The Unknown to the Great Unknown: Euthanasia

Moral and ethical issues when we don’t (yet) have the means to measure all forces at at work:

When reaching for a counter-point to the “virtue” of euthanasia, opponents have a habit, be it in science fiction or public discourse, to present a totalitarian state which heartlessly decides who lives and who dies. This is a great way to model a dystopian future in a novel, because a state is an entity which can assert its agency over others (inhuman bureaucratic machinery being composed of humans being a welcome plus). The idea of the state deciding who lives or dies is a reliable trope for opponents of euthanasia to fall back on. But the simplicity of this example is also why it misses the mark. The pressure to be euthanised isn’t something as clear-cut as government policy. Instead, it finds its way to the unwilling via social pressure. When it becomes a norm, it will be the relatives expecting euthanasia. To trouble people you’re your continued life will be a shameful transgression. With an intellectual class hamstringed by moral-relativism, there is nothing to prevent group-pressure on the terminally ill to opt out. This isn’t a problem for policy makers. It isn’t a problem for science. It is a problem that, if we are to take it seriously, forces us to hazard some guesses at the immeasurable: what norm will the predominant morality dictate?

Organic Propaganda

A revisit of dinnerparty-stasi and Old Shock

organicpropaganda2-520x245

Dutch version: http://verenoflood.nu/organische-propaganda

 

The PVV is consistently leading the polls. Throughout all of Europe, we can witness how the trust in the establishment is falling due to the establishment’s hostility towards its own people. Considering the downwards spiral over the past ten to twenty years, it has taken a remarkably long time for this public opinion shift to come about. What makes the culture of denial so strong? On organic propaganda.

 

Consider the BBC. The current, blatant propaganda is obvious. Feigned confusion over the common thread in Merkel’s summer of terror, or excusing Saudi oppression of women (on women’s day, of all times), are obvious enough now the people have learned to be sceptical. But it is the media-climate that went before these ludicrous spins that warrants our attention if we are to understand how the public mind was shackled. The BBC is an especially striking example herein. The power of BBC propaganda was its organic nature.

 

It’s remarkable how the BBC, with its strong leftist bias, embarked on a free-market approach to propaganda, and what a contrast this is compared to Stalinist indoctrination. Stalinist, top-down directed propaganda is straightforward and transparent. To work, it will need a naïve population and a ruling religion or ideology it can align itself with. Consider the church-supported monarch of pre-enlightenment Europe. Erdogan’s Islamist-Nationalism. Stalinism; with its poster and its boot. The poster for the new convert; the boot for the new heretic.

The power of organic propaganda lies, as with the free market, in its appeal to personal motivations. In people who want to believe it. After all, to lie convincingly, one must first deceive oneself. This results in a propaganda machine as multi-faceted as the number of people it consists of. Including the people it convinces. It may be the case only one conclusion is accepted, but the opinions and reasoning leading to this conclusion are as diverse as the people it deceives and seeks to deceive. Add to this that the entire machinery wants to believe the presented conviction, and our innate skill to detect lies and truth in body language might override our objective observations. The conviction of the masses convinces the masses of its conviction. Compare this to the hamfisted droning on about the dear leader in the DKPR, and the need for an oppressive boot and external enemies becomes evident. It is as if Stalinism confuses the organic nature of a society with engineered machinery. It tries to play physics with something organic. It sees humans, the cells of the organism that is society, as atoms[1].  State-propaganda could be seen as the attempt to by-pass the evolution of public-opinion, to artificially engineer an organism. A micro-management of the public-mind.

The example of the BBC includes change in gradations. What does the journey towards self-elected, national clergy look like? How can a, on the surface objective, media giant become a propaganda machine against the very people who finance it?

In business, the main purpose will be to make money. What of an organisation that has a set income? The BBC should be lauded for its high production standards; in these terms their conviction certainly was to produce excellence. But what should be expected if there is any political leaning in an organisation, one that doesn’t have the necessity of profit to keep its priorities straight? Perhaps the subjective nature of taste and creativity set a metamorphosis in motion. How did the producer determine who would be the greatest asset to the team? Who would fit in, who should be promoted? Such decisions rely on the personal judgement of the producers. Someone with a similar opinion will just feel a tad easier to work with, might appear just a bit more “sensible”. Would an individual not gain a significant advantage by having “the right” political opinions? If we imagine the most rigid dedication to objectivity, not only in programming, but in internal hiring and promotion as well, political leaning will only shift the balance as far as it plays a subconscious role. But it only needs to play this role enough to shift the organisation a bit further; if it manages this, the result will be a shift in the norm, a shift in the presumed middle ground. The shift should increase exponentially as the same process happens again, the political leaning drifting ever further into the well-known echo-chamber situation. Should we expect otherwise? If you are convinced your position is JUST and the opposition is BACKWARDS, not using your position to further your political cause must feel like a sin. In theory, an organisation can be completely objective despite an internal political conviction, but what is objective about politics? Brexit showed us how the “neutral” perception of the BBC and its audience was no longer the reality of the wider British public.

 

Particularly invested in the BBC-opinion block is a segment of the British art-world. It is tempting to make allusions to a lack of critical thinking or being ruled be emotion, which could make artists an easy target for propaganda and feel-good politics. But the issue of arts-financing might be a better point to raise. Not the banal point that artists are bought to march along, pencil and flute in hand, towards the delicate promised land of elegance. Consider the aforementioned process, in which moral and political conviction inside an organisation play their parts, even without planning, without deliberation (and how much more if there is). Once there is no internal resistance to a world view, it will then begin the journey towards a moral cause beyond question. Again, with such moral conviction, it must feel like a sin not to use the organisation as a political tool.

 

Offering an artist financing to promote a political opinion is ridiculous, that’s what advertisers are for. It would carry with it the obvious risk of public exposure. In reality, artists aren’t even collectively left-leaning. The power is in the role of patron of the arts. Art is still associated with sophistication, elegance and success; it is tasteful status. An association comes into existence between art and the organisation. Art does not need to be made explicitly for the political cause; it is implicitly part of the cause through the platform. The flower of civilisation as weapon; a venomous thorn on the rose, to drown the realm in drowsiness. But sleep can’t shield us from rape and torturous murder.

