SET TO SELF DESTRUCT - WordPress.com · Set to self Destruct 3 In the first half of the twentieth...

SET TO SELF DESTRUCTThe self-inflicted pathogen that is threatening Western Civilization

By Charles Norman

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART 1 Introduction ............................................................... 1Chaos, Revolution and Marxism ............................ 4Equality and Freedom .............................................. 8

PART 2 Wars and Revolutions ........................................... 14The French Revolution .......................................... 15The Industrial Revolution and Marxism ............. 20The First World War and the Communist Coup in Russia ............................ 23The Second World War and its Aftermath ......... 27The Vietnam War.................................................... 29

PART 3 Emerging Philosophies .......................................... 32Feminism .................................................................. 33Postmodernism ....................................................... 37The Attack on the Judeo-Christian Value System ............................... 41Journalism ................................................................ 45

PART 4 Other Issues ............................................................. 48Phobia of Phobias .................................................. 49Global Warming ...................................................... 52The European Union ............................................. 56

PART 5 Conclusions ............................................................. 60Isolating the Source of the Pathogen .................. 61The importance of Christianity to Western Civili-zation ........................................................................ 66A Call to Action ...................................................... 70

AFTERWORD ...................................................................... 78

Set to self Destruct 1

Introduction

The basic premises of the following essays are: that Western Civilisation could not have happened without

the foundation provided by Christianity and the Judeo-Christian value system; and that Christianity, and hence Western Civilisation is under attack by Postmodernists or cultural Marxists; and that postmodernism is a psychologi-cal disorder; and that freedom and equality are incompat-ible.

The case is made that Western civilisation, which has, without doubt become the greatest civilisation ever, needs protection from a bizarre ideology and urges those who agree, that is, those who believe that the Judeo-Christian value system has served us well, to participate in its de-fence. The final essay suggests a means of carrying out that defence. It is not aimed at Christians in particular, but at all those who think we have something worth preserving.

English historian Arnold Toynbee has said that civili-sations are not murdered, they commit suicide. It seems that postmodernists are doing their very best to murder Western Civilisation, and we seem to be letting them do it. Maybe Toynbee was right.

The most serious problems we are facing – those that

The great tyrants of the 20th Century (left to right): Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot.

2 Set to Self Destruct

appear to threaten to bring about the collapse of Western Civilisation are caused by a psychological disorder affect-ing many people who seem to have gathered the reins of power into their hands.

Most of us spend the bulk of our time trying to make a decent living and looking after our families. When we vote, we vote for the candidate or party that seems to reflect the needs of ourselves. We rely on our elected representatives to do the job more or less honestly. If we don’t like what they do we throw them out at the next election.

That is no longer enough. If our ruling elite seem to have lost their senses it is simply because they have lost their senses. It is not an exaggeration to say that they have gone mad. If we throw out one mad group we get another mad group in its place.

Politicians, media, government employees, managers and employees of quasi government organisations – almost all of them seem to have developed an intellectual develop-ment disorder, inflicted themselves with it, and are in the process of inflicting the results of their disorder on the rest of us.

Let’s give this disorder a name: we’ll call it “Self Inflicted Intellectual Development Disorder, or SIIDD.

In conversation, it is pronounced Sid for the disorder itself, and Sids for those afflicted with the disorder.

The disorder seems mild enough at the outset. It begins with people trying to solve a social problem, but often morphs into something quite different, and has, in the past escalated into their killing people who disagree with their solutions to social problems, - not just a few people here and there, but huge numbers of people all over the globe.


In the first half of the twentieth century the total number of dead was considerably in excess of 100 million people, Men, women and children.

The disorder is not new. What is new is the incredible damage that it can do in the modern world. It is made pos-sible by what academics call cognitive dissonance; a failure to accept reality. There is a saying in the English language; “there’s none so blind as them that will not see.” Its been around for several hundred years, and it is probably as old as the English language. It is thought to have originated from Jeremiah 5:21 “Hear now this o foolish people, and without understanding, which have eyes and will not see, and which have ears and hear not.” The concept almost certainly predates Jeremiah.

