Blog description.

Accentuating the Liberal in Classical Liberal: Advocating Ascendency of the Individual & a Politick & Literature to Fight the Rise & Rise of the Tax Surveillance State. 'Illigitum non carborundum'.

Liberty and freedom are two proud words that have been executed from the political lexicon: they were frog marched and stood before a wall of blank minds, then forcibly blindfolded, and shot, with the whimpering staccato of ‘equality’ and ‘fairness’ resounding over and over. And not only did this atrocity go unreported by journalists in the mainstream media, they were in the firing squad.

The premise of this blog is simple: the Soviets thought they had equality, and welfare from cradle to grave, until the illusory free lunch of redistribution took its inevitable course, and cost them everything they had. First to go was their privacy, after that their freedom, then on being ground down to an equality of poverty only, for many of them their lives as they tried to escape a life behind the Iron Curtain. In the state-enforced common good, was found only slavery to the prison of each other's mind; instead of the caring state, they had imposed the surveillance state to keep them in line. So why are we accumulating a national debt to build the slave state again in the West? Where is the contrarian, uncomfortable literature to put the state experiment finally to rest?

Comments Policy: I'm not moderating comments, so keep it sane and go away with the spam. Government officials please read disclaimer at bottom of page.

Friday, November 20, 2015

Paris Has Changed Me – Logic Bombing the Left on Multiculturalism.

The post in which I sadly stumble my way from a position of support for open immigration, despite Islam, to a position that has to admit defeat in the face of Paris reality.

The Paris massacre has changed the way I think. And not just me: I’ve read many analyses of how the attitude left in Europe on this latest atrocity, compared to the Charlie Hebdo killings, is changed. Albeit the latter section of this post clings to an alternative view, the grip is tenuous.

I said in this earlier post, the answer to the violence and rights abuses within religions such as Islam, is individualism (and classical liberalism [reason]). But Islam would kill every individual before its barbaric verses are finally thrown onto the evil scrap heap of what should be a long gone mysticism, so though that is the solution long term, it won’t be in the lifetime of anyone reading this.

Which is a problem, because it also won’t be without millions more – no hyperbole – barbaric deaths.

The free, peaceable and pluralistic society can only exist where those individuals it consists of, and thus their belief systems, have as their central tenet, do no harm. As a libertarian I believe individuals should be able to do whatever they want, ingest whatever they want, determine the means of their own death, et al, so long as the framework is always within voluntary consent, and they do no harm. Thus after Paris, unfortunately, per my questioning of Anthony Green, Muslim Association of Canterbury, I have to admit reality, finally, that Islam IS harm. Islam at a fundamental level is encoded to harm within the very text of it. Even the oft touted notion that we have nothing to fear from a moderate Islam – and we don’t - admits within its own terms that a radical, harmful Islam co-exists in that religion and is inseparable – per some of my reading, the following of this fundamental interpretation is anywhere upwards of 15% of Muslims, a huge part of the world population.

So Islam, by logic, cannot exist in its current form, if we are to keep our West free and peaceful. By ‘current form’ I mean Islam needs a reformation to take the weaponry and hate away from all those ghastly men, and the suicide belts from their veiled women dying for their right to have no rights. While acknowledging this cannot, and will not happen because to question the central tenets of the faith (based on its script of psychosis) is apostasy, punishable under Sharia by death – and there are plenty of deluded, violent young men willing to carry that sentence out.

There’s a word I’ve not read once in any article on the Paris slaughter: Sharia.

For those of us who (have) promoted a moderate Islam, I think we were closing our minds, or certainly our eyes, to Sharia (trigger warning, that link is to a 19 year woman being stoned by  a thuggery of old Islamic guys – misogyny, ‘real’ misogyny, rules in Islam - I don’t recommend you go there, like the religion, it’s sick, but I will, regardless, prove my point by providing the link [hattip SOLO] If you’re interested, the victim was ‘accused’ of a premarital affair.)

My mentioning of logic was a deliberate one, because that’s where this post traverses to the Left Politick which has defeated reason to become the West’s ruling ethic.