 

Through this elegant status, a “correct” opinion is formed. A safe body of thought to join. A body of thought, in which hollow sentiments are applauded. Mediocrity, through the right channels, will be hailed as insightful commentary. No one can exploit such a system of platitudes and banality better than an entertainer. It is their profession to play into people’s perceptions. To win people over. And theirs is a field of work with insane competition. Opinion and bread become one. Let me repeat the point about old shock:

There’s been much noise about the left falsely labeling anyone opposite as nazi, fascist, far-right, xenophobe, “literally” Hitler and presumably the reason dinosaurs went extinct. It is the boring pretense we are living in 1930’s Germany, which is apparently is evident in 1950’s values, which of course hardly exist anymore. A comedy routine which might have been “3edgy5me” in the 1960’s doesn’t really challenge any norm today. If anything, it ENFORCES the norm. The odd thing is when such routines are hailed as if they’re a daring social critique.

 

I suspect it’s not about challenging anything. And I suspect reaffirming the group-think isn’t all there is too it either. What I suspect makes this mode of comedy appealing, beyond the jokes, is the nostalgia. The wish that there still WAS a cohesive society to rail against. If comedy is a vehicle for social critique, the audience is loaded into a Volkswagen-van and driven all the way back to a fantasy-era.

 

The problem with that is that the “new” ideals from yore have seeped into so many aspects of life, via an organic propaganda, that they were never adapted to the new resulting realities.  Louis CK:

 

I’m white, which, thank God for that shit boy. That is a huge leg up, are you kidding me? Oh God, I love being white. I really do. Seriously, if you’re not white you’re missing out because this shit is thoroughly good. But, let me be clear by the way, I’m not saying that white people are better. I’m saying that being white is clearly better, I mean who could even argue? If it was an option I would re-up every year
‘Oh yeah, I’ll take white again. I’m enjoying that, I’m gonna stick with white thank you.’

Here’s how great it is to be white; I could get in a time machine, and go to ANY time, and it would be fucking awesome when I get there! That is exclusively a white privilege! Black people can’t fuck with time machines! A black guy in a time machine’s like
‘Hey, anything before 1980, no thank you. I don’t wanna go.’
But I can go to any time! The year two? I don’t even know what was happening then! But I know when I get there

‘Welcome, we have a table right here for you sir.’
‘Thank you, oh it’s lovely here in the year two.’

I can go to any time… In the past, I don’t wanna go to the future and find out what happens to white people, because we’re gonna pay hard for this shit, you know that. (laughs) We’re not just going to fall from number one to two, they’re going to hold us down and fuck us in the ass forever. And we totally deserve it. But for now, WHEEEEEE!

 

“they’re going to hold us down and fuck us in the ass forever” Well, he managed to be prophetic while dodging each and every chance to be profound. In Rotherham and all throughout the UK mainly white girls have been subjected to long periods of gang-rape and forced child-prostitution. It was enforced with threats to beburned alive, threats to their family and control via heroin. The total number of victims come to a million girls, according to some estimates. Consider the rape-epidemic in Sweden. The attempt to silence the New Years eve mass sexual assault, in Cologne and other cities. These were not prevented because of decades of enforced self-hatred. It went unopposed because the victims were mainly white, and the perpetrators mainly non-white Muslims. It is precisely via entertainment and cultural means that this mindset of denial became so endemic.

 

You know, if you’re white and you don’t admit that it’s great, you’re an asshole. It is great.
And I’m a man, how many advantages could one person have? I’m a white man! You can’t even hurt my feelings! What can you really call a white man that really digs in?

‘Hey cracker!’
‘Uh, ruined my day. Boy. Shouldn’t have called me a cracker. Bringing me back to owning land and people. What a drag.’

 

A reminder that any white person has it great BECAUSE they are white, which is proven because Louis has it easy. Curious is the spin on “cracker”. The slur means your ancestors used to whip and own slaves. This is not as uplifting to some as it appears to be for Louis. This narrative of “blood-guilt”, victimhood and oppression doesn’t appear to have made matters any better in the States. This ignorance of history in general is rife. The Barbary slave trade is only slowly being reinserted into the public over the past year and a half. It might have been a good idea to highlight it was the “evil” West which pressured the Ottomans into ending black slavery, at least officially. Some honesty about how remarkable it is that the West and “whites” pushed for change not always in their own self-interest. Instead, the self-interest of some to end slavery in the United States has been put forward as if it indicates self-interest of the whole. Louis and his ilk extrapolate this miscomprehension unto the whole of history.

 

Despite how some of his fans hail him as a contemporary George Carlin, Louis CK might just be out to make his audience laugh. He excels at his trade. It could be that it simply doesn’t occur to him to challenge the new norm in his quest for laughs. His comparison of Trump to Hitler certainly is comedy gold. It is hilarious, because cowardly comedians who fail to challenge the norm is exactly the hole Trump filled.

 

It is tempting to cross the pond in a Yellow Submarine, but the next example has old shock without the nostalgia. People familiar with Stewart Lee will know he went through a phase of not having any funny material. Not having real jokes is the point. Jokes are beneath him. There’s an odour of cigarettes, stale beer and sweat surrounding jokes. The joke-comedian classes smell. By accident or design, this was a great way to attract an audience desperate for validation. An audience desperate for their safe, political opinions to be considered brave, progressive and pushing the boundaries.

