Germany and the collapse of Multicultualism

I have had my spats with the German CDU, personal, unimportant spats that the CDU is completely unaware of, but spats none the less. I can't stand their approach to religion, I can't abide their moral conservatism, and their economic policies have a little to be desired.

But Merkel is a different matter entirely. With this latest statement she has joined the ranks of my only two respected Christian politicians along with Tony Blair.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/oct/17/angela-merkel-german-multiculturalism-failed

This multicultural approach has failed, utterly failed.

Merkel isn't really the first to say it, the BNP has been railing at immigrants for years, Geert Wilders has hated Muslims for as long as they've been a serious issue in Europe. But this is is the first time that not only a mainstream politician has joined the cause, but no less than the Head of Government of the most powerful country of Europe.

I know that last statement must seem a little extreme, especially for those who still hold bitter the history of the World Wars, but Germany now stands on the largest population and economy of Europe, has allied with France to form the strongest political front on the centre right in the World, and dedicates more armed forces to NATO, EU and UN forces combined than any country outside North America. It's a little late to be warning of a repeat of the wars, that breaking point has been and gone. Germany straddles Europe like the US straddles NATO, the two are so closely linked as to become synonymous.

To so brazenly confront the problem of immigration and islamification is new in European politics, at least inside the EU, Switzerland has never had a problem with it. It comes after the banning of the burka begins it's inevitable stride across western Europe, first France, then Belgium. It comes after the BNP makes it's first gains in British Politics... ever. It comes after Turkey falls to the non-secular AKP and is thrown back from attempts to join the EU by France. But this is the first time that multiculturalism itself has been so targeted, at least from someone of such high regard.

Western Europe prides itself for it's tolerance, liberalism and multiculturalism, especially in the social services capitals of Scandinavia and the Celtic nations. But there is a big difference between what governments attempt to portray and press gang their populations into and what the people think. Denmark is one of these bastions of tolerance, until muslim riots in the wake of the cartoon controversy led to even greater, more violent anti-muslim marches and riots.

Islam has met it's match. After decades of slowly bending governments and communities to permit them and accept them and their inability to integrate with European life, those same communities have snapped and struck back. I'm not saying there is no such thing as the moderate, liberal muslim, that would be deeply bigoted. However these are not the concern of the communities, as they are part of the communities. What bothers the communities of Europeans are the Muslims who are communities as of themselves, speak foreign languages, follow foreign customs, socialise only with people of their ethnic backgrounds, support a separate Sharia courts, march against the processions of the coffins of British servicemen and oppose higher student fees, not to prevent debt, but to protect Koran-based values.

These communities are what face the governments of Europe, who have been too tolerant, too liberal, for too long. France has faced anti-government and anti-police Muslim riots on a scale making it's famous student riots seem tame. Britain has faced a wave of anti-war and anti-patriotic sentiment fanned by Islamic extremist parties who themselves fund the training of suicide bombers. Germany has faced one of the largest mosques in the world being planned in one of their major cities, an intensely Christian and Conservative city at that.

Multiculturalism has failed, because nations are not multicultural, they are one community. This is something immigrants need to be faced with when they enter those nations. They are not coming in to set up their own communities under the protection of another they refuse to assimilate with. Refugees are not sheltered so they can rant and rail against the system they have fled to. Preachers are not tolerated so they can raise extremist sentiment against the nation they abide in.

France has done it already. The Roma, who have so refused to integrate and become French despite their use of French protection, law and order, health system and nationality, are on their way out. Germany has spoken out against the cultures which want all the benefits of the west without subscribing to their values or identity.

It's about time Europe's rulers put out a message to those who come and refuse to become that which they inhabit. Go home. You're not welcome.

This will never be your homeland, with your values, your language and your laws and rights. If you want this to be your country, it will be with our values, our language and our laws and rights.

