The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

The Mental State of the Political Elites: Part I

This
column is about the epistemological epilepsy of our political elite. And the
elite’s unreal metaphysics.
Or
do they also suffer from schizophrenia? A collective neurosis? Group paranoia?
Multiple personalities? Anxiety disorders? Bipolar mania? A potpourri of
psychoses? Asperser’s syndrome?
A
reader, whom I shall call Bridget, offered this comment on my Pax
Germania vs. Pax Islamia
column:
I don’t understand why the
elites just don’t pay attention or understand that Muslim values are different
from ours, as is their Shariah law. Crazy, because it’s so simple….People are so ignorant.
It
isn’t so simple to the elites. The elites regard simplicity as a mark of insanity,
of brutishness, of arrested epistemological development, or of retardation.
They don’t think they need to pay attention or understand Islam except to claim
that it’s a “beautiful religion” and that Westerners should not be judgmental
of it. The elitists need nuances, and
complexities, and shades of gray. Without them, they’d be just like everyone
else, and no one would be willing to pay them hundreds of thousands of dollars
or Euros to sit at fancy desks and lord it over everyone else, as though they
were the guardians of Plato’s cave of the ignorant.

What
follows is an elaboration of my original answer to the reader.
You
see, Bridget, reality for you, me, and for other thinking people, is a pretty
straightforward affair, not ever to be questioned or subjected to a mental
tennis match. European and American political elites, however, and for the most
part, refuse to grant reality any reality, because they’ve been taught that
mind creates reality. They reject the primacy of existence. They reject an
Aristotelian approach to reality. Reality must conform to their imaginings of
what it should be, but isn’t, and can’t be, ever. They have never questioned their
received wisdom, received, by the way, from a long line of philosophers like
Kant and Schopenhauer and Hume, among others, a wisdom which claims that
metaphysics is malleable, that it can be whatever one wants it to be, if one
wants it badly enough, or if it displeases one.
I
think the European elites understand Islam and Shariah and the perils they pose
to Western civilization, but their minds are in the grip of political
correctness. It’s a tight, vise-like hold, tenacious, and ultimately suicidal. It’s
not an arm-lock. It’s a mind-lock. They believe that Western culture isn’t
superior to any other, that it’s unfair to compare Islam with Western culture, which
they regard as too “materialistic” and not “spiritual”
enough, as they think Islam is.
Islam,
they’ll say, may not have given the world much of value in terms of material
advantages, as Western culture has. Its value lies in the imperative that
everyone must submit to it, body and soul, which, according to their lights, is
more important than higher standards of living, or technological advances to
improve and extend man’s life and enjoyment, because it’s “spiritual” and will
make you a better person. Islam has offered man none of those things – only submission
and physical death or slavery, or spiritual death if one submits to it. Spiritual
death is raising one’s derriere in the air five times a day and reciting some
mystical chant and pleading to a ghost to please be nice to you because you’ve
been a loyal and unswerving maquette.
And
so I think once you understand that, you’ll understand the conflict and why the
political elite is vested in “multiculturalism” and
“diversity” and surrendering to (or accommodating) Islam, and expects
everyone else to surrender to it, too.
Or
at least defer to Islam from a decent multicultural, diversity-minded,
submissive state of dhimmitude.
In
one sense, the elites, in dealing with Islam, are like Snoopy pretending to be
a World War One Ace flying a Sopwith Camel, sitting atop his doghouse. But
sooner or later the rabid pit bull next door is going to charge over and have
him for lunch.

