"History is philosophy teaching by example." (Lord Bolingbroke)

New Email Address:

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

Fjordman is troubled about the failing EU; says it must go. He has no idea.

The noted Scandinavian blogger, Fjordman, is posted at Gates of Vienna. This time his subject is the unpopular EU that has been instituted by the elites in spite of the objection of many of the ordinary citizens. Fjordman and others believe that it may be on the verge of collapse, an event that will bring about despair, suffering, and instability that could last for at least a generation.

The various articles linked internally back up this assumption. At the bottom of Paul Belian's Brussels's Journal article, "Former Soviet Dissident Warns of EU Dictatorship, can be found two mp3 files: an interview with Vladimir Bukovsky and a speech by the same in which he discusses how the bureaucracy was formed and that it is no accident that the EU, in many ways, resembles the fallen Soviet Union, with input from the Trilateral Commission, and that the EU is headed for dictatorship.

Bukovsky explained that the envisioned purpose of the Soviet Union was to create a new people. We remember from history the the exile program in which who populations were forcibly removed to other parts of the union, the collectives, the five-year plans, the forced multi-culturalism and all the other social experiments that failed badly. That Soviet ended with a whimper while, and according to Bukovsky, the Western-European Soviet rose and is going through painful spasms of multiculturalism through "immigration", a "political" currency, the reallocation of wealth through taxation, an unwieldy bureaucracy, thought and speech control, and all the rest of a different social experiment that Bukovsky believes will also fail.

We can see the same process occurring on North America: multiculturalism through migration, a proposed union that's been in the works for decades but has not been formally announced, with a new economy, a new currency, the "Amero", the mixture of ethnicities and languages, an un-wieldy bureaucracy, eminent domain confiscations of property, and all the rest. The similarities between this union, an "American Soviet", the one in Europe, and the failed Soviet on the eastern part of Eurasia makes one ask a series of questions about the identity of the social engineers, their goals and objectives, and so on.

Social engineering is nothing new. Come-to-think of it, Islam is successful type of social engineering that may trump all other experiments, one that contains all of the elements listed above, the same thought control and repression that rose and died in the Soviet Union and that seems to be on the rise in Europe and in the Americas. It would be ironic if the Islamic repression eventually wins over the others.

I don't know about you, but I resent the social engineers that are playing with our lives and their twisted experiments: why???

Be sure to read Fjordman's essay, that includes several interesting internal links. Listen to the chilling and thought-provoking MP3 links found at the bottom of Belian's interview with Bukovsky. and think about the rising North American Union and all that it will bring.

Focused on Europe, Fjordman, Bukovsky, Belian and all the rest are missing the big picture that doesn't include the Americas. Speaking of the Americas: Is the chest beating in Congress, the movement of the troops to the border, calls to reform immigration, this that and the other, is this all for show to distract us while maneuvering and manipulation are going on behind the scenes. Are our efforts exercises in futility, changing nothing while they set the stage for their grand experiments? I wouldn't be at all surprised.


  • At Tue Jun 06, 05:39:00 PM PDT, Blogger John Sobieski said…

    The one good thing about the Senate immigration 'dissolve America now' amnesty bill is that we identified the enemies in our Senata and the WHITE HOUSE. Bush is a traitor. I despise him now.

  • At Tue Jun 06, 09:22:00 PM PDT, Blogger Gjournal said…

    Someone recommended this blog to me describing it as an "Objcectivist" blog. While I see that two of the bloggers call themselves Objectivists, their views on immigration are most decidedly at odds with Objectivism. And the blogger called Eleanor is a pure nativist, fortress-America type. While this blog does have some interesting entries on the evils of Islam it is otherwise indistinguishable for the countless conservative (and pro-Christian) blogs and websites. I just posted this to voice my displeasure. I expect better from those who call themselves Objectivists. Nowhere on this blog is there any discussion of the nature of man's rights in relation to immigration. Here is but one of many links to a rational approach to the immigration issue from an Objectivist:

  • At Wed Jun 07, 06:51:00 AM PDT, Blogger George Mason said…


    Gee, I guess you won't be stopping by anymore.

    We have covered everything you have brought up over and over. Check the archives, starting in December 2005. That includes Binswanger's article, which some take to be their marching orders.

  • At Wed Jun 07, 06:43:00 PM PDT, Blogger Gjournal said…

    "We have covered everything you have brought up over and over."

    I have checked your archives. You have not covered anything. You do not address the moral rights associated with immigration. You approach the topic from the typical intrincist, conservative perspective. Also, this blog is loaded with terrible economics (ie anti-capitalist) and even an ethnic form of racism such as this statement:

    "... a proposed union that's been in the works for decades but has not been formally announced, with a new economy, a new currency, the "Amero", the mixture of ethnicities and languages..."

    What is wrong with a "mixture of ethnicites"? Can't have all those 'furriners' now can we.

    My point stands. This is a conservative blog. You and Cubed should stop calling yourselves Objectivsts. You'll just confuse both yourselves and others.

  • At Thu Jun 08, 03:47:00 AM PDT, Blogger Eleanor © said…

    What's wrong with a mixture of nationalities?

    Well nothing. America is a mixture of nationalities, races and creeds. There is nothing wrong with that. The problem arises with the entrance to too many new comers that have come to exploit the system, to try to replicate their home countries and their previous lives while in the United States.

    Previous waves of newcomers were given the opportunity to assimilate and to learn English. Today's migrants are not interested in assimilation, learning English, or even becoming citizens. They want residency and all the accompanying benefits rather than accepting the responsibilities that accompany citizenship. America doesn't need shirkers like these.

    All are welcome to join us. Joiners understand and accept the rules before they apply or enter. Foreigners unwilling to abide by the rules should beat a fast track back to where they came from.

    If this attitude makes me a nativist...well, so be it.

  • At Thu Jun 08, 08:02:00 AM PDT, Blogger George Mason said…


    As it stands, you are just a drive-by shooter. Write an article and send it to us. We will publish it, without editing it, just as we publish all writers' articles without editing. The ball is in your court.

  • At Thu Jun 08, 09:28:00 PM PDT, Blogger Cubed © said…

    Oh, boy. I'm almost seventy years old now, and I became aware of Objectivism when I was a young medical student of about 23.

    Up until then, I had only what might be described as a "mindset," a sort of "fertile field," that was receptive to Objectivism. When I found Objectivism, I became much like our young friend, flaring of nostril and glaring of eye, doing exactly those kinds of things that Ayn Rand herself recommended against; she painted a word picture by describing the philosophical "Young Turks" as being like people who got on and off elevators with their elbows out.

    I was so excited about finding a philosophical home that I became quite evangelical, completely rejecting those who didn't immediately "see the light."

    It was a lot like being a young medical student, of course; we used to mock all the "LMDs" ("local medical doctors") who were oh, SO ignorant of the latest "zebras" in the world of disease, along with the latest and greatest and most sophisticated diagnoses and treatments (that, of course, was back in the days before the personal computer).

    I went on to learn that in that age group (about 16 to 40), there is a developmental need to establish one's territory. It's all tied up with being in the prime of one's reproductive competence, but I'll not bore you with those details here.

    In human beings, the "territory" is not limited to possessions or prestige, but includes "philisophical territory" as well.

    The kind of behavior we see among these young people resembles the spraying behavior of intact male cats, who "mark" their territory in their own distinctive manner.

    During this time, the young Objectivists are not secure enough in their own philosophy to admit into their close company people with whom they have certain elements of disagreement. They fear that by agreeing even partly with "others," they will appear to be compromising their philosophical integrity.

    Once the developmental need for the acquisition of territory begins to fade away - for most people, that is around 35, when the prime of reproductive capacity and its attendant raging hormone levels also begin to fade - their philosophy has become well integrated.

    It is no longer seen as a "cause," but as a "way of life." They no longer feel that their philosophical integrity is threatened by associating with those whose philosophy differs in some way from Objectivism.

    By the time you get to our age, you aren't tired, you haven't compromised, you haven't thrown in the towel, and you have not given up or "conceded to the enemy."

    If someone is curious, you are perfectly willing to talk, refer to something in the Objectivist literature, and so on, but you don't go knocking on doors seeking "converts."

    You finally realize that reality really DOES always win in the end; the reality is the steady sales of Atlas, the growth of organizations like the ARI and the Objectivist Center, the increasing numbers of serious Objectivist philosophers in colleges and universities, the increasing numbers of Objectivist-oriented groups such as the Institute for Justice, and so on.

    In short, in addition to maturing beyond the need to "spray" and the increasing comfort with Objectivism as a way of life, you look around and see that despite the extremely serious threats we face from Islam, globalism, postmodernism, etc., and the horrible conflicts that doubtless lie ahead, that there is a growing base of people who value reason with the same passion we do.

    These people do not include Islam, the globalists, or the postmodernists.

    Besides, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. It is not written anywhere that we are destroying Objectivism by making alliances with people who do not subscribe to our philosophy, but who also recognize that if we don't link arms here, we won't be around to debate the issue later.

    In medicine, we have an expression - "the patient died in balance." That meant that all his electrolytes were in good order, there was just the small problem that he died anyway.

    We would rather live a little "out of balance" than to waste our time bickering with our allies in this fight for our lives.

    We know that Aristotle's philosophy didn't change civilization in a few days, and neither will Objectivism. But that's another one of the few pleasures of growing older; your confidence that the next paradigm shift will happen, even if you're not here to see it.

    We see past Islam, globalism, and the postmodernists to a world that resembles Galt's Gulch. It will happen, you know.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home