Psychology has identified other, intellectual develop-ment disorders, some of them self-inflicted, and we should deal with those people suffering from those afflictions with sympathy and compassion, and for the particular affliction we are discussing here we should also have compassion, but they make it awfully difficult because they, themselves, have caused so much suffering in the past, and are likely to do so in the future – all of it because of their wilful refusal to learn. How this disorder emerged and entered the world scene as the worst plague since the black death is dealt with in the essay on the French revolution.

Chaos, revolution and Marxism

The political philosophy of German Philosopher Karl Marx originated with the age of revolution beginning

with the French revolution. There were many other politi-cal commentators writing at the time of the revolution, but it is the philosophy of Marx, (who wrote after the revolu-tion), that has lasted.

The French revolution is generally agreed to have started with the storming of the Bastille, a Parisian fortress and prison, on the fourth of July 1789. But the conditions for revolution existed long before that. There were some fundamental problems with the French economy and the governance of France, which are dealt with, somewhat su-perficially, in a later essay. Suffice to say that the conditions for revolution, an unstable society on the verge of chaos, existed at the time.

To properly understand the political philosophy, it is not necessary to work our way through hundreds of books or thousands and thousands of words of turgid prose on Marxism and its various derivatives, but it is necessary to have a basic understanding of the nature of chaos.

The study of Chaos Theory did not get seriously un-derway until the middle of the twentieth century. It is an emerging discipline and the mathematics behind are still being developed, however, we don’t need to understand the math, but we do need to understand some of the basic characteristics of a chaotic system.

A mountain stream is chaotic. No matchstick thrown into the same spot at the source of the stream will follow the same route as another, and it is impossible to forecast 4 Set to Self Destruct


the route that a matchstick will take. But an observer will soon notice that there is at least one level of order – no matchstick moves upstream – another level of order will not be as easily apparent but it will eventually be noticed that all matchsticks eventually get to the sea. Another ex-ample might be language; a visitor to a foreign land would be confronted with what appeared to be a cacophony of sound, but within a few months, he or she will have heard the underlying order, recognised it as a means of commu-nication and be able to communicate with the inhabitants.

One more example will suffice. A fourteenth century ballad, the Ballad of Sir Patrick Spens, records a voyage by Sir Patrick Spens from Norway to Scotland to bring home the daughter of King Alexander III. The ship foundered and all on board perished.

An excerpt from the ballad is an example of finding order out of chaos;

“Now ever alack my master dear“I fear a deadly storm“I saw the new moon late yestereen“With the old moon in her arm;“And if we go to sea, master“I fear a deadly storm.”The new moon with the old moon in her arm (the cres-

cent moon) can be seen in the earthlight – the reflection of sunlight from the earth, to the moon and back again to an observer on earth.

Seen from space the earth is usually mostly blue and does not reflect a lot of sunlight, but in periods of intense hurricane activity huge cloud formations can change that. Sir Patrick Spens and his crew would have seen the old


moon in the light reflected from an intense storm to the west. Over the years sailors would have noticed a connec-tion between seeing the new moon with the old moon in her arm and the storm that followed it.

It was not until we began to get satellite photographs of the Atlantic Ocean that we found the reason for “fear-ing a deadly storm” were well founded. We now know that many of the storms that lash the north of Scotland, the Orkney and Shetland islands originate off the west coast of Africa, travel across the ocean to the Caribbean, then north along the coast to Newfoundland, then moving east, of the southern coast of Greenland creating the infamous North Atlantic storms. We know it now. But we have known it for less than 100 years. Sir Patrick Spens did not know it, he did not know that the Caribbean Sea existed although he may have heard of the existence of North America.