Bear VS Eagle

The last few weeks have seen the latest of Russia's new international muscle moves, not seen since 1989 and begun again by the agressive foreign relations of Putin at the end of his term. This is the interventionist measures taken in Georgia as the Caucasus nation.

The story, in my own words, is this. Georgia has two semi-autonomous splinter Republics along its northern border, who have long had friendly relations with Georgia's old rulers in Moscow. They have had this autonomy since the last war in 1992. However, Georgia, with a strong unitary regieme, assaulted the province of South Ossetia with the aim of reclaiming it at the beginning of the month.

Russia, acting with the freedom of Kosovo as a template, struck back, preserving the freedom of the province and pushing Georgian troops back into Georgia and away from the borders of South Ossetia. As the days passed they took the cities of Gori and Poti near the borders of the breakaway provinces. The US, who's assurances of support may have lead Georgia to such action, blared cold-war rhetoric at Russia, into which the UK invested its support. Much of continental western Europe, however, has found it far more difficult to fault Russia's defesensive action.

However, in a propaganda war not seen since the 1930s Georgian and US media overwhelmed Russian common sense with nears of the Bear rising once more to strike down a neighbouring state, terrorizing and seizing it's territories. No mention was made of the Georgian beginnings of the conflict. Russia recently has begun withdrawals in its own time, paying no heed to western mutters and shrieks of outrage, much in the way of a spoiled woman at a taxi which drove past unheeding her shopping spree of bags.

I can only applaud Russia it's actions, showing the US that they are not alone as a state who can act in their own defense and violate "sovereignty" when it poses a threat to themselves and others. In a BBC interview, Condoleezza Rice was asked the question "wouldn't you be concerned if Russia was to form an alliance with and revamp the Cuban military". The answer being, of course it would, making the US' condemnation of Russia a complete hypocrisy. However, Rice avoided immediate denial, saying "we would not be concerned if Russia was to have good relations with Democratic states in Latin America." Essentially saying: "We would not be concerned if Russia gave a smile to the states we see as appropriate.

Urgent broadcast to America. You are not the only superpower of the Earth. You do not know what's best for the World. You, as the most interventionist and agressive state in the world, have no right to condemn similar reactions by others. Especially considering contrasts. For example, the US invaded Iraq under false, possible, assertions that it had WMDs. Russia occupied areas of Georgia to protect a separatist, autonomous province under assault. Please, under anyone's moral compass, who has the moral high ground here is absolutely clear.

Cathars: They died to keep your truth

Exert from Wikipedia: "

The crusader army came under the command, both spiritual and military, of the papal legate Arnaud-Amaury, Abbot of Cîteaux. In the first significant engagement of the war, the town of Béziers was besieged on 22 July 1209. The Catholic inhabitants of the city were granted the freedom to leave unharmed, but many refused and opted to stay and fight alongside the Cathars.

The Béziers army attempted a sortie but was quickly defeated, then pursued by the crusaders back through the gates and into the city. Arnaud, the Cistercian abbot-commander, is supposed to have been asked how to tell Cathars from Catholics. His alleged reply, recalled by a fellow Cistercian, was "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." — "Kill them all, the Lord will recognise His own."^[4] The doors of the church of St Mary Magdalene were broken down and the refugees dragged out and slaughtered. Reportedly, 7,000 people died there including many women and children. Elsewhere in the town many more thousands were mutilated and killed. Prisoners were blinded, dragged behind horses, and used for target practice.^{[citation needed]} What remained of the city was razed by fire. Arnaud wrote to Pope Innocent III, "Today your Holiness, twenty thousand heretics were put to the sword, regardless of rank, age, or sex."^[5] The permanent population of Béziers at that time was then probably no more than 5,000, but local refugees seeking shelter within the city walls could conceivably have increased the number to 20,000."

The brutal suppression of the Cathars occurred eight hundred years ago, and has been forgotten by a religion desperate to leave behind its own legacy of opression (as had the fact it was led by an abbot...). The Cathars died following their faith, one with little difference to the Church's own, a practice which still continues today.