 

Lee’s idiom is a Chomskyist hatred for America and his own nation. Instead of hiding behind a persona that does the hating for him, he skilfully uses his persona to sketch scenarios where the last vestiges of disgust; defecation, genitalia and anuses, are associated with anything American or national. So strong is his desire for a nationalist, bigoted own society to rail against, that he isn’t going to wait for actual bigotry. He doesn’t need nostalgia for a time when national pride was strong. The own nation and culture are evil in and of themselves, it seems. This is reflected in the almost sadistic delight he takes verbally defecating on anything English or American. He does this through performance rather than content, as is his trademark. He does this via his cat, Jeremy Corbyn, as well, which came dangerously close to being humorous content.

 

Stewart Lee is immensely skilled at rebelling against the powerless. He even enticed Christianity, a belief so openly mocked its hide should be  a shell at this point, to try and invoke blasphemy laws on a show he co-wrote. But the glaringly obvious point must be made: where is the solidarity with those under the life-long threat of murder? Why lampoon the idea of anti-Islam comedy? Why try to suggest Tim Minchin’s song about suicide bombers is all the counter-balance one would expect for the diatribes aimed at anything Western? Why comment on the world, if you choose to ignore it?

Which brings us to Dara O’Briain. There’s not much to say. His point that we wouldn’t know what to laugh at, because (at the time) people would not have known much about Islam falls flat when we remember his taking down of homeopathy. I had no idea what that kind of bullshit homeopaths claimed, but the very jokes he used explained enough to be funny. Which brand of bullshit has led to more suffering? Most people seem to assume he is merely (rationally) afraid of Islamic violence. Why not simply admit it, as Jimmy Carr so cleverly worked into comedy[2]? Consider how O’Briain worked his reaction into his routine. To treat Islam equally is not done, and it certainly won’t help a BBC career.

From Louis’ and Dara’s comedy for the masses to Stewart’s act for the snob, all the way to the art-consumer. The norm, the opinion-block, is enforced again and again when the public relaxes, when people lower their guard. People who don’t think about it, people without the time or means for reflection, lazy people and stupid people, consumed regurgitated opinions. The correct opinion became absolute. Always ready as an axe to chop down dissent in social situations. The wrong remark could result in sleepless nights. People placed themselves under the reign of a diner-party-Stasi.

This reign is weakening. The reality has been too far removed, for too long, from the mandatory opinions. The comedian making a jibe at UKIP, is too clearly out to score easy applause. The inability to imagine someone might disagree is nothing less than hubris. It has cost the regressives the necessary ingredient of their propaganda: they no longer believe their own lie. And powerful as their propaganda may have been (and still is) compared to Stalinist propaganda, the metamorphosis from sandal to boot crashes in the face of freedom of speech, such as remains. And a precious thing it is. Because after the poster the boot will come. Dutch police have knocked on doors about anti-migrant posts,  Brits have been locked up over tweets, or been given community service for facebook-posts.

Considering the severity of such examples, despite everything, I expected more noise from the BBC. Until recently I was naive enough to believe the BBC could still save itself; to recognise their excellent documentaries on art and nature deserve better than to be political-venom. As of yet, Brits are forced to finance hostile propaganda, and receive nothing in return but entertainment Soma.

 

[1] True in one sense; a person is the smallest particle of a society. Islamic states appear eager to test further dividing these society-atoms, but it has not yet resulted in a comparable social atomic-theory (though explosions should not be ruled out.)

[2] Carr, however, was not committed to his self-professed cowardice.

No Culture But Ours! Bob Dylan Wins the 2016 Nobel Prize of Literature

face-1

Soil, seeds and flowers. Poetry and art serve needs.

 

Let me open with, what I feel, is more appropriate poetry for our current needs:

 

Do have the hope! Not the flimsy, bleak one,
which adorns the decayed core by a frail flower,
but the unswerving one rooted as a seed
of the future sacrifices in a soul of a hero.

Do have the courage! Not the day-long one,
which vanishes in a desperate endeavour,
but this one, with a permanently raised up head,
which do not allow to push off from its attitude.

Do have the courage! Not the mad-inspired one,
which weaponless goes headlong,
but this one, that by an unconquered mound
resisting fates overcomes its fixity.

Let’s stop to bask of our own anguish;
let’s stop to feed ourselves with a lament!
Wallowing in grievances is a woman thing;
do arming unemotionally, as befits the men.

But do not stop glorifying the inviolability of us
and store the purity of our ideals.
It befits to us to give them a force and a harness
for transfer them from our dreams to the reality.

Do have the hope! Not the flimsy, bleak one,
which adorns the decayed core by a frail flower,
but the unswerving one rooted as a seed
of the future sacrifices in a soul of a hero.

 

-Adam Asnyk

 

A call for stoic strength, it is the type of sentiment the boomers rebelled against. And they were right to do so: after the end of WW2, this sentiment served few needs. The times they were a-changing 20 years before it was noted in song. In the West, at least. Our happy-go-lucky new forms of expression, following the end of the war, were not equally appropriate for Eastern Europe. Contrast our pop-culture with the following:

 

The Message of Mr Cogito (English)

 

Go where those others went to the dark boundary
for the golden fleece of nothingness your last prize

go upright among those who are on their knees
among those with their backs turned and those toppled in the dust

you were saved not in order to live
you have little time you must give testimony

be courageous when the mind deceives you be courageous
in the final account only this is important

and let your helpless Anger be like the sea
whenever you hear the voice of the insulted and beaten

let your sister Scorn not leave you
for the informers executioners cowards – they will win
they will go to your funeral with relief will throw a lump of earth
the woodborer will write your smoothed-over biography

and do not forgive truly it is not in your power
to forgive in the name of those betrayed at dawn

beware however of unnecessary pride
keep looking at your clown’s face in the mirror
repeat: I was called – weren’t there better ones than I

beware of dryness of heart love the morning spring
the bird with an unknown name the winter oak
light on a wall the splendour of the sky
they don’t need your warm breath
they are there to say: no one will console you

be vigilant – when the light on the mountains gives the sign- arise and go
as long as blood turns in the breast your dark star

repeat old incantations of humanity fables and legends
because this is how you will attain the good you will not attain
repeat great words repeat them stubbornly
like those crossing the desert who perished in the sand

and they will reward you with what they have at hand
with the whip of laughter with murder on a garbage heap

go because only in this way you will be admitted to the company of cold skulls
to the company of your ancestors: Gilgamesh Hector Roland
the defenders of the kingdom without limit and the city of ashes