The point of all this is to demonstrate the importance to us as a species, of finding levels of order out of chaos. Our survival often depends on it. It is important to us here because we also try to find order out of chaos when our society becomes unstable and chaotic, revolution and a failed state follow. We try to find causes, and cures – that is what this little book is all about – it is also about the fact that we sometimes get it wrong – with deadly consequenc-es. Some got it wrong during the French Revolution, and the misunderstandings that they developed then, have been developed into a mistaken ideology. They have latched onto those misunderstandings and onto the mistaken ideology that goes with them, they have identified themselves as followers of the ideology, (socialists, communists, post-modernists etc.) and tragically have abandoned any search


for other levels of order out of the chaos that they are now actually contributing to. If they found an error in their thinking it would mean they would have to change how they identified themselves, and they are unable to do that. It is as if they decided that the new moon with the old moon in her arm was the cause of the storm and not the other way around, and would refuse to believe otherwise even when shown satellite photographs of the hurricanes that actually caused the phenomenon.

By limiting their search for knowledge of the structure of the chaos around us they have inflicted themselves with the previously mentioned intellectual development disor-der. This is best understood in the context of the French Revolution and is dealt with later.

Out of the disorder of the French Revolution, and the dislocation of the Industrial Revolution arose many political philosophers and commentators, but Marx was the most important. Derivatives of his philosophy have morphed into what is now called Postmodernism or Cul-tural Marxism. It will become apparent that followers of this political philosophy refuse to accept the fact that they could be wrong and refuse to acknowledge any contradic-tion in their beliefs and have, in fact, inflicted themselves with the intellectual development disorder mentioned above, and can, collectively, be identified as SIIDDs.

It’s not just the followers of Marxism that become victims of SIIDD. In 2017, the Flat Earth Society in London claimed to have 500 members


Equality and freedom

For the last two hundred years or so, inequality has been identified as the cause of many social problems

– especially poverty. Every decent person would like to eliminate poverty. The abject poverty of the French peas-ant in the latter part of the eighteenth century was one of the root causes of the French revolution which was fought with the main slogan Liberty, Equality, Fraternity. The slo-gan preceded the revolution by about 100 years, but when it actually happened there was nothing fraternal about it.

The French revolution is dealt with in a later essay, here we are dealing with equality and liberty.

There are seven billion people in the world, and all of them are different. We can, of course, be different and equal, being equal does not mean we all should be the same, but if not, we should define equality. Do we mean equality of status, or equality of income, or equality of power, or all of them at once? Or do we mean equality before the law, or equality before God. It can get rather complicated because we limit the definition of equality, we may be leaving something important out of the equation. But it turns out that no matter how we define equality, free-dom and equality are mutually exclusive.

A simple example of the problem comes from one of the early Jewish kibbutzim.

Many kibbutzim were organised on idealistic principles, with equality being a major criterion. It was probably an essential part of the kibbutz concept and possibly the only way they could have been successful – especially since they lacked access to capital and other resources.


The kibbutz we are talking about developed and pros-pered and began to develop a small surplus. They decided, collectively, to distribute the surplus among the members.

To avoid any tendency towards inequality they decided to give every member a record player, and bought a record collection for the kibbutz library.

Now it very well could have been the fond desire of one of those members to own a violin and play classical music, another might have wanted a saxophone and play the blues, yet another, a trumpet and get into Dixieland jazz. They would have different skill levels and soon there would have been a break in the quality of their equality. The record player and record collection was a solution, but they gave up their freedom to choose so that their equality could be preserved.

Most people don’t live on a kibbutz, and most people, once basic needs have been met, will choose freedom over equality. The key phrase here is “once basic needs have been met.” In mediaeval England there was a class of people who had no real skills, and no property. They had nothing and would trade their labour for food, clothing and shelter. They were not slaves and could not be bought and sold, but they were not free either. They did not like it but had no choice but to put up with it. They were called Churls. It is the origin of the modern word churlish.