Why
would the elite be ashamed of Western culture? Why would they say it isn’t
superior to Islamic culture, whatever that stagnant, 7th century culture might
be? Is it the Christian “sin” of pride that moves them to refuse to acknowledge
that Western culture is superior? Are they afraid to defend and uphold values? What
values do they hold? Daniel Greenfield, writing as Sultan Knish, wrote a
seminal essay on just that very subject, “The
Death of Europe
.” They hold “European” values that Muslims disdain, and
even condemn.
It
is politically incorrect to point out that Western culture and values make possible,
for example, open-heart surgery, while Islamic culture does not, and has not
ever done so, and in fact glories in wholesale butchery. This is an
inconvenient truth to liberals and all Islamophiles. They avert not only their
eyes, but their minds.
For
example, the anthropological global warming bloc wants everyone to believe that
global warming (it was once global cooling, now it’s just “climate change”) can
be reduced or controlled, and rejects the idea that earth’s climate is
continually changing and has been for billions of years, that the behavior of
sun has no effect on climate, that there are dynamics governing climate change
that are barely understood. This is an example of pretending that something is that actually isn’t, even though the
evidence is available in Internet abundance. This bloc, politically motivated,
upholds “science” and nature, but in fact, rejects both science and nature.
Reality is rejected by them in favor of their own“reality”
in defense of their numerology-based new alchemy which they call “settled science.”
Some in the “climate change” bloc are calling for the imprisonment of or even
the death penalty for scientists who dare contest the whole business as
legitimate science and call it Marxist agitprop.
Germany,
Sweden and other European countries – with state or state-controlled news media
in a conspiracy with their governments – suppress news of the rise of rapes by
Muslim “immigrants” for fear that such news will prejudice native
Germans
and Swedes against the invaders. The British authorities have
adopted the same deceptive, “nothing to
see here
” policy in regards to the Muslim sex grooming gangs. They seek to
establish a citizenry that will tolerate without complaint the Muslim invasion
and the crimes committed against on the citizenry. They seek to assure the
citizenry that nothing extraordinary is happening, even though Muslims prey on
the citizenry. An ignorant citizenry, they contend, is a “strong” citizenry.  It will integrate well with the moral and
political actions of their predators, and won’t cause the untoward business of
jailing people for speaking their minds or resisting their own rapes, murders,
and robberies.
Let’s
take a look at the epistemology of three members of the European elite, whom I
quoted in my column, “Censorship:
Over Here and Over There
.” And who are the European elite? In 2012 Oxford
University Press published  The
Europe of Elites: A Study into the Europeanness of Europe’s Political and
Economic Elites
, by Heinrich Best, György Lengyel, and
Luca
Verzichelli. These three professorial gentlemen define those elites as the top
and most influential tiers of individual European governments and layers of
wealth whose “Eurelitist” status may overlap into the upper bureaucratic and
unelected echelons of the European Union.
It starts with the assumption
that there is a formal and factual asymmetry between elites and non-elites, in
that the former are formally entitled (by laws and constitutions) or factually
empowered (by property rights) to make and influence decisions on behalf of the
latter. The focus of our conceptual and empirical work is, therefore, the
visions, attitudes, and opinions of elites concerning European integration. We
address national elites specifically, because we maintain that the
multilevel construction of the European edifice still attributes a pivotal role
to national political and social institutions, and to the elites who are
running them…..
The strong ‘Eurelitist’ bias
in this approach has been systematized in the theory of permissive consensus,
which maintains that the process of European unification is mainly driven by
the self-interest of elites who enjoy a fairly wide margin of autonomy, as
opposed to the general population, in pursuing policies of European
integration. According to this approach, European integration is seen by elites
as ‘a means to advance political goals which they would not be able to enforce
alone’ ….
We
can examine the statements of Federica
Mogherini
, who is the current High Representative of the European Union for
Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, basically the EU’s Minister for Foreign
Affairs. Mogherini made the following remarks at the Call to Europe V: Islam in
Europe FEPS conference on June 24, 2015. (Quotations from the following
European Union elitists are taken from the article, “The
EU Elites’ Positive View of Islam
,” October 14th, by Fjordman, at Gates of
Vienna, which I also cite in “Censorship: Over Here and Over There.”)
“The very idea of a clash of civilizations
is at odds with the most basic values of our European Union — let alone with
reality. Throughout our European history, many have tried to unify our
continent by imposing their own power, their own ideology, their own identity
against the identity of someone else. With the European project, after World
War II, not only we accepted diversity: we expressed a desire for diversity to
be a core feature of our Union. We defined our civilization through openness
and plurality: a mind-set based on blocs does not belong to us. Some people are
now trying to convince us that a Muslim cannot be a good European citizen, that
more Muslims in Europe will be the end of Europe. These people are not just
mistaken about Muslims: these people are mistaken about Europe — that is my
core message — they have no clue what Europe and the European identity are.
This is our common fight: to make this concept accepted both in Europe and
beyond Europe. For Europe and Islam face some common challenges in today’s
world. The so-called Islamic State is putting forward an unprecedented attempt
to pervert Islam for justifying a wicked political and strategic project.”
It
isn’t a “clash of civilizations.” Islam isn’t a civilization. A totalitarian
ideology subscribed to by countless lobotomized living zombies over fourteen
centuries is not a civilization. The West is a civilization that arose from the
ashes of the Dark Ages because men rejected slavery and the unreal and
rediscovered the glory of man. Islam is a cult that relishes the prospect of
returning men to grovel in the ashes and ruins of a new Dark Age in
supplication to Allah.  
Note
the insufferable, elitist arrogance in her words. It’s “our European Union,”
reflecting an inbred presumptuousness that she speaks for all the non-elitist
Europeans who are currently chomping at the bit to leave the Union or at least to
tar and feather the “higher-ups” who have bent to German Chancellor Angela
Merkel’s will and arranged for the inundation of Europe by Muslim hordes.
Mogherini
believes that her European civilization “expressed a desire for diversity to be
a core feature of our Union. We defined our civilization through openness and plurality:
a mind-set based on blocs does not belong to us.” Whether or not blocs belong
to it, the blocs will come about; they are doing so even as I write this. Her
“mind-set” of plurality and diversity is directly at odds with those of the disdained hoi polloi.
She
whines that “Some people are now trying to convince us that a Muslim cannot be
a good European citizen, that more Muslims in Europe will be the end of Europe.”
It does not occur to Mogherini that by definition, a Muslim cannot be European,
cannot be anything but a Muslim. He will always be a Muslim, first and
foremost. European? Not so much. His first allegiance is to Islam. Mogherini
must help to make this concept – that of a tamed, non-violent, European Muslim,
loyal to the state, who doesn’t feel so special that he expects everyone else
to defer to his “needs” – accepted in Europe and beyond. If she must knock some
heads together, she won’t mind. In the meantime, Europe is dying from the
cancer of Islam.
Note
that she criticizes those who, “Throughout our European history… many have
tried to unify our continent by imposing their own power, their own ideology,
their own identity against the identity of someone else.”  By that, I gather she was making a
circumspect reference to Hitler and to Mussolini (Mogherini is Italian). But
she would have no qualms about imposing her
own ideology
and identity on everyone else.