Last week six more men were executed in Iran, men declared "wicked people". In Iran, this could mean anything from armed robbery to homosexuality, hardly a fair system. But of course the one which would catch my eye would be apostasy.

With the fall of religion in the west events such as the Cathar massacres, or the Massacre of Saint Batholomew's day, over three hundred years later. However, almost coinciding with this fall came the rise of Islam in the East, and it's push into central Europe. Now the plains of Persia and Arabia are home to the greatest atrocities of the current age, where doing so much as to think rationally, or be born on the other side of the road is enough to have you hanged. We can only pray (a little ironic) that the world will someday right itself, and such things will be a thing of the past, because no one seems to want to stop it.

Religion shows its fragility once more

Islam, perhaps the world's most intolerant and violent religion, has struck again. In Indonesia yesterday Muslims marched against another faith, but this time it wasn't Atheists, it wasn't Christianity, it was one of their own sects.
"About 2,000 people have gathered in the Indonesian capital, Jakarta, to protest against a minority Muslim sect, the Ahmadiyya community."
The only difference between mainstream Islam and the Ahmadiyyads? The latter have an extra prophet, and to the Islamo-fascists of the region (according to the BBC) "They see the Ahmadiyya's beliefs as a threat to mainstream Islam - and many see a vote for pluralism as a vote for Western-style secularism".

Islam, perhaps the most powerful religion in the world at present, has admitted its own fragility. So threatened is it, by this minority sect in an Islam-dominated region, that it feels obliged to kill it off as soon as possible. There is no reason for this reaction, the Ahmadiyya community has not struck out against mainstream Islam, and even believe in the supremacy of the prophet Muhammed.
But, sadly, this is a very typical religious stance. Religions throughout history have acted ferociously against anything which proposes a truth other then their own, even if the new truth is more reliable and reasonable then the older one. That the Ahmadiyyads have no more basis simply makes them an easier target then those such as Galileo.


Mecca Time

For some reason this rings strangely in my ears, much like the song "It's Chico time". Muslims have jumped upon yet another aspect of science that they find particuariliy interesting, suggesting that Mecca, rather then Greenwich, should be the center of the world's time system, insisting that the only reason GMT is used is due to British Imperialism.
Well... they're right. The only issue being that it has been a century since Britain was an Empire, and, quite frankly, no one cares anymore. GMT is a useful time-framing device, and centers on western Europe. Although western Europe may not be the center of the world anymore, it certainly was, and continues to arguably be the foundation of democracy in the present world.
Mecca, by contrast, is worldwide recognised as being not only the center of the most violent and lethal faith on the globe, but also in Saudi-Arabia, the avatar of the sharia law.


China strikes back

China, in typical heavy-handed style, has struck back against those who dared support its new inklings of democracy and freedoms. Just as everyone began to take its side against the Tibetan rebels interrupting the non-political Olympics, China has began a program to help "re-educate " the misunderstood rebel province.
It's the scene from every communist-based antagonist film/series/book, when the misunderstood civilians must be shown the error of their ways, and the righteousness of the path they should follow.
Or of course they could choose miserable imprisonment, torture and death.

This has produced a swing in my opinion of China, a nation I truly believed was beginning to swing back towards the west and away from Maoism. Sadly it seems, rather then that, it is becoming more stubbornly set in its ways. With its populace having been under communist government for about sixty years now, it seems they have forgotten what freedom is like. Gone are the rebels of Tienanmen square, instead the fanatical student support harassing Tibetan protesters and threatening western shopping centers, protesting angrily against western bias on the news they aren't even allowed to hear about in China itself.

With every step forwards economically, China seems to take two back.