It is a fact that most people would rather not live on a kibbutz. It is also a fact that they don’t really care that Bill Gates has a hundred billion dollars and they, themselves, don’t even have a million. They will give up some of their freedom to work and provide their families with food clothing and shelter, their children with an education and


save some for their retirement. After that they will choose freedom to do whatever it is that they like to do. Anyone who tries to interfere with that freedom because someone else has less will have a problem. It will take considerable coercion to make them conform to an egalitarian utopia. It will take so much coercion that it will cease being a utopia and the coercers will not be equal to the coerced. If you try to build a society that is both free and equal you will fail on both counts. It was tried and tried and tried again in the early part of the twentieth century. 100 million people died directly or indirectly, at the hands of the coercers. The coercers believed they were building a utopia, they were absolutely certain that they were right, and also believed that if their victims understood what they were trying to do there would have been no problems. The coercers were victims themselves – victims of SIIDD.

The problem will disappear as soon as the SIIDDs realise that freedom and equality cannot coexist. Try telling that to a SIIDD.

It cannot be stated too often. Everyone of our seven bil-lion people is different. Some will dedicate seventy or more hours a week working their way up through the ranks of a major corporation. Some will make it to the top and some will not, the difference may be the result of luck, (not being in the right place at the right time, for example), others will fail because of differences in ability or character. At the end of the day they will not be equal to each other, nor will they be equal to those who did not make the attempt, and chose instead, to spend their spare time bird watching or mountain climbing.


Human beings are both cooperative and competitive. As a species, we are not alone in that, wolves, for example, compete for leadership of the pack, but cooperate as a pack in the hunt, but we differ from other species by being very, very good at both. But therein lies one of the prob-lems we have with equality.

Some of us are more competitive than others, and some of us are more cooperative than others. (Some observers have even suggested that there are gender differences in the way we cooperate or compete, but we don’t here from them much anymore.)

In almost everything we do collectively, rather than indi-vidually, we develop hierarchies, with leaders and followers, managers and managed, clerics and laity, and the fact that status within those hierarchies can overlap, demonstrates that because two people are not equal within a hierarchy does not mean that one is superior to another.

Here is a possible example. In an urban hospital, a brain surgeon would be at the top, or very close to the top of that particular hierarchy. On the other hand, an orderly, who helps the nurses with the grunt work would be close to the bottom.

However, the orderly could very well be the pastor in a local church, who believed that hospital work was part of his mission. The brain surgeon could very well be part of his congregation.

In short, equality and inequality is quite different from superiority and inferiority. The failure to understand this has caused immense societal problems in the recent past. The snobbery resulting from land owner versus landless


peasant was bad enough, and has been a cause of our achieving a great deal less than our full potential, but the new intellectual snobbery of the postmodernists in our universities has the potential for the complete and utter destruction of Western Civilisation.

Another point on this issue.As our society developed and became more complex we

took with us some unhelpful baggage from the past. What had been a very useful part of the culture of the tribe, that is we looked after other members of the tribe first in pref-erence to anyone else. We discriminated in favour of our own people. In today’s society, it does not seem too bad if you are part of the “in” group, but it most certainly does not look that way if you are on the outside looking in. If it is left to itself that type of society will develop into an un-stable society with the potential for descending into chaos with the possibility of a revolution, where the “in” group end up getting their heads cut off

By all means let us get rid of snobbery. By all means let us not discriminate on the basis of race or sex, but let us not confuse snobbery or discrimination with inequality. We are competitive creatures. It is that competitiveness that enables us, and encourages us, to achieve greatness. With-out it we become a herd of bison grazing on the prairie, waiting to be eaten by the next predator that comes by.

There is one more thing that needs to be said. Equality of opportunity is said to be a praiseworthy societal objec-tive. Any society where there are no artificial barriers in the way of everyone achieving his or her potential is going to benefit from the increased talent available, but it is not nec-essarily easy to achieve without a restriction of freedom.


To have equality of opportunity you have to have equal-ity of education. On the surface that does not seem so very hard to achieve, but it did not work out that way in Eng-land.