She
claims that the depredations of ISIS “pervert” Islam, echoing President George
W. Bush and numerous other political ignoramuses. Islam cannot be perverted,
even though every atrocity committed by ISIS is chapter-and-verse, by-the-book
sanctioned and encouraged in the Koran
and Hadith. Islam is intrinsically a
perversion of the concept of morality. Islam is a death-worshipping cult, which
is why we witness so much death within and without its realm.
There
is a blog site, FrontPage, whose motto is: “Inside every liberal is a
totalitarian screaming to get out.” Mogherini is a liberal and one can detect
the totalitarian in her screaming to get out. One can see how she would like to
“manifest” her wishes onto the rest of the European continent. There is
something wrong with a self-made billionaire who turns into a narcissistic,
ostentatious megalomaniac.
What
is worse and far more offensive is a well-heeled bureaucrat like Mogherini who
is a megalomaniac with other people’s money and lives. 
Up
next for the couch is former Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans. He is the First Vice-President of the European
Commission. He made these remarks at the First Annual Colloquium on Fundamental
Rights in Brussels on October 1st, 2015.
“We have seen the homes of
asylum seekers set on fire. And we have heard political leaders declare that
their countries would not accept refugees if they were Muslim. Anti-Muslims
[sic] incidents are multiplying across Europe. We’re seeing a huge spike of
attacks. Verbal insinuations, closed-mindedness, prejudice, discrimination. The
rise of Islamophobia is the one of the biggest challenges in Europe. It is a
challenge to our vital values, to the core of who we are. Never has our
societies’ capacity for openness, for tolerance, for inclusion been more tested
than it is today. Diversity is now in some parts of Europe seen as a threat.
Diversity comes with challenges. But diversity is humanity’s destiny.”
How
dare Europeans resent, oppose, and
fear the influx of hundreds of thousands of Muslim “refugees” into their
countries? How dare they try to take
action against the invasion of their countries by barbarians who have been
quite frank about their reason for invading those countries: that they’re there
for the welfare state benefits? The enemies of diversity must all be Islamophobes!
And racists, too! And xenophobes! It’s not the Muslims’ fault that they are of
different races and nationalities and have quaint cultural practices! It’s not
the Muslims’ fault that they’re not…well…white.
And
then one weighs all the crimes committed by Muslims against native Europeans
and one sees a strong element of racism in the actions of Muslims. These crimes
are not racially motivated? The motto of Bare Naked Islam is: “It’s not Islamophobia if they really ARE
trying to kill you
.” Or rape you. Or rob you. Or stab you. Since the
beginning of the “asylum seeker” invasion, crime rates in Sweden and Germany
and in other European countries have soared, with most of the crimes being
committed by…Muslims.
Welfare
states attract the worst elements of society. They are inherently evil. Welfare
states depend on a fettered productive sector of any society or nation to
subsidize their “benefits.” They encourage and sustain parasitical mind-sets
and attitudes. Europeans can blame themselves for tolerating their various
welfare systems. They have been an attraction for the worst kind of immigrants:
the ones who don’t intend to sustain the system by working or ever pay into it.
This is as true in America as it is in Europe.
That
being said, Frans Timmermans’ epistemology is very, very selective. His words
reveal not only a vindictive megalomania, but also a psychosis. He and Mogherini
suffer from both maladies. Well, not “suffer,” as the term is usually meant.
They clearly enjoy and revel in their
mental “disorders.”
I
will discuss the mental whirligigs of the third EU bureaucrat, Vera Jourova, in
Part Two.
But
here’s an example of “diversity” to ponder: Locking a man in a cage with an
orangutan, a gorilla, and a troop of baboons. What do you think would happen?