Faith strikes the stage

Blair rallies behind failing religion

In the past decade Christianity has tumbled from British life. Although in 2001 over 70% of British citizens identified themselves as Christians, in the same year 65% claimed that they do not believe in God. Believe what you will, Christianity is on it's way out in Britian, the estimated proportion of Atheists/Agnostics rising from 14% to 31-44% between 1991 and 2005. Just between 1998 and 1999 church attendance fell from 20,327 to 19,843. If the trend continues 81-94% of the population will be Agnostic/Atheist by 2035, and church attendance will have fallen to about 1,800. Although this is quite unrealistic statistically, such falls tend to flatten out, it shows a bleak, and welcome, future for the Christian churches.

That was, before Blair stuck his foot in it. Yesterday he spoke before a large audience at Westminster Cathedral on how faith should be the solution to the world's problems (this coming from a reborn Christian, the evangelical type, the type who shotgun doctors in America for carrying out abortions). This contained such jewels as "is faith important?... It's like asking is health important, or your family", "the world will be immeasurably poorer, more dangerous, more fragile, and above all more dangerous... if it is without a strong spiritual dimension" and "this is a purpose uniquely found kneeling before God". To not beat around the bush, he has made a farce of himself. Tony Blair has arguably been one of the three greatest Prime Ministers of the century, bridging between two centuries in a way those like Chirac were unable to. Since his resignation he has only redoubled his respect, working in the middle east and in corporate banking, going beyond his political career. However, with his conversion to Catholicism and newfound religious arrogance he has lost everything to nearing a third of the nation's population. In his declaration that without faith the world will fall he has attempted vainly to oppose the trend, that of good health and education. Education, not so remarkably, coinciding with secularism and non-theism. Blair has chosen the loosing team, and if he is not careful, he will be dragged down with them as surely as America was.

In fact, he dragged America, not well regarded by Europeans, into the debate, claiming religion was not in decline and acts of terrorism had highlighted the fact that "we ignore the power of religion at our peril". Well yes, we do. If we ignore religion and let it continue as it is, we will suffer for it, it is only by extinguishing its influence that we can remove this terror.

"Religious faith is a good thing in itself that so far from being a reactionary force - it is a major part to play in shaping values which guide the modern world and can and should be a force for progress," he said. Religion, itself does not. It's fall, however, has much gain to be had from for the world.

Mugabe strikes back

In a not too surprising turn of events Mugabe has turned to his favorite tool in a time of need, violence and intimidation. Following his defeat in the parliamentary election he has achieved what he threatened the opposition not to, panic and turn to violence. Not only has he called for a recount in a desperate attempt to win back the majority, come to his support are war veterans protected by Mugabe-loyal police forces, raiding and pillaging opposition officers and seizing western journalists and democracy supporters. We can only hope that Zimbabwe doesn't go back to Mugabe and his dictatorship, else he will drag all of central Africa down with his own country.

The end of Pervez Musharraf

The elections over the past month have been an example of how democracy holds dictators responsible. Musharraf first had to seen his party ousted in the once supportive north western territory, and then faced a rout in the general elections, removing him from power.

This is a leap forward for the middle east. Musharraf showed time and time again his dogma of oppression, everything from assassination of opposition ministers to jailing judges for upholding the law.

Sadly the same may not happen in Zimbabwe. Mugabe looks set to tear away yet another victory from the upcoming elections on Saturday, through a series of bribes (ambulances) and corruption (extra 'ghost' voters) much as he did in the last election. If he does so, then I increasingly regret the decision of the UK not to intervene in the reign of Mugabe much earlier in his time in power, as they almost did do. Hopefully this coming election will prove me wrong and I will be referring to the new ruler of Zimbabwe as Mugabe's successor. I'm sure all can agree that he should not be left to lead his nation to stagnation as Cuba was.


On socialism and the lie of equality

This remains one of the foundations of Aneism, based on the logic of the subjective reality and the science of evolution. Naturally, humans are unique, and as unique beings, we are not the same as any other.