It is not necessary to delve into the history of the English education system, except to say that, at the begin-ning of the twentieth century, there emerged a three-tier system, an excellent private school system, with two levels of publicly funded schools. At eleven years old, all pupils wrote an examination. The top ten percent went to what were termed “grammar” schools, the rest went to a “sec-ondary” schools, which became “secondary modern” after the second world war

Some of the grammar schools provided a very good ed-ucation, comparing favourably with most privately funded schools. The result was that some working-class children got a first-class education, and had the system been allowed to continue it would have gone a long way to eliminating the snobbery of the English class system. It was not to happen. The SIIDDs of the day claimed that, far from destroying class snobbery and privilege, it was perpetuating it. They (the SIIDDs) closed the grammar schools and sent everyone, (except the wealthy) to the secondary modern schools. Thus reinforcing a class privilege depending on wealth (a typical unintended consequence). The education system is evolving, and there was recently talk of bringing back the grammar schools but so far it is just talk.

In short equality is not possible without a loss of free-dom, and there is considerable doubt as to whether it is even desirable.


PART 2Wars and revolutions


The French revolution

It seems that the seeds of the destruction of western civilisation were sown almost as soon as this civilisation

began to show its absolutely incredible potential. That is a little before the end of the eighteenth century. The storm-ing of the Bastille, in Paris on August 14th, 1789, is gener-ally thought of as the beginning of the French Revolution, but it began a little before that, in fact, the slogan of the revolution; liberté, egalité, fraternité (Liberty, equality, fraternity), originated about a hundred years earlier as part of Francois Fenélon’s vision of a Utopia. (Fenélon was a French Archbishop at the end of the 17th century.) Writers have been describing perfect places (Utopias) since Plato in Ancient Greece. (Utopia is Greek for nowhere) Sir Thomas More, in England, first used the word Utopia in 1516

At the beginning of the eighteenth century the popula-tion of France was about 20 million, but, by the time of

The Execution of Maximilien de Robespierre


the outbreak of the French revolution it had risen to closer to 30 million. This increase could well have been the result of global warming. During that time, there was a steady increase in sunspot activity which probably resulted in slowly increasing temperature. (Probably about one degree Celsius), This would have resulted in better harvests, more food and a healthier population – hence the increase in population.

But about the time of the revolution the increase in sunspot activity ceased and was followed by a period of low sunspot activity known as the Dalton Minimum. This would have resulted in cooler weather and poorer crops. More people and less grain meant higher prices for bread. The peasants of France, already getting barely enough food to live on, and living in extreme poverty could not afford the higher prices, and even if they could there was not enough to go around.

It was a recipe for disaster – and it came at a point in the history of France when the French state was experi-encing some major structural problems that had not been addressed for too long. The conditions for instability and chaos where all there, and they met in a perfect storm at that medieval fortress of the Bastille on July 14th, 1789.

While Paris was already a large city with a substantial but impoverished working class, most of the population in France lived in the countryside, with peasants living cheek-by-jowl with the land-owning aristocracy. The vast differ-ences in wealth could scarcely be ignored. The aristocracy thought it was the natural order of things. What the peas-ants thought is not recorded – at least not until the revolu-tion. But France was beginning to experience the growth


of capitalism, and with it a small middle class was emerg-ing. Many of them, seeing the abject destitution of their fellow Frenchmen could not help looking for solutions to the grinding poverty of the peasants. Some of them owned, or wrote for, newspapers and were able to get their ideas across to a wider audience.

They noticed that there was a direct relationship between status in society and the amount you got to eat, and came to the conclusion that inequality was the cause of poverty and made equality one of the rallying cries of the revolu-tion. (Along with liberty and brotherhood.)

The people who decided that you could get rid of pover-ty by getting rid of inequality called themselves by a variety of names, but, for simplicity, we will stick with one because it outlasted most of the others. They called themselves socialists and made equality their god.

Out of the chaos of the failing institutions of the French state and the grinding poverty of the mass of the population they had identified (they thought) the cause of the bulk of the problems besetting France at the time. They thought that by getting rid of land-owning aristocra-cy, and the leaders of the old religion, (remember, they had a new god – equality), they could eliminate poverty. They arrested the king and his family and all the aristocrats and clergy that could not escape to other European countries in time. The revolutionaries eventually tried their prison-ers for treason, found them guilty, and executed with the guillotine, specially designed for the purpose. Thus began the infamous reign of terror, it began with the execution of aristocrats and bishops but it did not end there.