Previous

Pax Germania vs. Pax Islamia

Next

The Mental State of the Political Elites: Part II

3 Comments

  1. madmax

    "But diversity is humanity’s destiny"

    This is the new religion. This is the end of road of Leftism. One Leftist I used to read described it as "instead of 5000 different tribes we will have one planet one people". They want a world in which there is no racial diversity and, if they could do it, no gender diversity. And everyone living in a big egalitarian welfare state with modern liberalism being the universally accepted ideological paradigm. They are the worst type of utopians.

    You know, a fascinating intellectual research project would be to trace where this latest manifestation of Leftism comes from. Trace it all the way back to…? What? Christianity? Certain strains of Christianity? Even further back? I don't know. But modern liberalism is a religion with a eschatology every bit as developed as the Monotheistic religions. Leftist elites are using Islam and Muslims as a means to create their ideal world. And they are so foolish to not understand that the Muslims they are importing will not accept their ideal world and will turn on them when they have numbers and power. Leftists and especially Leftist elites really are treacherous.

  2. Border_Reiver

    From Peter Sutherland, the U.N. representative to Europe on immigration:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18519395

  3. Unknown

    this is like researching your own cancer death 10 years ahead of time. lets deal with the fact that Islam and freedom are incompatable. Islam is incapable of reason as were the nazis and communists. it is a take all ideology working itself out. at some point it will require a world war 3 type situation to remove them from europe, which is probably what the Islamists actually want. some of the more fanatical believe the more instability that they can create, the more likely they are to get a world war started where according to their eschatology, their mahdi comes to take over. personally, i dont see Europeaners ever starting this war…they are too cowardly. Certainly the pope and the vatican wont do it—they are part of the problem. no, the only two realities are going to be:
    1) islam fully takes over Europe—its only a matter of how long it takes
    2) the globalists and their religionists actually coerce (or force) Islam into a believing some kind of fairy tale about a one-world global order where they actually abandon their koranic goals of global domination.

    Either way, it approaches the time that the bible calls The Great Tribulation

Leave a Reply

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén