European irrationality

Two weeks ago the so-called European Court of Human Rights published a decision condemning Italy to remove all crucifixes from public schools classrooms. Meanwhile, a German court has ruled that a High School in Berlin must provide a special room for Muslim praying students which are mainly from a second generation immigration. Last but not least, the European Union is menacing a small country as Lithuania to be expelled on basis of “homophobia”.

If ever proof were needed that EU national governments may no longer legislate in accordance with their own cultural traditions, or enact laws which uphold the Christian understanding of the family, it is now evident.

Astonishingly (or perhaps not), the European Parliament has considered ‘Article 7’ action against Lithuania, which could have resulted in Lithuania’s suspension from the European Union. And all because they have dared to confront what they deem to be insidious homosexual propaganda.

In order to have a full idea of the actual European irrationality, please check this figures [PDF] and verify the total inconsistency and incoherence of an insane European political elite.

 

The urgent need of rationality instead of rationalism

From Illuminism we have inherited an abusive rationalism that assumes that it can explain everything and imagines that alterity could always be reduced to a same predefined condition and without any residual differences.

The “great reason” of Lights should know better and recognize its own limits and stop when facing the unknown. Science is today a Babel Tower: every science field speaks its own language disregarding all the rest.

When quantum mechanics is strongly defying the macroscopic determinism, there’s a new and modern sort of ignorance in this article from Elizabeth Culotta ― but not the kind of De docta ignorantia (Of Learned Ignorance) that Nicholas of Cusa taught us about. It’s irrational ― and therefore stupid ― implicitly attribute the human religiosity and teleological judgment to some sort of brain’s epiphenomenal causal determinism.

Rather I would advise people to read two actual books: “Und wir sind es doch—die Krone der Evolution”, by the German Gerhard Neuweiler (“We Are It: The Crown of Evolution”), and “Does Our Existence Have a Sense?” by the French Jean Staune.

The “golden age” in which reason was reduced to objective causality is gone.

 

Every human being has a religiosity independently of structured religions

« Voegelin then concludes his argument with a mischievous sleight of hand, when he further attributes to this range of individuals the beliefs of just one, Comte, presumably on the basis that it is easier to fit Comte’s positivist views into Voegelin’s meretricious argument that all gnostics were driven by the need for immortality, by a need for personal salvation.

This argument must fail because Voegelin is ascribing religious sensibilities to people who are, in some cases at least, not religious. The idea of personal salvation cannot explain the actions of a scientist.»

I do not think that a scientist is an irrational animal, i.e., a person without “religiosity”. I would ask the guy who wrote the aforementioned stuff to be more concise and distinguish between “religion” A or B, and “human religiosity”.

Furthermore, it seems that the blogger does not know much about classical culture and politics ― namely those of Ancient Greece ― as Eric Voegelin knew so well. The same concept of “immortality” Voegelin argues belonging to modern gnostics existed before Christianity with the Roman concept of “tradition”, which was the influence and the remains of Greek culture.

“Immortality”, for the Greeks, was exactly the concept of outstanding and exceptional human acts ― being either in literature, arts, politics or in philosophy (which was considered as “science”, for the Greeks) fields. Eric Voegelin did not create any new concept; rather he just looked back in History before Christianity to verify how a similar concept of “immortality” could be transposed through History and assimilated in a so called “post-Christian” Era.

 

Ayn Rand and “civilization” quoted

“Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.” ― Ayn Rand

First of all, let me say that being a conservative, I have absolutely nothing against free enterprise and capitalism. However, obviously I am not a right wing libertarian as Ayn Rand was. Trotsky said once that “a right independent is a leftist and a left independent belongs to the right”. In many ways, the right libertarians unconsciously play the game of the left ― at least they play by the same rules.

The aforementioned citation allegedly quoted from Ayn Rand ― and I believe it is from her own property ― is exactly the opposite of Schopenhauer’s idea about civilization which was conceived as “prison” restraining the ferocious animal called “man”. As I do not sympathize much with Schopenhauer I will skip it.

Jean-Henri Fabre wrote that « Men will succumb victimized by the excesses caused by what is called “civilization” ». This quote implies a vision of History similar to Oswald Spengler’s ― or even to the Italian illuminist Mario Pagano before him. Also carries with it a strong apocalyptical view resulting from a belief that societies cannot regenerate themselves. So let’s skip Fabre.

Let’s try another one: “True barbarism is Dachau; true civilization is, in the first place, that special part of the human being that all concentrations camps intended to destroy.” The French Andre Malraux is the author of this one.

Does this citation coordinates itself with the above one of Ayn Rand? Well, being “free from oppression” is not the same as being “free from men” ― we could be “oppressed” by ourselves in the first place.
We simply cannot be totally free from our next door neighbors (unless we shoot them) and we cannot consider human interdependence and sociability as a sort of “oppression”. May be Ayn Rand considered “men” as a invariable symbol of “oppression”; however, we cannot rationally support this conception of “men”.

Furthermore, I do not see either History (or civilization) as a “process”. When we talk about History we’re talking about multi generations of human beings and not about any kind of “process” as making industrial hot-dogs. The word “process” was applied to History in the first place by Hegel with his tragic “dialectics of reason” followed by gnostics as Karl Marx that caused the Marxist gulags, Hitler and the Nazi concentration camps, more than 200 million victims only in 20th century — and even Ayn Rand is also part of all that “process” as per Franz Kafka.

The best way to understand the philosophy of Ayn Rand is trying to understand Eric Voegelin.

Finally, a quotation from Jean-Edern Hallier:

“Civilizations are mortal only because they become clairvoyant. As soon as they set reflecting about themselves, they blow up…”

 

Pitiless reality

“Everything is as it seems to be, although it is not. Simultaneously as it seems and as it seems not. Neither one nor another” — Nagarjuna

 

Ayn Rand’s subjectiveness

Hayek was a very good economist who made the mistake of contradictorily mixing, in his philosophical theory, Hume’s skepticism with Kant’s positivist criticism and religiosity. Ayn Rand was a good novelist who made the mistake of paradoxically mixing the common-sense with “reality”.

In her theory, Ayn Rand started from the “three axioms” ― existence, identity and consciousness. As we all know, as “principle” the axiom does not depend on anything else to exist as such. On the other hand, Ayn Rand refuses any transcendental spiritual dimension; and that is her main contradiction because in a exclusively classical material world, everything should be determined by causality laws and every effect would have a cause.

By definition, a “principle” as for example “the sum of the internal angles of any triangle is 180 degrees”, or that “no fact can be true or real, or no judgment can be correct without a sufficient reason”, both axioms do not depend on anything else to exist as they are― they simply always existed since the Big Bang occurred 120 billion of light-years ago. The truth about those axioms are atemporal, they exist in a atemporal spiritual dimension in which the human reason has its share and takes part of.

Ayn Rand’s biggest mistake was not to clearly distinguish between human reason which was created by evolution and its capacity of participating in the atemporal dimension of truths. There is nothing at all that could be deducted from experience (empiricism) and remain valid eternally, as the atemporal truths do.

 

The Slippery Slope “logical” argument

The liberal leftists ― the cultural Marxists ― very often invoke the so called “Slippery Slope” logical argument, as follows:

Slippery slope argument

This argument states that should one event occur, so will other harmful events. There is no proof made that the harmful events are caused by the first event. For example:

“If we legalize marijuana, then more people would start to take crack and heroin, and we’d have to legalize those too. Before long we’d have a nation full of drug-addicts on welfare. Therefore we cannot legalize marijuana.”

The same argument is used in relation to same-sex “marriage”: in case gay “marriage” is legalized, they say, it does not necessarily mean that either poliamory or polygamy would be legalized in the future. Or even it does not mean that our children’s sexual age of consent would be lowered.

The argument above is both nonscientific and fallacious (anti logical) itself, because a) it is proven that marijuana leads to hard drugs consumption, and b) you cannot morally sustain a legal prohibition when you’ve started making concessions on matters of principles concerning similar or even identical issues.