Previously I’ve posted in this blog on the many contradictions of the Left which make the civilised society impossible. Progressives who protest our spy agencies, while happily watching the rights to privacy and being left alone of the productive sacrificed to the almost unlimited powers of a tax surveillance state rivalling the intrusive state of the Soviets, et al, now the tax surveillance state has gone global. A tax surveillance state which exists to extend the dominion of the state, by growing dependence to it. When confronted with the tax take, Leftists fall over themselves running away from their Clayton’s angst over an individual’s privacy or right to be left alone by the state, to the extent of it being schizophrenic.

Chris Trotter’s blog post of this week shows how the Left are in denial on the evident harm which is integral to Islam. His ode to love all people despite #Paris ends as follows:

We are leftists because, at the very core of our values, lies an unshakeable belief in the worth of every human-being, and in the right of every human-being to live his or her life free from exploitation and violence.

Apart from the usual deluded Left arrogance that they are better than all of us who aren’t Leftists, no, Chris, as I said in my comment which never made it past your moderation – and such wilful blindness is part of the psychosis diagnosis – that sentence describes individualism, and it is the a priori claim Leftists can never make. Read my blog. Better, read your own blog Chris – remember you wanting our IRD to ‘squeeze taxpayers until their pips squeak’? How is that respecting the right of a life to be free from exploitation and violence? Leftism exists totally on the sacrifice of the individual to the group. That’s why we have the vicious tax surveillance states that now stalk and stake out our private lives in the West. Left politics is NOT about the individual, it is about the collective; it is not about the thinking, passionate, unique person that is you, it’s about how your identity with a group (gender, race) determines you. The Left, as with the Christians, and the Moslems, have turned over volition, thus their responsibility, to an Other – the State, Christ, Allah. And on that, twentieth century history shows that atrocity becomes quickly common-place, as individuals were sacrificed en-masse to the good of the mob (volk, father-land – name your collective poison).

The proof Leftists don’t believe in the right of every human-being to live his or her life free from exploitation and violence is every Leftist Gulag and slaughter pit in history, every IRD audit today, and even – in the minutiae – every public shaming by the identity politick crowd on Twitter.

This Leftist denial would be funny if it weren’t so serious, with its repercussions from the collapse of free markets decades ago to central banked, command cronyism which has destroyed capitalism, denying us all freedom and prosperity; to the brand of multiculturalism which has viewed the superstitious beliefs born of fairy tales and handed down fantasy, too often birthed in bloodshed and violence, as equally good to the West which reasoned itself from our Enlightenment to be the best civilisation humans have made for themselves, ever. This Left view of multiculturalism is not what Montesquieu, the father of multiculturalism, intended: while Montesquieu professed a delight in cultural diversity, he always held that while all cultures might be equally valuable, they were not equally good, thus underlying any celebration of cultural diversity, there was (is) a justice that is an ‘eternal flame’.

Leftists on my Twitter TL were almost universal in condemning Charlie Hebdo after that initial attack on France: the line went those murdered in their offices brought it on themselves with their satire; freedom of speech be damned. That was bad enough, on top of the earlier cartoon fiasco, but to see the same trotted out on the murder of diners and fun lovers simply going about their weekend, with still no ownership that it is Islam itself which is the problem, is a delusion too far.

Even on RNZ this morning Toby Maguire and Toby Morris continue to brow beat us this daily butchery is not about a moderate ‘Islam’:

It is true that IS members are Muslims, but they are not typical Muslims. These extremist Sunni Islamists, who rely upon hardline and selective interpretations of Islamic scripture, have killed many more Muslims than non-Muslims.

Yes, I know, one tribe of Islam has killed more of the other tribes of Islam than it has murdered ‘the rest’ of us, however, it doesn’t change the fact this is about Islam, and a refusal to recognise reason and individualism, and do no harm, as the highest values.

Possibly the most remarkable symptom of this psychosis the West has fallen in is exhibited in the imponderably supportive attitude to Islam of fourth wave (Marxist/identity) feminism, which excoriates middle age white men for offering opinions, while proffering the victim blaming nonsense that the violence of Islam being visited on the West is the fault of the West, not embedded in the text of Islam. Joe Hildebrand covers this well:

The usual excuses for terrorism are made. That it’s the West’s fault for invading Iraq, even though 9/11 took place a year and a half before the invasion. That it’s the West’s fault for supporting Israel, even though less than a year ago France infuriated Israel by voting to recognise the Palestinian state. That it’s caused by Islamophobia, even though the same people tell us that terrorism has nothing to do with Islam.

Sadly for the vast majority of horrified and peace-loving Muslims, their spiritual leader has fallen precisely into this trap, as have countless hand-wringing white and godless commentators.

 In an official written statement, the Grand Mufti of Australia and the National Imams Council sheeted the blame [for Paris] not onto extremism but instead what Western society has done to cause it.

“These recent incidents highlight the fact that current strategies to deal with the threat of terrorism are not working,” the statement said. “It is therefore imperative that all causative factors such as racism, Islamophobia, curtailing freedoms through securitisation, duplicitous foreign policies and military intervention must be comprehensively addressed.”

Far from condemning the terrorists, it appeared to condemn the nation for not bending to their will.

This kind of mass-level victim blaming would never be tolerated for any other crime. Imagine suggesting that we should combat domestic violence by looking at what women had done to provoke it. Imagine addressing the spate of coward punches by telling would-be victims to change their behaviour. The outcry would be deafening, and rightly so.

Fourth wave feminism’s construct of rape culture is used to tar every male with the same hideous brush, and they want to reverse the burden of proof for men, and the right to silence, yet they turn this blind eye to an insane and offensive idea-set that not only treats women like cattle, but which is slaughtering innocents on the manufacturing scale we reached in the worst period fighting statism in the twentieth century, and is only trying to outdo that scale by being more repulsively imaginative.

No sorry, it’s worse than that.

Suggest that a woman is raped because of how she is dressed, and as Chrissie Hynde found out, rightly, you will be persecuted mercilessly by this ruthless tribe of partisans, as Hynde’s was, and yet at the same time identity feminism employs this same logic – illogically - on behalf of Islam and thus excuses it while blaming the victims: it’s not Islam’s fault the fun loving innocents of Paris were murdered, they – the West - drove these desperate, dispossessed, alienated Muslims to do it: sheer victim blaming. (And this because Marxist feminism always gets its Marxist orthodoxy around the class war, that is, their hatred of the West, all tits about arse with gender issues – but that’s another post into lunacy, and I’ve written on it enough before.)

It’s madness. How many ways can I say and prove insanity and madness on this scale?

For the record these (Muslim) terrorists are not dispossessed and alienated youths, in the most part. The majority of the terrorists who’ve operated in the West are middle class and home-grown, such as Saturday’s Paris bomber Ibrahim Abdeslam:

The ex-wife of a Paris bomber who killed himself in the Paris terrorist attacks has called him jobless and lazy.

Ibrahim Abdeslam, 31, a trained electrician, blew himself up outside the Comptoir Voltaire cafe in Paris' 11th district.

His wife of two years, Niama, said the man did just one day of work during their time together. The pair split in 2008.

Speaking from her home in Moleenbeek, Brussels, Naima, 36 said: "His favourite activities were smoking weed and sleeping.

Well trained, well educated, middle class; no alienated youth here, just a well-off layabout before the psychosis of Islam gave his life the purpose of ending everyone else’s. What a narcissistic tosser. But proof the code exists within the Koran to turn a layabout like this into a heartless, ‘Godless’, killer.

More; of the supposed ringleader Abdelhamid Abaaoud, per the Press: 'Abaaoud was described as a happy go lucky student who went to one of the best high schools in Brussels.' Nope; not dispossessed ... possessed, maybe, but by nothing supernatural, just common garden psychotic lunacy picked up from the literature.

Finally Sunny Hundal further puts to bed the notion that ISIS’s attack in Paris has anything to do with Western foreign policy, and thus dispenses this inane victim shaming:

It seems as though every atrocity committed against the West by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) is followed by claims in the media that such attacks are the result of our military action against them

Claiming that terror attacks such as those that shook Paris on Nov. 13, are a “blowback” isn’t just offensive to its (mainly Muslim) victims—it misreads the very nature of ISIL. It amounts to an excusal of the terrorist group’s intentions, as if to say that ISIL would not have done any of this if the US, UK, France, and company weren’t so meddlesome. This is a convenient tale, which is told to push a non-interventionist foreign policy, but it doesn’t reflect reality…
ISIL’s designs are not a reaction to imperialism. They are a mimicry of it.

We can disagree over the extent to which US foreign policy caused the initial chaos that led to ISIL. We can even disagree on what is the best way to confront Islamic State (I favor an Arab-led force, as opposed to more Western boots on the ground). But there should be no confusion about ISIL’s ambitions. The ultimate aim, according to its own statements and publications, is global conquest through war. The idea that we can avoid conflict if we mind our own business is utterly naive.

So the change of tack for me, to get this back on track. I always knew Islam, like Christianity, was gullible children believing in idiot fantasy, but unlike Christianity, anymore, Islam is not benign to freedom, certainly for the poor sod devotees sucked into its music-less, joyless vacuum, but also, unfortunately, for the rest of us whom just want to be left alone to pursue our rational happiness peacefully – which was our entitlement born of the Enlightenment, before it was squandered by the beret wearing brigade.

What are the implications of these thoughts on my notions of the need for open immigration? I suspect it is, as Lindsay Perigo has said – read my final paragraph – to ignore context.

So I’ll be truthful: yes, I do believe in open immigration, but in context, vis a vis, not of a religion that does harm.

… Although as a last ditch sop to a previous position I clung so long to, I’ll balance this piece (for now) and admit there is an alternative viewpoint, which I held until this weekend, and would’ve loved to into the future, that goes like this – it’s the ‘sell them coke, don’t drop bombs’ argument. For example, of Cuban refugees to the US:

With the KKK at their head, some people rejected these refugees, labeling them communists. One government official even claimed that “85 percent of the refugees are convicts, robbers, murderers, homosexuals, and prostitutes.” Anti-immigration sentiment ran high, and it politically hurt then-President Jimmy Carter.

Since then, though, the thieving gay communist prostitutes have done pretty well for themselves: Today there are approximately 2 million Cuban Americans. They are a well-integrated part of American life. They overwhelmingly aren’t communists or any of the rest. Which shouldn’t be so surprising: They left because of communism. And they came here because of economic opportunity, which comes from capitalism.

The trouble is Islam is a whole order of irrationality and psychosis beyond even communism. It’s the difference between the reason and humanism of a secular outlook, over the null-mind, unthinking faith-based savagery of a religious one. At least the communists were scientific – one might say to a fault. (And not to ignore that in the West Progressives are moving to ban coke sales as well.)

So I find my closing position is not confused. I hope you’ve noticed this blog is not about essaying; it’s simply the workings of my mind spewed out in real time. I know where my mind is, helped in no small part by there’s something else I hate out of all this.

What terrorism always does, is grow the size and intrusive power of the State into our lives. Look at France right now where Hollande is looking to re-write their constitution to grant his office more powers – and perhaps what choice does he have? For that, I hate, HATE, every terrorist, Muslim or otherwise. You bet I do.  Even here in little’ol New Zealand my life is affected where it matters – in the day to day details. Thanks to MP Judith Collins’ monstrosity of invasive bureaucracy, namely the Anti-Money Laundering and Countering Financing of Terrorism Act, after writing this piece I will be making an expensive (for my client) three hour round trip to Ashburton to have my independent trustee’s signature witnessed by a solicitor to make sure I’m who I say I am and not some Islamic numpty financing terrorism (for a farm purchase when I have no beneficial interest in the property my client is buying). Fucking ludicrous. Terror has won the day via the huge states growing in the West; states whose economic activity now reaches half of all activity in our command economies.

Balance and counter-balance. Can’t resist: here’s the opposing, opposing view. Up until now I have been one of Lindsay Perigo’s ‘useful idiots’ regarding pushing open immigration, without context.

Paris changes everything. I’m just a slow learner. This worm has turned, I hate to say.

Footnote – Heart / Mind Dichotomy:

On the record: I have pity and empathy for the millions of innocent Syrians trying to escape yet another hell on earth created by religion – the only thing religion is guaranteed to do. If I lived there I’d do anything to get my family out. This is an horrendous catastrophe: I’m not hiding any of that.

I have no solutions to their dreadful plight - and no, we can't let them drown in the Mediterranean.

Two things I hope to see in my lifetime are the first manned mission to Mars: thanks to Western science, despite the West’s continual stumble into the abyss, a real possibility. Another is to read of the death of the last ISIS, Al Qaeda, Taliban, et al, psychopath. This will not happen.


  1. "... yet another hell on earth created by religion..."