Be faithful Go

Herbert Zbigniew

(translation Milosz, Czeslaw)

 

This goes against everything that defines the babyboomers as a generation. The role of the individual is one of sacrifice; perhaps even sacrifice that will amount to nothing. It is a plea for self-restraint, yet surprisingly moving. It does not use individualism as an excuse for selfishness, progression as an excuse for hedonism, or pacifism as a means to look away from what is dark and bloody. To find dignity and beauty even in humiliation and suffering. To live for the test of a single last moment, known to none save yourself and those erasing the very memory of your existence, taking glee in depraving your final moments. These are sentiments befitting the generation dying on the shores of Normandy to free our continent, fit for those resistance fighters tortured and dead at the hands of Nazis, and following that, as was the case for our unfortunate fellow Europeans East of Berlin, Communists. It is not a sentiment for the Western generation which let slip away the fruits of these sacrifices. It is not a sentiment befitting those who would give away their children’s civilisation to a death cult. Or rather, raised their children in a morality of suicide.

 

By awarding Dylan the Nobel prize of literature, Western culture is further abjected. The self-importance of babyboomers marches on as we lose our history and dignity to the dreams of the 60’s. The time for those dreams is not today; the desire to escape in these dreams might be greater than ever, but the need is to wake up. The need of today is to become strong. It is perhaps the dwindling population in the West that made it so hard for the young to challenge babyboomer-norms. Or perhaps, following their love for freedom and equality, the babyboomers were too gentle to raise a generation strong and brave enough to do so. Because the ironically anti-liberal opinions of “liberals”, the regressives, are often not the babyboomers themselves. Chomsky is one man; those following his dogmatic views are of younger generations. As we’re dealing with pop-music, juxtapose Dylan’s Neighbourhood Bully with the easy “America is bad, m’kay” attitude found in Metallica’s And Justice for All, or the hollow, narcissistic anger in any song by Rage Against the Machine or System of a Down[1]. Activism as PR, anarchy as pop-culture. Or simply think of F.A.G. It is the younger generations that mindlessly follow, and exploit, the norms set by those born in the 40’s and 50’s. Increasingly, this hollowing-out of an already redundant morality, is turning young people towards amorality: morality is presented only as something to their own detriment, by people who have never even bothered with a moment’s reflection on it themselves. Which is more nihilistic?

 

Perhaps the dreamer-generation’s love of leisure led to this state of affairs; trusting others will sort things out. Or being gentle when they needed to be strong; allowing their vague ideals of niceness to become tools of moralistic bullying, their love of freedom to become lawlessness.  Note how new “leftist” ideals transgress on what babyboomers typically hold dear. The maxim of “low populations are better for the environment and labour-rights” was conveniently forgotten when this didn’t align with open borders. Equality became “getting even” with no regards of the reality today, or even history. We can see what the new left thinks of “peace” in the violence towards dissenting opinions. The babyboomers allowed this to happen; the younger generations made it happen. We all bear responsibility, let’s be honest about our share.

 

Because of this, even though I consider this a blow to our culture, another victim of PR and its banality, I can find one gleeful note in Dylan’s Nobel Prize. Bob Dylan is not a dogmatist. He’s not a hateful, genocide enabling Chomsky, or an anti-Semitism enabler like Corbyn. Dylan’s Nobel might draw the public eye to Neighborhood Bully, might spark some more debate about the spread of jew-hatred; might open a fair number of eyes on what has been happening. His generation might remember what it truly intended for the world. Instead of encroaching on literature prizes, they could demand SJW types stop encroaching on their own ideals. As grandchildren become the greatest pleasure in life, they might pay some closer attention to what they haven’t been told and haven’t seen, on where our current course is taking us. The times they are a-changing. The love of freedom, equality and life demands change.

 

 

 

[1] Just to make sure I don’t leave anyone uninsulted: rap is yet to produce profundity, punk was never anything but intentional ugliness and jazz is listened to by simpletons who try on airs of sophistication. House music is hollow sounds for the truly unremarkable and unimaginative, but at least it knows it is. I’d add reggae, but I don’t expect moronic stoners to read, period. Oh, and to be truly fair, Nietzsche’s music might the least Nietzschean music I have ever heard. It’s uncanny.

In the Shadow of Giants, and How the Left Will Kill Your Pet

 Fear of reality

market-dead-cat-bounce-feature2

Maarten Keulemans (of the Dutch left-wing outlet de Volkskrant) has no empathy for those who’s cat has been killed, and appears to be proud of it. Pet= love and love= illusion. Except love isn’t an illusion; it emerges from our nature as a social species. What is driving this bizarre attempt to appear rational?

de schaduw van reuzen

The tweet roughly translates as “Gosh, they’re killing our sweet cats! #nowthis”. This is in response to someone’s pet having been killed by a known publicity-criminal (one who tries to gain fame through outlaw-appeal. If you feel this is a niche that belongs in early 90’s Compton and not in the Netherlands in 2016, that means you have a sense of proportion). In Dutch, the tone of the tweet is especially one of ridicule.

Historically, hard science has had, of course, nothing to say about love or morality. It should not have to be pointed out that this has never been its purpose. It’s sad, but I suspect that in the case of Keulenmans and his ilk, the following error is made: “Hard science is objective and therefor true, it has nothing to say about love, love is a fairy-tale”. But is the reasoning applied not really “The definition of love is not the same as the fairy tale I believed in; my definition of love isn’t true, ergo love doesn’t exist”.  Which is silly: there’s simply been a new light shown on the causation of love. Why do the Keulenmans of the world try to present cynicism as rationality?