Socialism would have us believe that all should be placed equal in governing the nation state, that all are equally capable, and more then this, that it is part of fundamental rights.
However, perhaps the golden rule of the state is that all states tend towards Oligarchy with time, whether this be democratic or totalitarian, the 'elite' always end up above the proletariat. This inevitability is perhaps the scourge of socialism (and lead to the formation of communism, where all are equal other then the few).

Not everyone is born equal. Socialists would have us believe that every person is equal to one another, we all have faults and gains, but we all round out equal, and so equally capable. This is simply not true. There are some who are incredibly intellectual, incredibly sporty, charismatic, innovative, and some who are all of these. Equally there are those who are none of these things, the labourers of the world, the unemployed, the forgotten. All of these people are hardly comparable to doctors, scientists, lawyers and the MDs in their respective societies, and it would simply be foolish to assume the two classes (lower and middle respectively) are equally rational and capable of deciding what is good for the nation state.

As can likely be realised, I am a strong elitist and supporter of the oligarchy above socialism. There are some who, through natural variation and sexual selection, are superior to others of our species in a myriad of ways. It can hardly be expected therefore, that we should accept the rule of the many over the rule of the best, as the latter form is always going to be superior to the former, they're simply better (genetically and through their upbringing) at guiding their nation state along the best course.

All people have their rights, but there will always be leaders.

Basra and other affairs

"Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri Maliki has given Shia militants in the southern city of Basra 72 hours to lay down their arms or face "severe penalties"."

This was the headline in the BBC website in the last few hours, and with it, expectedly, comes the liberal pacifist condemnation. As The Iraqi army undergoes its first serious expedition since the end of the invasion itself, the militias which hold power have given the obvious, and faked, cries of disbelief and foul play.

This is the first trial of stability for the new pro-western government in Baghdad. Putting its foot down on the militia-backed violent factions of Basra will be a step along the road to stability for Iraq. No matter how much the critics may bemoan such a move with the threat of an outbreak into a wider conflict, forcing the Mehdi Army to lay down its arms may end an era of oppressive governing by militia-backed political parties, and lay the stones for a freer Iraq. I wish Maliki good luck.


Tibet

Possibly the most controversial dinner-time conversations of families around the world are to do with the independence of Tibet, and discussing the recent crisis is no different. China's typical "tanks then talk" policy to dissenters has seemed to pull off again, inviting minimal international response. The most other nations have done is to urge China to undergo more peaceful actions, the result being anywhere between 19 and 140 dead over the past week in Lhasa, center of the riots.

However, despite China's "tanks before talk" policy, this is the first time I have had sympathy with their reactions. With the upcoming Olympics they had attempted to subdue the monks of Tibet, unleashing a furious wave of violence across the province/nation. Tibetans assaulted innocent Han Chinese, burnt their shops and reportedly left the immigrants to die in the flames. I am all for resistance against the oppression of China, but this was not resistance, it was ethnic cleansing with a ferocity not seen outside Africa for many years. China's response, for once, was well-merited, placing stability and safety above the vengeful attacker's 'freedoms'.

I hope one day Tibet gains back its rights as a nation, but in the past week they have sunk to the lever of their opponents.


Mugabe oppression

Another example of this despot's ridiculous continued legitimate tyranny is shown as political opponents are refused to advertise their campaigns on air, practically forcing the haphazard "anti-Mugabe" coalition for the upcoming general election.

Quite frankly the AU has better duties in Zimbabwe then invading the Comoran island of Anjouan to remove a petty new ruler who refuses to step from power. At least it is a step in the right direction. Although the force presented (1,500) is easily enough to overwhelm the island's 400 militia, it is still a meager show of strength for the peace-keeping organisation. The AU, an African organisation resembling a combination between NATO's militancy and the EU's politics, has a long way to go, but is proving a far more effective agent of stability in Africa then the UN ever has been. To the woe of the inhabitants of Darfur however, it is barely enough to police the continent.

Aneism

Contents

Summary

Origins of the Name

Aneist Principles

- On God

- On reasonable doubt

- On subjective reality

- On reasonable Nihilism

- On ultimate selfishness

Summary

Its chief foundation is the rejection of religious views and superstitions of all kinds as impossible to truly base them in reality without great assumptions. This is in accordance with an extreme empiricist viewpoint in which almost everything is in doubt, leading to Nihilism, dampened by subjective reality viewpoint.

Origins of the Name

The original form of the name was formed as a combination of the basics of Aneism, Atheism, Nihilism and Empiricism.

Aneist Principles

On God

Aneism holds a very firm Atheistic viewpoint in terms of Gods. It sees the only justification for God to be as a creator (and hence holds some sympathy for the Deist viewpoint) but also rejects the idea of using a “God of gaps” to fill wholes in science, such as creation. The Aneist viewpoint is that religion was simply a tool for basic man to fill gaps in understanding, including the basics of life. As science and knowledge developed this need has been reduced, and Aneism places absolute emphasis that supernatural elements should not be used as a placeholder until empirical evidence fills the gaps in our knowledge, lest we rely on this placeholder and loose faith in knowledge.

On reasonable doubt

Reasonable doubt stems from the extreme empiricism (emphasising the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas, whilst discounting the notion of innate ideas). However, due to the impossibility to prove the reliability of one’s senses, everything is then put in doubt. The one exception to this is the existence of a self, as an extension of Descartes’ “I think therefore I am”. The basic belief is that in order to experience perceptions there must be a self to analyse them, even if the analysis is false. This leads to the basis of subjective reality. However, Aneism also emphasises that to live in a state of absolute doubt is an impossible situation for a human being, and that to live within the subjective reality requires the assumption that it exists, hence only reasonable doubt is utilised in analysis of the subjective reality.

On subjective reality

The Aneist principle of reasonable doubt rejects all objectivity, claiming that being able to see reality from a viewpoint other then that of the self is impossible. This results in an absolutely subjective reality, in which the world only exists as a merit of the observer’s perception. Anything beyond this perception can be doubted, as it cannot be ultimately proven to exist. However, reasonable doubt dictates that this must be assumed to exist for the sanity of the individual and capability to survive on a metapersonal scale.

On reasonable Nihilism

Aneism rejects Judaeo-Christian egoism, having their God centred upon the Earth and caring for each and every one of them personally. Aneism claims this to be a creation of the human urge for importance and a creation of subjective reality, being only aware of what the person can perceive naturally causes subjective thinking, and thus centred on the self. Rejection of this admits purposelessness, and the ultimately useless position of the self. Emphasis is placed that even if our universe removed, let alone its tiny fragments of our galaxy, our solar system, Earth, Humans and ultimately the self, would not affect reality as a whole, which would continue regardless. This results in the embracing of Nihilistic positions that the self is without objective meaning or essential value. However, much in the same way as reasonable doubt, Aneism maintains that this is not a reasonable way to think in life, and that this logic must be dampened by the reasonable. In this way, although ultimately the life of the self has no meaning or value, as everything in centred on the self due to the subjective reality, such ideas cannot be ultimately held without loosing touch with the subjective reality, and so succumbing to insanity. As such things must be reduced to a subjective scale. Although the self is valueless in terms of the possibly non-self viewpoint, from the subjective view it is the most important aspect of perception, so leading to ultimate selfishness.

On ultimate selfishness

It is the Aneist perspective that, as all reality is based on the subjective perception, that selfishness is the only possible human position. Such actions which appear selfless are in fact as much for the self as for any other individuals. Charity, for example, helps other human beings, but is only done for the sense of good-will and happiness experienced by the self when doing so. If this after-effect were not present, then the self would not undergo such an action. The same is true of religious charity and self-reduction undergone by monks and nuns of various religious orders. Although this at first appears a selfless action purely produced by religion, it is in fact only due to the good-will felt by complete subjugation to a religious authority, and the rewards promised for such action.