The greatest danger from the leftists’ agenda is that they use the systematic lie as the only mean of political action. Their ethics are teleological ― all means are previously justified to achieve their goals, including transforming the “Slippery slope” argument aforementioned in a slippery slope itself.

 

Spanish animal activist suggests citizens corpses for preying birds feeding

Spanish concept of Nature protection

The head of the Spanish association for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ― PETA alike ― has suggested to the Spanish government to abolish the country crematories.

Instead of human corpses cremation, Mr. Arturo Ángel Pérez suggested that these of Spanish citizens should be surrendered to the wilderness to feed the preying birds.

Full story (in Spanish language)

 

Portuguese minister resigns after making cuckold gesture to opposition MP

Portuguese minister resigns after making cuckold gesture to opposition MP

Manuel Pinho, Portugal’s economy minister, has resigned after making a cuckold gesture to an opposition MP during a stormy debate in parliament.

 

Obama’s Betrayal

Barack Hussein Obama is clearly performing a politic of a) decreasing US power in the world and b) increasing US federal political control over US citizens. The first political option is intended to turn USA more likely to be attacked by US ’s enemies, and the second one is intended to cut out or diminish the chances of popular opposition to Obama’s rule.

Obama is showing a overwhelming sympathy towards aggressive Islamic regimes which are profoundly committed to any sort of anti-US political campaigns. Obama and his entourage are trying to persuade the American political elite that Iran should have access to nuclear weaponry. On the other hand, Obama intends to have a 8 billion USD cut on US defense budget at the same very moment China completes its program to produce a new ballistic missile capable of destroying US carriers by a single shot within a two thousand miles range.

The Obama’s policy towards Cuba is going to turn Fidel’s regime stronger than it was some months ago. Fresh money coming from USA tourists and American non-governmental organizations financed by the federal budget will serve to give the brothers Castro a new start and it is expected that Cuban spying agents ― the so called “community advisers” ― will soon be entering USA borders at ease with Obama’s consent.

Unable to openly apply his agenda of guns control as the American people would not accept it ― at least for a while ―, Obama is now trying to keep US private ammo stores’ stocks availability as low as possible by establishing new customs barrier to the importation of raw materials that are used in the US ammunition production. With this policy, Obama has achieved a reality where American citizens will continue to carry their guns with shorted ammo availability or even without bullets. Pretty clever, isn’t it?

Obama is using FDA to promoting the so called “Codex Alimentarius” which is a UN food program controlled by a bunch of worldwide corporations such as Al Gore’s Monsanto. For instance, “Codex Alimentarius” will prohibit the old typical American home vegetables production made in US citizens countryside backyards, as well as “natural food” production ― i.e., vegetables without fertilizers or antibiotics ― will be also prohibited by Obama’s ruling just to serve his liberal entrepreneurial friends. “Codex Alimentarius” demands that each chicken or whatever animal raised by a US citizen at his backyard for his own consumption must be registered and controlled by Obama’s government and according to federal legal requirements and specifications.

Bureaucracy will be soon enormously increasing in America and that will mean a social-fascist regime has arrived.

The liberal senator Jay Rockefeller recently presented a Bill to the House that will put the Internet entirely and directly under American presidency staff control. Equally, the electoral census is already coordinated and controlled by Obama’s staff. Never before, in the History of United States, a president has had such a concentrated power as Barack Obama.

Such a concentration of power shows itself the construction of a totalitarian regime, a sort of a “new fascism” that unites the economic and financial power of the Trilateral and Bilderberg mentors with the populism of a political puppet as Barack Obama. These are the people who are relentlessly working for the “up to down” fascist revolution as Mussolini did in Italy in the twenties of last century ― a sort of totalitarian revolution that is imposed by the plutocracy elites to the people who worships a clown who humbly serves the plutocrats.

As an outside observer, I think that Obama is preparing to systematically and relentlessly eliminating the American traditional political system which has been warranting economics freedom and political liberty since the Founding Fathers. Obama is betraying the founding American ideals; I have no doubt about it.