly regarded as second class citizens, the chattel of their husbands. As it says in the Qur’an 4:34:
“Men have authority over women because Allah has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because Allah has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and send them to beds apart and beat them.”
In Sharia Law — the religious law of Islam which is based on the Qur’an as clerical tradition — the value of women is actually quantised as being half that of men, so for example, a woman’s testimony in court is worth half that of a man’s.
“Get two witnesses, out of your own men, and if there are not two men, then a man and two women, such as you choose, for witnesses, so that if one of them errs, the other can remind her.” Qur’an 2:282
Now of course there are going to be many Muslims, almost all in Western countries, who regard this perspective of women to be antiquated and hold a view of equality. But these Muslims are not strict Muslims because they hold Western cultural values that are at odds with Muslim cultural values. This is a very important point, for strict Islam have very different values to those of Western culture, and the two most certainly are NOT compatible.
The difference in values is because the roots of Islam are in non-Western cultures, and it is these cultures (such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, …) that largely set the educational agenda of Muslims in Western countries, where Islam is now the fastest growing religion. Indeed, all Muslims bow to Mecca in prayer, and it is to the Kibr in Mecca that all good Muslims are supposed to visit at least once or twice in their lifetime. So it is natural that the Middle East is where all strict Muslims look for spiritual guidance and scriptural interpretations, and it is in the Middle East that many of the Imams will journey to complete their training and receive the blessing of their linages.
This means that Islam itself is steeped in the values of these Middle Eastern root countries, and this is why strict Muslims do not integrate into Western culture. And this is why if you visit Europe, where Muslims and Westerners have been living side by side for generations, you will find little integration. The two cultures are like oil and water.
If you are more right wing, then there is likely to be rejection of "other" because culture is valued over the rights of individuals, and multiculturalism is regarded as the dilution or even destruction of culture rather than its enhancement. If you are left wing, then you are likely believe that diversity enhances culture because it challenges the population to become more tolerant, and it does this by encouraging public focus on human rights. Again we see left-wing focus on the rights of the individual and right-wing focus on the preservation of culture. Islam is most definitely focused on its culture, away from the rights of the individual, which places it at odds with left-wing liberalism.
Another dimension to this equation is that right wing societies tend towards patriarchy because of their cultural focus; whereas left wing societies tend towards equality and even matriarchy because of their individual rights focus. Islam is most definitely patriarchal, which again makes it incompatible with the Left.
Right-wing societies also tend to emphasise personal responsibility — the individual is not mollycoddled by government — whereas levels of personal responsibility tend to be much lower in left-wing societies because the government takes more responsibility for the individual, which is why left-wing government tends to be bigger and more invasive. Yet again we see a big difference between Islam and the Left as Islam certainly does not cosset the individual.
So on every level, Islam is very different to the feminist left-wingers attending this demonstration: we have pro-patriarchy right-wing Muslims standing shoulder to shoulder with pro-matriarchy left-wing feminists. This works because the Muslims, during the march, are focused on individual rights — the left wing perspective — because this is the only traction they have to gain a foothold in Western cultures. This does not necessarily mean the Muslim women are dishonest, they are just, probably unconsciously, using whatever tactic works to further their cause.
So this alliance between feminists and Muslims is entirely contrived, and works in the short-term. But woe-betide the culture that allows another culture to wheedle its way in under the guise of human rights, for in so doing it actually sows the seeds of its own downfall. And for all their anger against Western culture, feminists still rely on it to afford them their rights and freedoms, rights and freedoms that would certainly be rescinded if Islamic culture comes to the fore. But for now, these two make cringing bedfellows.
* * *
In multicultural societies, all religions are regarded as equal: a Muslim, for example, is just like a Christian, except he or she believes in the teachings of Muhammad rather than the teachings of Jesus. Same spiritual values… just a different holy book. From this perspective, a large influx of Islamic migrants and refugees into Western culture, for whatever reason and from whatever country, will be regarded as enriching the culture with diversity, and anyone who opposes these immigrants is labelled a bigot and racist. This is entirely rational if you believe that all religions/cultures are essentially equal — a premise at the foundation of multiculturalism and left-wing perspectives.
But they can only really be equivalent if religion and culture is reduced to merely a personal preference like tea or coffee, or your choice of operating system or TV channel. And that is why left-wing perspectives can be so ungodly: for in the interests of equalising religions, they reduce them to equivalent ideologies and, in so doing, throw out what is essential to each. So religious groups play with fire when they make alliances with left-wing organisations, for they erode their core beliefs for the sake of being popular and appearing non-judgemental. It may seem to work in the short term, but in the end the religion demoralises itself by trying to equate itself with all other ideologies, and in the process loses its identity and message… and in time its congregation. (In the same way, humans who try hard to be liked become quite unlikable.)
The Right, on the other hand, do not try to equalise things, but instead defend their own religious and cultural territories. This can indeed lead to stagnation and bigotry. And when cultures stand still, they soon become oppressive to the majority of their population. This is where the word "conservative" comes from: the right wing tries to conserve its culture, whereas the Left more progressive wing tends to progress human rights at the expense of culture. Long term right-wing nations tend to be draconian, out-dated, culturally stagnant and patriarchal.
This is why, for a nation to move forward, it is best for politics to oscillate on the political spectrum. (Sitting in the middle does not work because only more extreme governments can effect real change, whereas the centre tends to be relatively ineffectual.) Right-wing governments bring cohesion and stability to culture whereas left-wing governments bring social reform and the evolution of culture. Both are needed at different times. It is a bit like building muscles in the gym: you hit them hard to break them down — the left-wing or progressive phase — and then you allow the muscles to recover and grow stronger — the right-wing or conservative phase. This is the cycle of politics that, at least in theory, should continue to develop the healthiest society with the happiest and most balanced individuals.
But what happens if this process of challenge and consolidation is not balanced over time? What happens when the political pendulum is not allowed to swing freely? Too much challenge and you break down culture, and society descends into chaos. Too much consolidation, and culture ossifies and regresses because it is unwilling to assimilate novelty.
It is pretty obvious which we are in at this time. Europe has been in the grip of left-wing ideology that has deliberately encouraged mass immigration of both refugees of war and economic migrants (the latter far outnumbering the former) in order to further its political agenda. These agendas include the erosion of nationalism to clear the way for globalist agendas, compensating for ageing populations as the birthrates in Western nations fall, and the wholesale importation of left-wing voters. The destruction of culture may seem a high price to pay, but if you are focused on political goals and issues of human rights, then culture is expendable because it is the primary impediment to those goals.
This, of course, is shortsighted because human rights cannot exist in a vacuum, and whilst a massive increase in diversity can lead to greater focus on human rights in the short-term, it can also erode the very culture that supports those rights if the diversity becomes to great.
In the home countries of many of the immigrants flooding into Europe, there is little to no separation between religion and state, and so individuals from these parts of the world do not regard their religion as an optional-extra to basic lives, but a mandate from God Himself that dictates every aspect of life. This is the definition of fundamentalism: fundamentalists are blind to beliefs as beliefs because, for them, their beliefs ARE reality. And anyone who questions their religious beliefs is questioning God Himself, a disrespect severely punished in many fundamentalist belief systems, especially from an Islamic perspective.
This is why immigrants from non-secular Islamic nations tend to unable and unwilling to assimilate into Western culture: they are singing from a primitive theistic hymn sheet rather than the normal Western secular one. They do not share the same values, and this is an intractable impediment to assimilation.
The argument is often made that mass immigration has worked well for the United States and therefore it can be extremely positive, allowing for a wonderful diversity. But apart from the genocidal effect of this mass immigration on the American Indian populations, most immigrants over the last few hundred years have actually had many cultural beliefs and values in common (the vast majority were Christian for a start) — or at least a psychological maturity to allow others to have different religious beliefs. Diversity was largely understood and accepted.
But what we are seeing today is mass immigration into Western countries of a disparate culture. Whether this impact will be enough to break Western society completely is still to be seen, although a real possibility when one considers the significantly higher birthrate of Islamic immigrants. Also, if left-wing governments remain in power, then it is likely that unfettered immigration will continue and the end of Western culture, as we know it, will shortly ensue.
We keep hearing proponents of ordinary Islam denying that their religion is culturally incompatible with the values of Western society. The Muslims causing the problems are radical ones that are using Islam to justify their murderous agendas. But there are strong suggestions that this is not the case, and that Islam is generally an intolerant religion that will never regard itself as “a” religion rather than “the” religion. And as such, it will continually try to impose its beliefs onto society as a whole.
Here is a video of ordinary Sunni Muslims sharing some of their strongly held religious beliefs, and in the process it questions the belief that most Muslims are tolerant.
In light of these opposing values, we see the roots of Islamic terrorism, but governments and mass media organisations, in an effort to hold to their all-religions-are-equal principles and their ideals of diversity, present Islamic terrorism as something quite apart from Islam. This is a clear politically-motivated fallacy, and only hides the massive and unavoidable cultural clash that is taking place under our noses as the Muslim population in Western nations increases.
* * *
How the future turns out will depend on how well we are able to balance the natural political oscillations that occur in the development of civilisations. At the moment, we are needing a swing to the Right to consolidate the huge strides forward made by the Left over the last few decades. If we don’t, society will increasingly fragment and eventually disintegrate, and the gains will be lost. So nationalism, or at least an equivalent collective cultural narrative, is the medicine much-needed to restore the cohesiveness and balance of society. The Left, however, see this movement towards nationalism as a dangerous step backwards rather than a consolidation of their own policies. They do not understand that unfettered diversity can become destructive.
When fragmentation and chaos reign, Big Brother government, normally feared in better times, becomes attractive. Indeed, when natural cohesion from common values and beliefs is lacking, enforced cohesion is certainly a better option than chaos. So it is during chaotic times like these that liberty is most in peril — most easily sacrificed for security. The freedoms previously won in the civilising process are given up, one by one, ostensibly for the greater good.
So when the political pendulum is prevented from swinging — for whatever reason — back the Right, there is an opportunity for Big Brother to save us from chaos. On the other hand, if the political pendulum gets stuck on the Right swing, without a swing to the left to bring in novelty and diversity, then government morphs into Big Brother anyway. So both left and right-wing governments can easily become tyrannical when they stay in power too long and their politics is not balanced by an opposing political swing.
So ANYTHING that interferes with the natural swing of the political pendulum can potentially erode liberty and democracy. Indeed, liberty and democracy are the product of natural political oscillations, and without those oscillations we would not have democracy as we know it.
This is a very important point: So many people rail against the very existence of their political opponents and opposing policies without realising that, without them, they themselves would have no liberty and their own policies would be meaningless. And this applies whether those opponents are further to the Left or further to the Right.
At this time, there is huge amount of animosity in the Western world between those on the Left and those on the Right. But rather than see the the democratic political system as larger than personal politics, personal politics is being held in isolation. And as a consequence, both sides of the political spectrum are inadvertently becoming agents for the erosion of democracy. We have forgotten the political dance that must trump particular political viewpoints.
Fortunately, there is still some movement in the political pendulum, and so all is not yet lost. But there are also powerful forces at work, trying to thwart the political swing in order to erode the democratic process that stands in the way of certain facets of society. These facets all have one thing in common — they are globalists bent on the dismantling of national borders, which limit both their power and their profits. These groups include the banking and business elites, as well as certain factions of governmental organisations, the military and intelligence networks. For them, democracy stands in the way of their goals of total domination, and the easiest way to erode democracy is to both encourage the fragmentation of society, which then calls for great security measures which naturally erode civil liberties, and to associate the ideals of globalism with everlasting peace, global community and ecological solutions.
An example of the globalist agenda in action was Angela Merkel’s open invitation to millions of Islamic immigrants, including Syrian refugees, into Europe. The act seems kind and righteous — especially for the Syrian refugees considering the West’s involvement in the civil war — but there is no doubt that it has had a destructive and divisive effect on European society. The consequence of this fragmentation of society, of course, is that draconian and controlling government is becoming ever more necessary to hold things together, which of course is a globalist’s wet dream.
At the moment, the political pendulum has reached its left-wing zenith, and this naturally calls for a balancing swing back to the Right. In the United States, the swing back has happened with the election of Trump, and although he might appear unstatesmanlike and politically naive, the swing to the right is absolutely essential to prevent dangerous fragmentation. (The paradox is that many people have become so dismissive of the democratic process by refusing to accept election results that they are sabotaging the ameliorating effects of the swing to the Right.)
In Europe, however, the elite are successfully preventing that swing to the Right in order to create a political climate in which Big Brother government actually becomes attractive in order to ensure the security of its citizens and provide a pseudo-cohesiveness of society.
This opportunistic support by the elite of left-wing agendas for ulterior motives is the reason why governments and the mass media seems to be so unreflective of popular opinion which is starting to again favour greater nationalism. And the extreme presentation of nationalism by the mass media foments a highly polarised society, where democracy itself is regarded as secondary to party politics.
And so we have the very strange bedfellows of left-wing liberals and radical Muslims, both seeking fragmentation for different reasons, and both playing into the hands of the globalist elite. And these are the same elite that have stirred up so many wars in the Middle East — Iraq, Libya, Syria and Afghanistan — which spawned so many Islamic terrorists in the first place. The elite police the world through the murderous and sanctimonious interventionist policies by the Western governments they bankroll, showing scant disregard for national sovereignty. And the inevitable blowback from brutal and murderous foreign policy is then used domestically as a means to erode liberty.
From this broader perspective, Islamic terrorism is not the root problem, but rather a means to deliberately fragment society in order to prepare for a New World Order of centralised control of all nations.
So we must not allow ourselves to be distracted by the petty squabbling of Left and Right politics, but rather resist globalism at every opportunity. Globalism might seem like a multinational lovefest policy to end bigotry once and for all, or a necessary joining of nations to tackle ecological agendas, but rest assured that the dissolution of national boundaries is everything to do with Big Brother control and global government. And this globalism is being sold to us as the solution to the fragmentation and turmoil of society and the destruction of our planet. But a vote for a globalist politician, no matter what their political persuasion, is unfortunately a vote for the slavery of our children and the end of liberty as we know it.
Globalism is hiding behind ecology, security, equality, human rights etc., so that anyone interested in these important political areas will find themselves naturally championing globalism without really questioning why. It seems like a natural solution because we do not see the individuals and organisations that will command it. We mistakenly regard it as global democracy, when the reality is that it will be global totalitarianism.
If we want a civilisation of free citizens moving forward to greater consciousness, we must resist big government at every opportunity, even if it goes against the grain of our political leanings. Humans unfortunately are just not yet consciously evolved enough to handle power, so it is always best to keep it as dispersed as possible — NEVER centralised. You can certainly bet that any global or multinational government will be tyrannical to the extreme, regardless of initial intentions. Inviting globalism in, even for the highest ideals, is the road to ruin. Not because being a part of something larger is necessarily unsavoury, but because humans in their current state of psychological development cannot responsibly wield enormous power. History, including recent history, is an endless litany of the abuse of power.
* * *
Globalism ultimately is the view that human free will and freedom are less important than a controlled and monitored society that does the bidding of its leaders. The loss of individual freedoms to the will of massive Big Brother government is considered a necessity, to basically save us from ourselves. From this perspective, humans are locked into their own selfish interests, and will never “behave the right way” when not coerced. The obvious example here is societal reaction to the ecological crisis: changing a few light bulbs and putting a brick in the toilet cistern are not radical enough to stop the precipitous decline in our ecosystem.
So it would seem that individual freedoms have brought us to the brink of ecological collapse. It would seem that the best course of action for a viable future is to rescind the freedoms that allow individuals to act in ways that are not in the collective interest.
But, we must remember that our collective obsession in selfishly accumulating assets far in excess to what we actually need, and living hugely wasteful and ecologically unsustainable lifestyles, has been strongly reinforced by our educational system and the mass-media in order to make us rampant consumers. And rampant consumers equals a healthy modern economy,which is all that really matters to governments, practically all of which have a short-term re-election perspective.
Therefore, human free will may not be the real danger but those that direct it. But by singling out human free will as the culprit in the ecocide we are now experiencing allows the real culprits — that direct collective free will — to remove checks to their power, allowing them to ascend to a truly terrifying Big Brother role.
Of course, there are always those who foolishly believe that if they are “good citizens”, then Big Brother will be of no threat to them. But the “good” today can often find themselves in a different category tomorrow, as society descends into a pernicious surveillance state.
For example, a “good” citizen might be one who reports governmental abuses of power, but with new “anti-terrorist” legislation, reporting such abuses becomes a crime. So whistleblowers — such as Assange, Binney, Manning and Snowden — who expose massive and insidious government corruption are not treated as the heroes they certainly are, but as traitorous criminals… thus allowing the abuse to continue and discouraging any more “good citizens” from reporting abuses of power.
I am sure that Martin Niemoller, a Protestant pastor at the time of Hitler’s rise to power, considered himself a “good citizen”, which is why he was unable to see the abuses of state power because he made the all-too-common assumption that the State would leave “good citizens” alone. As he wrote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out
— Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out
— Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out
— Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me
— and there was no one left to speak for me.
Niemoller spent the last seven years of Nazi rule in concentration camps, so he certainly realised pretty quickly that being a “good citizen” was no protection from a Big Brother government that changes the definition of “good” to suit its own ends.
The end result of globalism will be a society every bit as demented as that experienced by Niemoller.
And what is most frightening is that the younger generations tend to be the ones most comfortable living in a Big Brother society because they face the full brunt of the current educational system that is preparing future generations to live without many of the freedoms that we currently take for granted.
Freedoms require a strong sense of responsibility, and so the assumption when we lose our freedoms is that citizens are not responsible enough to have it. And so we are encouraged to become less and less responsible as we hand over ever more responsibilities to big government. In this way, people become infantalised as governments take on the burden of their responsibilities, further causing greater dependence upon the government. This is the vicious spiral down into global totalitarianism, and the end of progress. It is the degeneration of the human species.
But we always have the choice to step out of traditional definitions of politics and making it our focus to prevent political power concentrating at every level of society, and especially at the top. It is not freedom, or rights, or ecological awareness that actually matters so much as saving the world from powerful men and women because behind almost every dysfunction of society are groups of people making obscene profits and snaffling ever more power and influence.
* * *
In the end, like everything, this is a story about ourselves and the process of becoming increasingly conscious. From this perspective, the reduction of freedoms associated with globalism represents a regression of human evolution — an abnegation of responsibility in the society that we collectively create. From the globalist perspective, we are merely cogs in the machine that services the dreams of the elite. And for cogs to play their part without question, identification with any paradigm that encourages a sense of self other than that required to be a cog will make them less willing participants in the globalist dystopia. Therefore, things like values, morals, religious beliefs, family values, nationalism etc. are played down because they potentially stand in the way of a Big Brother takeover. They make us unsuitable for cogs because we will be looking for more to life than just servitude to the elite and slaves to our desires.
When we are slaves to our desires, we enter the psychological state of animals. Animals are much easier to control than human beings because their prime focus is on the fulfilment of their needs and desires, and so they are more easily manipulated by those that can control the supply of those needs and desires.
In Western human society, our basic needs are largely met, and so those who wish to control us condition us to focus on desire-fulfilment. The more we are focused on fulfilling our desires, the more we manifest new desires. And this lays the foundation of consumerism.
Unfortunately, the more we focus on desire-fulfilment as the be-all and end-all of human existence, the more we let go of the values, morals and responsibilities that make us human, and which are necessary for civilised society. We let go of them because we see them as standing in the way of our orgy of desire-fulfilment, although the process is rationalised by labelling qualities like values, morals, responsibilities and discipline as old-fashioned, associated with dying religions. This is why, in an age of acquisition and desire-fulfilment, social cohesion is breaking down.
An example might be the practice of meditation or prayer. It takes effort and self-discipline to regularly turn away from the world — away from the endless entertainment and distractions on offer in modern life — and this inner focus might at first seem like a loss of freedom. But, in time, we realise that the loss is of superficial freedom, and that we gain whole other dimensions of freedom that we could not previously even imagine. (Boundaries can be the agents of freedom as much as they can be agents of imprisonment.)
In the current social climate, that restriction could be met by traditional values and morals. For example, the Christian values and morals that once formed the foundation of Western culture could do a great deal to ameliorate the dysfunction of society and the citizen (this is the right wing perspective described earlier where traditional culture is valued and protected). But that solution would not fit a large section of Western society because so many now reject religion outright or follow other religions. So we need to consciously create and adopt a new narrative that gives us a more universally appealing set of morals and values, outside of religious diversity. If done with enough consciousness, this could lift society and bring about greater freedoms on a higher level.
The big problem is always the military industrial complex that seeks to sow disharmony because it thrives on fear and chaos, which it uses to strengthen its stranglehold. So any new narrative must come from the ground up; it will never be bestowed upon us by our governments because it is not in the interests of those who control governments for them to do so. But that narrative must equally be about culture, not just individual human rights.
But even the progressives in our society shoot themselves in the foot by equating all narratives as equally subjective and therefore equally extraneous to basic culture. The consequence of this is that a collective narrative is not valued as much as individual rights and privileges, and yet it is the collective narrative that gives us our culture and harmony as a society. So in the process of this cultural relativism, culture is merely a badge of identity rather than a civilising interface between different identities, and society degenerates as people stop caring about others from different cultures and with different ideologies, and instead focus primarily on the fulfilment of their own selfish desires and their status within their own culture, with an overall "end justifies the means" mentality.
Focusing on the fulfilment of our personal desires certainly leads to a short-term buzz or high — but we must never confuse that high with true happiness. We become addicts to "feelin' good", and this makes us very easy to control and manipulate. After all, if you know someone is an alcoholic and you control the supply of alcohol, then you control that person. In the same way, if the elite control the paper money system and the mass media, then they control the supply of "buzz" (Huxley's soma) to any society that has been programmed to see this as its raison d'etre.
We are conditioned from a very early age to confuse highs with happiness, by our upbringing, our schooling, our work environment and the mass media. So once again we see how society infantalises us, conditioning us to keep pushing the lever for another fix — trapped in a vicious cycle of addiction. This is where globalism is deliberately headed, and this is why those who support globalist agendas are so hell-bent on destroying any sense of identity outside that of an addict. Many mistaken this for social freedom, but a free society without a collective narrative to orchestrate its collective vision ends up in discord as a multitude of individual freedoms clash.
People now are glued to their smart phones, their tablets, their televisions and their laptops because it is through these that they get their fixes. And it is comforting to know that your next fix is so close at hand. In this way we are increasingly becoming digital slaves.
And like any addict, the deeper we fall into our addiction, the more unhappy we become, and the greater the next fix we need. It is currently the advancement of technology that supplies these increasingly potent fixes, where our movies, TV programs, computer games and social media sites become ever more impactive on our senses.
But while we marvel at the latest displays, the newest CGI and the advances of AI, we are too distracted to notice that social cohesion is bottoming out as we descend into chaos amids a riot of diversity.
It is in this milieu that the rise of Islam in the West is taking place, largely fuelled by immigration and high birth rates. And because most Westerners are distracted by desire-fulfilment, they do not see the dangers of an Islamic paradigm rising in their midst. As there is a growing vacuum in the area of collective values, morals and responsibilities, it is all too easy for Islam to take up the slack. Rather than the rise of Islam triggering a clash of values and morals, it is more of a case of Westerners being outraged that Islamic laws and practises might take away their supply of desire-fulfilment. The drug addict is being dragged, kicking and screaming, back into the Middle Ages. There he might actually be cured of his addiction… but is it really a step forward? Are we really so unimaginative as a society that we cannot evolve our collective narratives?
The reason we cannot evolve is because of our fixation on diversity and tolerance to intolerance. Terrorism thrives in the climate of political correctness that infects most of Western society. And as long as we scorn our own culture, our cultural narrative is up for grabs to any other culture with the self-esteem to impose their own. And as long as the official policy is to turn a blind eye to this process, bigots will take up the slack, expressing angry and unkind sentiments that come to define the opposing movement. And in this way, the degradation of modern society continues its downward spiral, unopposed by the general population afraid to be labelled bigots.
It is time for each of us to stop minding our own business and, if culture is important to us, to defend at least the best parts of it and evolve it openly, and without embarrassment. It is not racist or bigoted to impose some form of collective narrative/culture on both the current population and those immigrants wishing to join them. Rather it is a necessity if we are to remain civilised.
But leaving society in the hands of corporate influences, who deliberately dumb down society, creating a nation of infantile consumer addicts with few responsibilities and a penchant for political correctness, may superficially look like freedom, but it sows seeds of tyranny. And that is unfortunately where we are politically headed.
Islamic terrorism is the wake-up call that we must NOT be tolerant of intolerance, that a culture that honours freedom and harmonious diversity must also dishonour anything and everything that challenges that freedom and diversity, including disharmonious diversity. It is time to take responsibility for the collective chaos that is happening around us, rather than blindly focusing on individual rights (which are also important). Disruptive and divisive beliefs such as racism and sexism are obviously a problem and need to be stopped, but less obvious and perhaps more pernicious are political correctness, identity politics, positive discrimination, reverse racism and third wave feminism. These are mindlessly peddled by our modern educational systems, but no place in any civilised and free society because they destroy culture. And it is culture that protects us from pernicious ideologies such as Islam.
The only reason that Islam is able to grow in the way it has in Western society, without needing to integrate into prevailing Western culture, is because of the reluctance of Westerners to defend their culture because they have been brainwashed into thinking that all cultures and ideologies are equal, and so all must be tolerated equally. Actually, if truth be told, Western culture and white skin are now regarded as an embarrassment, an aberration that needs to be quickly forgotten in a politically correct world. But we must remember that it is NOT Western culture that mandates a mass-murderous foreign policy but those who actually want to destroy Western culture as it stands in their way of global domination. (It is not the West that is invading the Middle East, it is the military-industrial complex that parasites primarily off the United States. This parasite is quite willing to throw Western civilisation and the American people under the bus in order to achieve its goals.)
So rewriting history to show only the evils of Western culture, as many progressives are doing, is the fastest route to totalitarianism. This is a grave mistake: for, whether we like it or not, it is Western culture that props up civilisation as we know it; it is Western culture that affords us our freedoms and our tolerance to diversity. And it is Western culture that keeps the military-industrial complex in check. If we trash Western culture for politically correct and idealistic reasons, we end up destroying our civilisation and our civility, and playing right into the hands of corporate and military despots.
The new politically correct world might seem attractive to those focused on individuality and identity, but if we take our eye off the cultural ball we will soon fall flat on our faces.
There is another dimension to this, which I did not write about as I didn't want to obscure the central idea of individual rights vs culture, and this is gender — always an incendiary subject to bring up! As gender biases stand at the moment (rightly or wrongly), women overall tend to be more focused on human rights, and men overall tend to be more focused on culture. The reason for this may be that generally, women gain their social status from rights whereas men gain their social status from culture. And so women are more likely to champion rights, and men are more likely to champion culture. And this is why women are more likely to vote for Left-leaning parties and policies, and men are more likely to vote for Right-leaning parties and policies. The correlation is not strong… but it is certainly there.