    I'm sick of pointing out that the problem is one religion which clearly states it tolerates no rival, has a political solution for everything and will create its paradise at the point of a gun. The problem is Islam. I çare about the shambles it creates because it poisons existing tolerant cultures anywhere it goes and becomes big enough to flex its muscles.


  2. Hi Mark

    It takes courage to change views that were once sincerely held. I deeply respect that. Obviously I'm delighted that we are moving closer to the same page on this issue in particular, albeit like everyone I'm distressed at the reasons behind it.

    I have some good news. You wrote: "The free, peaceable and pluralistic society can only exist where those individuals it consists of, and thus their belief systems, have as their central tenet, do no harm."

    'Do no harm' is the minimum expectation we must have of each other as individuals, and the absolute limitation we must place upon the collective actions of the State.

    Christians however are encouraged to go one step beyond the passive 'do no harm' and to engage in proactively doing good for our neighbour:

    "As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men." Galatians 6:10.

    Proactively 'doing good' for our neighbour without expectation of reward has produced the kind of culture we enjoy daily throughout the Western world and that we so often take for granted. Hopefully after Paris, not any more.

  3. I don’t know what to believe. Do you read Hornberger

    He does a good job of expressing the view that terrorism is a response to actions by the west. Its all very well to say that 911 took place a year and a half before US invaded Iraq – the US was meddling in the middle east well before 911.

    Humans are similar the world over. I spent three years in the middle east, I was living in Pakistan till recently and I am currently in Viet Nam. The people you meet every day, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, almost all would subscribe to Galatians 6:10. America is Viet Nam's biggest trading partner. Think about that.

    I thought too that Islam is the problem. But thinking about what Hornberger says (and I don't agree with all of it but the idea of generating conflict overseas to maintain power at home is not new) led me to wonder whether that line of thought was helpful.

    We have difficulty understanding the motivation for terrorism. What was gained by the Paris attacks? But we have to demystify the problem before we can solve it. In the history of human conflict the range of motivations is surprisingly small. Using brainwashed suicide soldiers is not a new technique, nor is using guerrilla techniques when confronted with an enemy with greater firepower. I don’t think treating Islam as the enemy will get us anywhere. Islam is the tool used by our enemy. I think we need to look for simple motivations for this war and accept the possibility that ours were not always the most honourable.

    1. David, after the Paris atrocities, Obama talked about it being 'an attack on the values we all share' - but we don't all share the values of liberal western pluralistic democracies do we?

      Saudi Arabia doesn't share those values, Pakistan doesn't share those values, Iran doesn't share those values.

      Sadly not all subscribe to Galatians 6:10, and believing they do is a delusion unique to the liberal western mind.

      We need to get over ourselves, and start to view the world as it is, and not as we would like it to be.

      Obama believes that denying present reality and maintaining the progressive liberal narrative will eventually create a new reality.

      Would you stake your grandchildren's future on that expectation?

    2. Brendan, I agree Saudi Arabia etc. don't share those values. I believe most people do. The problem is that how individuals think and behave and how groups think and behave is different. When I was working in Cambodia it was a delight to see how the people I worked with had overcome and forgiven the atrocities of only a few years past - and alarming at the same time to think it was probably people just like them that were committing the atrocities. A bit like grashoppers and locusts maybe. Having postulated that grashoppers only become locusts as a result of external stimulus, I don't deny that we have to address the problem of the locusts. But to do so we do need to understand the motivation.

  4. We can even disagree on what is the best way to confront Islamic State

    Nope- we can just nuke them and the rest of the middle east into gently glowing glass.

    US Troop casualties: zero.

    1. Maybe you can, but I don't think anyone from outside the region will. And you would still have Birmingham to contend with.

  5. " Islam IS harm. Islam at a fundamental level is encoded to harm within the very text of it."

    Yes, it is.

    Anyway - **good on you**, Mark!
    It takes *balls* to do what you have done and so big kudos to you!

    As a little "gift" from me, here are several links to an *excellent* article by Dr. Bill Warner (appropriate name... ) called "Factual Persuasion" -

    The introduction -

    The next is about "Official Islam" - this is not the real Islam but the sanitised fairytale unicorns-flying-over-rainbows version that our PM, MPs and leftists believe -

    And here is a link from the same article that refutes it -


  6. Great discussion above everyone. Thanks. I should be participating, but work overoad and stress just at the moment :)