Concepts like love, morality and the need to treat each other with kindness are hard to argue objectively, even for adults. So we build bubbles of fairy-tales and other metaphors to send children into the world with a basic feeling for ethics and fairness. These bubbles are meant as a tool rather than objective truth; often it won’t survive an encounter with an objective description of the world. The love and fairness the child felt came from the child itself, but the reasoning the child has been given as a description turned out to be false. The blows dealt out to religious sentiment by science, from the renaissance onward, follow this pattern. What options rest the child? The child can deny, make the leap of faith and hope to fall into a new bubble. Or the child can bear the pain of of the sudden clarity, and in this new light contemplate love and morality again. A third option would be to not see beyond the death of the fairy tale. As if traumatized, any subject involving love or morality leads to the association with the unease of the new understanding.

 

Option 3 can only see objectivity as the death of love, compassion and morality. It can’t see it as a new explanation. The earth and humanity turned out not to be the center of existence. Life is shaped by Darwinian selection. Disillusioned, the child stumbles one-eyed under the shadows of giants.

Love as a biochemical process is not even a new concept. Yet the nihilist reacts to this knowledge thus “love is no more that the release of chemicals in the brain and body, it’s only an illusion”. Proof there is a physical cause for love; the physical evidence of love is interpreted as proof love doesn’t exist. The material aspect of love does of course mean that love can be artificially simulated. A love potion; we’re back at fairy tales, and that without magic! Artificial love is not a new philosophical problem. The influence of matter to our own matter and being is as old as humanity itself; introducing lead especially can drastically change the reality of a person. Why pretend there are new insights?

Cynicism is perhaps no more than pseudo-rationality. The haunting dread that reality is actually terrible, that nothing which feels good can be true. Is materialism still at odds with people’s sensitivities? Think of Harris, and the conclusion free will is false because there is a chicken-and-egg problem. The mind and self emerging from matter, and this matter that makes us following the laws of nature, only disproves notions of self and agency if these notions turn out to be a false bubble. We are not chained, we are our chains; our drives, our emerging thoughts, these originate from our own matter. Our will is what we are. It’s not free will, it’s own will.

 

To highlight the true motivation of this pseudo-rationality and how it is applied I refer to the revolting stains of Yulin  and the Korean dog-torture. This is not the same as the meat-industry in general. For starters, the pain and barbarity: skinning and boiling alive, dismemberment serve the purpose of sadism itself. Even in the objective ethics of bioethics this should be reconised as extraordinarily deplorable, unworthy of humanity. But a more important point is the unique relationship between man and dog. The high level of social sophistication of both species and the way in which both species have helped shape each other, means we can even see each other as family. This is a remarkable, astounding result that still originates from the objective reality of our matter. To not recognise this, to pervert this miracle of reality, is to be less than human. The sadist rejoicing in these practices have a true negative value as humans; both in the practical application of their being, that is to say, their actions, as in what their being is. So why is the reaction of the soft-headed to try and deflect the issue with factory-farming (also unacceptable). I again repeat the following to underline how entrenched our moral disease is:

slaverelativism-copy

It is the same inability to acknowledge evil in other cultures that is forcing Europe to take in xenophobia, superstition, murder and the risk of civil war. Women and children raped, pets murdered. The dread of reality of the left is creating a Painted Bird scenario across an entire continent. I would have preferred to keep such literature within fiction or history, but the nihilistic adherence to failed left-wing ideals means their morality pushes for a Europe in a permanent state of war and sadism. Denial of reality is now a measurement of left-wing morality. It is both the cowardice of the leap and the blindness of roaming in the giants’ shadow, it is everything except progression.

I believe your children should be bullied, oppressed, raped and murdered, because I was taught to think that

This is truly what the left is telling us, including even our pets.

Translated: Dogs and Islam

A man collects the camel urine prior to the slaughtering to mark
A man collects the camel urine prior to the slaughtering to mark the Muslim holy festival of Eid al-Adha in Lahore, Pakistan on Friday 21 January 2005. It was learnt that camels urine can be used in making home-made medicines. Muslims all over the world are commemorating the Prophet Abraham’s readiness to sacrifice his son Ismail in his obedience to God. EPA/OLIVIER MATTHYS

The following is a translation of Willem Seepma‘s piece on Islamic hatred of dogs. It was posted on the Dutch opinion-blog Veren of Lood (which is where my own articles appear in Dutch).

 

No, this column is not about Tunahan Kuzu and Selçuk Öztürk, these seat robbers have been covered  by me. These are other types of dogs, the (domestic) animal. The dog is described over the centuries as the “faithful companion” of men.

 

It’s of little surprise that the Muslim prophet, when ordering his followers to slaughter all kafir,  also gave the command to slaughter his faithful friend. It all started with the Prophet and a puppy.

Sahih Muslim 5511/81 (2104) describes;

It was narrated that ‘Aishah said: “JibrIl (Gabriel), promised to come to the Messenger of Allah at a certain hour, and that time came but he did not arrive. He (the Messenger ) had a stick in his hand which he threw down and said: ‘Allah does not break His promise, and neither do His Messengers.’ Then he turned and saw a puppy beneath the bed. He said: ‘O ‘Aishah, when did this dog get in here?’ She said: ‘By Allah, I do not know.’ He ordered that it be taken out, and JibrIl , came. The Messenger of Allah said: ‘You made an appointment with me and I waited for you but you did not come.’ He said: ‘I was prevented by the dog that was in your house. We do not enter a house in which there is a dog or an image.”

So the Archangel Gabriel is afraid of puppies and images. After Muhammad had learned of Gabriel’s Phobia, he could have easily checked his house for dogs before Gabriel would come to visit. But this is Mohammed we’re talking about, and Mohammed will have his bloodshed.

Sahih Muslim 4016/43 (1570) describes the following;

“The hadith by Ibn’Umar says the Messenger of Allah commanded to murder dogs .”

Sahih Muslim describes 4018/45 (..);

Hadith by Abdullah bin’Umar says: “The Messenger of Allah ordered to completely wipe out all dogs, and went across Al-Madinah, killed all the dogs off save none, even he would have the dog of a woman of the desert people killed”

However, some of Muhammad’s followers complained because they had dogs for hunting and herding sheep. Mohammed therefore changed his mind.

Sahih Muslim 4021/48 (1573) describes;

Hadith by Ibn’Al-Mughaffal says: “The Messenger of Allah had fun murdering dogs when he said:” What’s the problem with them and dogs? ” Then he granted an exemption regarding dogs for hunting or herding sheep. “

So “practical” dogs, those herding the flock and used for hunting were fine. But some dogs were far worse than others, some dogs represented the devil!

Sahih Muslim describes 1137/265 (510);

It was narrated from ‘Abdullâh bin As-Samit, from Abü Pharr, whosaid: \”The Messenger of Allah çsaid: ‘When one of you stands tooffer prayer, he will be screenedif he has something in front ofhim that is like the back of asaddle. If he does not havesomething in front of him that islike the back of a saddle, then hisprayer will be interrupted if adonkey, a woman or a black dogpasses in front of him.\” I said: \”0 Abü iharr! What isthe difference between a blackdog, and a red or yellow dog?\”He said: \”0 son of my brother, Iasked the Messenger of Allahthe same question and he said:’The black dog is a devil.\”

More Islamic wisdom about Satan from the Prophet who said that Satan pisses into your ear, Satan is hiding in your nose and Satan farts when he hears the call to prayer.

About the Muslim prophet is found in the Koran; K21 / 107:

“And we have sent as a mercy to the worlds you (Muhammad). “

But apparently this peace is not extended to humanity’s faithful friend, and it certainly doesn’t include black dogs. Because, no doubt to the surprise of veterinarians and geneticists, the colour of the coat determines whether a dog is the devil. If Muhammad’s colour-fixation comes as a surprise, please keep in mind that the Prophet also says that Satan looks like a black-skinned man. Muhammad, the prophet with black slaves.

Yes, this all comes straight from Islamic Hadiths, the intended extensive moral guidance for Muslims. You may laugh. But the sad thing is, as is canon, that today’s Mohammedan still live accordingly. Friction between Muslims and people who have a trusted friend are popping up in the news from Islamic cries to impose a “dog ban” to the horrible way in which our faithful friends are murdered.

 

Then what are the general propositions by the Muslim community about dogs?

It is haram (Arabic: حرام: unclean, forbidden) to keep a dog for a Muslim, unless exemptions as shown above in the sources. The reward of Muslims taking a dog as a pet, save a dog for hunting or farming (livestock) is reduced every day.

 

5059 Al Bukhari and Sahih Muslim Hadith 2941: Ibn Umar said:

“I heard the Messenger of Allah:” The reward of the person who keeps a dog, except dogs trained for hunting or cattle, is every day reduced by two Qirat. ‘ “

Qirat is a metaphor for a large part of the reward.Remuneration to affect this reward means that the person who takes a dog as a pet commits a sin. The loss of reward is a divine threat to enforce the ban.

The impurity of a dog/saliva (one of the largest impurities of animals) can only be removed with washing seven times, of which one must be with earth. Even pigs are not as filthy as dogs, it seems.

Dogs are unclean and filthy. Unbelievers (kafirs) have an obscene habit to keep dogs as pets without a practical need for one. A dog is never pure, even is you were to wash the dog with all the water from the sea! The advice to the Mohammedan that has transgressed on this rule is to repent to Allah, and to keep dogs away from their homes. A dog may, subject to use out of necessity for hunting or cattle outside, never be kept indoors. If you remove a dog, including ditching one, you have no further responsibilities for the dog’s well being. Don’t let a dog into your home, is the dictate.

Touching a dog (especially saliva), makes the Mohammedan unclean in the opinion of many Islamic scholars. It is then required to wash their hands 7 times, once with sand or earth. Pots and pans where a dog licks, eat or drink are obliged to a similar cleaning process. As confirmed in the report of Abu Hurayrah EAIN Al Bukhari / Sahih Muslim:

 If a dog drinks from one of your utensils, then you should wash it seven times including once with sand.”

And Allah is omniscient.

 

 

Dutch Flame:  Frontline Makes Soldiers

dutchflaceProfound vulgarity

 

“Nasz naród jak lawa

Z wierzchu zimna i twarda, sucha i plugawa

Lecz wewnętrznego ognia sto lat nie wyziębi

Plwajmy na tę skorupę i zstąpmy do głębi…”

 

“Our nation is like lava,

On the surface it is hard, hideous and debased.

But its inner fire,

Cannot be extinguished even in a hundred years of coldness.

So let us spit on the crust,

And go down, into the true core”

 

Power! In a few lines you can feel the history connecting a nation and its people. The ugly realities are not just acknowledged, they are an integral part of the poem and Poland itself. This poem, by the great Polish/Lithuanian poet Adam Mickiewicz, was born from the pain of the Polish partitions. They spat on this “hideous crust” and reached for a binding, Polish culture and identity; the inextinguishable fire, to forge the nation state by and for the Polish people. And doesn’t the physical “spit” separate the “inner fire” from poetic banality?

 

Powerful poetry from patriotism. From Polish feeling and being. Such an unobtainable fire for the Dutch spirit and mind. Or is it?

 

Dutch patriotism does not mix with non-visual art. On the contrary, bad taste is expressed with such energy, aggression almost, that this philistinic nihilism becomes the core of a uniquely Dutch anti-art art. The monotony of the Dutch house-bass, the complete lack of substance to “ski-hut” are both idiosyncratically Dutch. Dutch humour is crude and centers around the obscene. Dutch thinking itself consists more of referring to existing sources than original thought[1][2][3][4].  All of this makes the intentional vulgar phrasing in new Dutch media (imagine professional shitposting) more than counter-balance against the dry, empty, “professional” established journalism; it speaks directly from the Dutch spirit. Why?

 

Forgive me for being a broken record yet again, but the foundation of these cultural problems lies in the Slave Morality. Its current shape has some new, superficial oddities, due to mass media and the information era. Again, I want to bring focus to its core: the use and origin of the Slave Morality resides in the needs of the Ancient slave. The need of the powerless, the need of they who experience suffering inflicted by the powerful in the own society. In this sense, for millennia, it has battled against suffering, because this has been a continuous source of suffering.

 

In post-WW2 Netherlands the Slave morality won its last battles. Without suffering brought about by oppression it became a redundant morality. The last skirmishes about sick-leave could never satisfy its lust for revolt. So it gorged itself on art and culture. The power of culture and entertainment in politics is finally being understood. But it wasn’t born to be a chessboard for Soros and his ilk. It spawned from the urge to further overthrow order. Rebellion as a plaything: Rock ‘n Roll brought the sensation and self-image the baby-boomers craved. From rebels without a cause to the anti-Western dream of 68, cultural identity became a matter of generation and pop-culture. Pop idols amplified a political voice because “he’s very progressive, actually”.

 

The core remained contempt for the order of the own society, contempt for pride, strength and anything beyond the banal. Contempt for profundity. The word “profound” might be a much desired status-symbol, but only when it adheres to the norm. In other words, as long as it dresses up the conventional “wisdom” in some new phrasing. Rephrasing of the socially mandated, hollow pop-litanies.

 

Art became redundant, empty and meaningless, because the morality that fed art had become redundant, empty and meaningless. How can you ever create meaning if you shackle your mind and spirit with mandated “virtues” of self-effacement? Degraded by the monotony of the Slave Morality, philistinic nihilism becomes liberating. Perhaps the monotony of the house-bass was hammering on those shackles all along…

 

Is this not the divide in Dutch society? A dichotomy between a conform-culture feeding on the last fumes of a dying morality against anti-grace, anti-morality? Then the anti-morality is more moral, the anti-grace his in better taste: they touch a core of truth.

 

Philistinic nihilism might not be sickly, as is the case with the norm-culture, but it cannot inspire. It’s an amusing triggering of frivolous sensitivities. It even seems to feed itself with the Slave Morality as it wears it down. But it offers no alternative morality for today’s needs, for the needs of the future. It doesn’t feed the soul.

 

At face-value, that Polish, eternal fire seems antithetical to being Dutch. The difference between a proud culture and a hedonistic culture is overwhelming. But is this not fertile soil? To regain pride after humiliation? I see a culture without morality, but with a need to birth one. A need as strong as survival itself. The most powerful moral core.

 

In Leiden, something interesting happened. A group of youngsters appeared on a photograph holding banners. The most “controversial” banner states “we will fight Muslims”. I don’t care much that they phrased it “Muslims” rather than “Salafists” or “Islamists”. Seeing as the established press has done so much work to convince me kids like this are all uneducated, I don’t think it would be very fair for me to critique their use of nomenclature. I also call them “youngsters” rather than “youths” because I have not come across any reports of them killing a person for the mere thrill of it, creating no-go zones, terrorising neighbourhoods, calling for the genocide of Jews and Christians, assaulting gay men for being openly gay, labeling products in a supermarket because they’re Jewish Israeli. Islamic terrorists are slaughtering Europeans, Muslim youth-gangs engage in lower grade violence the news hardly covers. Then there are the rapes, rapes, and more rapes. In reaction to the picture with the kids waving Dutch flags, concerns are expressed about another group who once climbed on top of a mosque with a banner. WHAT IF THAT HAPPENS AGAIN, HOW CAN I SLEEP AT NIGHT?

 

Does anyone real need a remindeder that the young will have to suffer through far more of Europe’s Islamification? Do I need to point out that they already suffer more of it? At school, public transport, while going out, THEY feel and pay the price of political correctness. Are these “xenophobic oiks” or are these young Dutch people claiming the right of life. The right to BE.

 

If they are claiming the right of life, if they reject the current proxy-suicide through THEM, are we really selfish and cowardly enough to let them fall prey to hate-campaigns and abuse of power? While they see, LIVE, what the streets have become? While they are confronted with violence, intimidation, humiliation, and the awareness of a horrific future. They’ve been thrown into the frontlines, and now the cowardly filth blames them for becoming soldiers!

 

Survival is a primal moral. If we look away, after all the misery we’ve heaped on these kids, we have no right to protest if their new morality will seem “extreme” to us. Old point about glorifying a morality of self-hate:

 

“If this morality is not countered by an honest intellectual class, what is to stop people flocking to its most well known antithesis once they can bear it no longer?”

 

It is well possible this is yet another group of frustrated kids who, once they gain the comfort of steady pay and their own living space, will learn to ignore society. But a Dutch flame, a new morality, will light up sooner or later. The days of its ignition will be the moment to instill it with compassion, love and art. FEED this morality art, feed it love if you want love in return. Make it into a beacon, a festival of lights BEFORE the dark sets in.

 

That it may be an inferno, casting a long, black shadow, if none come to their aid.

 

***Edited 03-06-2017

 

 

 

 

 

[1] Duth thinking excels in pure analytive a priori2  subjects. In applied mathematics and hard siences 3  the Dutch come into their own. In doing this, the pragmatic4 Dutch turn their weakness into strength.

[2] A ladida way to say “thinking in clear steps after gaining the initial data”. With this term you automatically refer to existing work and your knowledge thereof.  References and ladida phrases give than nice illusaion of academia and hard science. However, tt doesn’t seem to add much to the readers understanding until it also becomes and actual science. It’s the difference between empty form; a circus, and functional form.

[3] The Dutch are good at that

[4] Yes, the term was coined by Peirce, at Harvard, no, this does not mean that pragmatism in its everyday sense didn’t exist yet.

Old Shock

 

There’s been much noise about the left falsely labeling anyone opposite as nazi, fascist, far-right, xenophobe, “literally” Hitler and presumably the reason dinosaurs went extinct. It is the boring pretense we are living in 1930’s Germany, which is apparently is evident in 1950’s values, which of course hardly exist anymore. A comedy routine which might have been “3edgy5me” in the 1960’s doesn’t really challenge any norm today. If anything, it ENFORCES the norm. The odd thing is when such routines are hailed as if they’re a daring social critique.

 

I suspect it’s not about challenging anything. And I suspect reaffirming the group-think isn’t all there is too it either. What I suspect makes this mode of comedy appealing, beyond the jokes, is the nostalgia. The wish that there still WAS a cohesive society to rail against. If comedy is a vehicle for social critique, the audience is loaded into a Volkswagen-van and driven all the way back to a fantasy-era.

 

The problem with that is that the “new” ideals from yore have seeped into so many aspects of life, via an organic propaganda, that they were never adapted to the new resulting realities.  Louis CK:

 

I’m white, which, thank God for that shit boy. That is a huge leg up, are you kidding me? Oh God, I love being white. I really do. Seriously, if you’re not white you’re missing out because this shit is thoroughly good. But, let me be clear by the way, I’m not saying that white people are better. I’m saying that being white is clearly better, I mean who could even argue? If it was an option I would re-up every year
‘Oh yeah, I’ll take white again. I’m enjoying that, I’m gonna stick with white thank you.’

Here’s how great it is to be white; I could get in a time machine, and go to ANY time, and it would be fucking awesome when I get there! That is exclusively a white privilege! Black people can’t fuck with time machines! A black guy in a time machine’s like
‘Hey, anything before 1980, no thank you. I don’t wanna go.’
But I can go to any time! The year two? I don’t even know what was happening then! But I know when I get there

‘Welcome, we have a table right here for you sir.’
‘Thank you, oh it’s lovely here in the year two.’

I can go to any time… In the past, I don’t wanna go to the future and find out what happens to white people, because we’re gonna pay hard for this shit, you know that. (laughs) We’re not just going to fall from number one to two, they’re going to hold us down and fuck us in the ass forever. And we totally deserve it. But for now, WHEEEEEE!

 

“they’re going to hold us down and fuck us in the ass forever” Well, he managed to be prophetic while dodging each and every chance to be profound. In Rotherham and all throughout the UK mainly white girls have been subjected to long periods of gang-rape and forced child-prostitution. It was enforced with threats to be burned alive, threats to their family and control via heroin. The total number of victims come to a million girls, according to some estimates. Consider the rape-epidemic in Sweden. The attempt to silence the New Years eve mass sexual assault, in Cologne and other cities. These were not prevented because of decades of enforced self-hatred. It went unopposed because the victims were mainly white, and the perpetrators mainly non-white Muslims. It is precisely via entertainment and cultural means that this mindset of denial became so endemic.

 

You know, if you’re white and you don’t admit that it’s great, you’re an asshole. It is great.
And I’m a man, how many advantages could one person have? I’m a white man! You can’t even hurt my feelings! What can you really call a white man that really digs in?

‘Hey cracker!’
‘Uh, ruined my day. Boy. Shouldn’t have called me a cracker. Bringing me back to owning land and people. What a drag.’

 

A reminder that any white person has it great BECAUSE they are white, which is proven because Louis has it easy. Curious is the spin on “cracker”. The slur means your ancestors used to whip and own slaves. This is not as uplifting to some as it appears to be for Louis. This narrative of “blood-guilt”, victimhood and oppression doesn’t appear to have made matters any better in the States. This ignorance of history in general is rife. The Barbary slave trade is only slowly being reinserted into the public over the past year and a half. It might have been a good idea to highlight it was the “evil” West which pressured the Ottomans into ending black slavery, at least officially. Some honesty about how remarkable it is that the West and “whites” pushed for change not always in their own self-interest. Instead, the self-interest of some to end slavery in the United States has been put forward as if it indicates self-interest of the whole. Louis and his ilk extrapolate this miscomprehension unto the whole of history.

 

Despite how some of his fans hail him as a contemporary George Carlin, Louis CK might just be out to make his audience laugh. He excels at his trade. It could be that it simply doesn’t occur to him to challenge the new norm in his quest for laughs. His comparison of Trump to Hitler certainly is comedy gold. It is hilarious, because cowardly comedians who fail to challenge the norm is exactly the hole Trump filled.

 

It is tempting to cross the pond in a Yellow Submarine, but the next example has old shock without the nostalgia. People familiar with Stewart Lee will know he went through a phase of not having any funny material. Not having real jokes is the point. Jokes are beneath him. There’s an odour of cigarettes, stale beer and sweat surrounding jokes. The joke-comedian classes smell. By accident or design, this was a great way to attract an audience desperate for validation. An audience desperate for their safe, political opinions to be considered brave, progressive and pushing the boundaries.

 

Lee’s idiom is a Chomskyist hatred for America and his own nation. Instead of hiding behind a persona that does the hating for him, he skilfully uses his persona to sketch scenarios where the last vestiges of disgust; defecation, genitalia and anuses, are associated with anything American or national. So strong is his desire for a nationalist, bigoted own society to rail against, that he isn’t going to wait for actual bigotry. He doesn’t need nostalgia for a time when national pride was strong. The own nation and culture are evil in and of themselves, it seems. This is reflected in the almost sadistic delight he takes verbally defecating on anything English or American. He does this through performance rather than content, as is his trademark. He does this via his cat, Jeremy Corbyn, as well, which came dangerously close to being humorous content.

 

Stewart Lee is immensely skilled at rebelling against the powerless. He even enticed Christianity, a belief so openly mocked its hide should be  a shell at this point, to try and invoke blasphemy laws on a show he co-wrote. But the glaringly obvious point must be made: where is the solidarity with those under the life-long threat of murder? Why lampoon the idea of anti-Islam comedy? Why try to suggest Tim Minchin’s song about suicide bombers is all the counter-balance one would expect for the diatribes aimed at anything Western? Why comment on the world, if you choose to ignore it?