Revolutionaries are very passionate about their revolu-tion. If they were not, there would be no revolution. They are very, very angry people, willing to kill because of their anger, and willing to die rather than stop expressing that anger. Amongst these passionate people there are bound to be disagreements – passionate disagreements -about where to go next, or what to do next, or what the policy with re-spect to this problem or that matter. It was not surprising that they should have disagreements. Their rallying cry it-self, liberty equality and brotherhood contained as we have shown a three-way oxymoron, so of course they disagreed.

If history has shown anything at all it is that once you start killing it gets easier and easier as you go along. So it was with the French revolution. After getting rid of the aristocracy and church leaders – and God Himself – they began to execute other revolutionaries that they disagreed with. It was very difficult to know what side to be on. What was perfectly acceptable yesterday could be treason to-morrow. The executions continued until one of the fore-most leaders of the revolution, Robespierre, was himself sent to the guillotine. With the death of Robespierre, the French reign of terror was over. (Another reign of terror re-emerged on an almost impossible to believe scale in the first half of the twentieth century.)

Those French revolutionaries and their descendants, who now call themselves socialists, thought they had found an order out of the chaos caused by the instability of the French state at the time. They believed passionately in their discovery and would not listen to any arguments to the contrary. They were socialists. That was who they were, that was how they identified themselves. They would not,


or could not, change. They were the first modern victims of SIIDD and instead of finding order out of chaos, they added another level of instability to the already existing chaotic structure of modern society.


The Industrial Revolution and Marxism

It soon became obvious to even the most ardent revo-lutionary, that inequality of “status” within society was

not the problem and that getting rid of aristocrats and bishops etcetera was not the solution. After eliminating the aristocrats and clergy, there was still not enough food to go around. The price of bread was still too high, those who lived in poverty before the revolution, lived in poverty after the revolution.

But, in these tumultuous times another revolution was about to take place. It was an economic, rather than a social revolution. First in England and Scotland, followed

Karl Marx (left) and Freidrich Engles.


quickly by France, the industrial revolution took hold of western Europe. It was to provide a dramatic increase in living standards for huge numbers of people. By using coal as a source of energy instead of human labour and draft animals huge increases in productivity would be realised.

But it could not happen quickly enough to solve the problem of poverty.

The immediate effect was for people to move to the rapidly growing towns and cities where their surplus labour continued to result in poor wages and even worse abject poverty. The starving French peasant could starve in the open air and sunlight. The English coal miner went into the mine before dawn and came out of it after dark for most of the year. He walked to the coal face in four-foot tun-nels for perhaps a mile or two before he got to there, once there he would lie on his back and dug at the coal with a pick axe. He was paid, (very poorly) by the ton for the coal he cut. Children as young as seven or eight hauled the coal on a narrow-gauge railway to the skip for hoisting to the surface. The children were later replaced by pit ponies that spent their entire lives underground. Life in the factories and cotton mills was better, but not much, and wages were abysmally low. Miners, factory workers and mill workers all died young.

Factory and mine owners were ruthless in keeping wages low, believing that their position in society was because they were the fittest, in Darwin’s world where survival went to the fittest, but their attitude to their workers was tempered somewhat by what they had seen happen to the French aristocracy in the French revolution.


It is fairly easy to look back on the way Europe was developing with our understanding of how it actually de-veloped, but it must be remembered that this was a com-pletely new social phenomenon. No one understood what was happening.

Political philosophers emerged, the most prominent be-ing Karl Marx, first in his native Germany. His solution was to get rid of the capitalists who owned the mines, factories, banks and homes of the workers, take it all into common ownership (He called his solution communism). Since he expected to have to take it all by force he anticipated that a violent revolution would be necessary. The capitalists in Germany didn’t like him very much, and he was forced to leave. He moved to France but was not very popular there either. He moved again, to England. The British Empire was then at the height of its power and no one thought a German political philosopher living in London could do very much harm so he was allowed to stay and complete his major work, Das Kapital. (Actually, he died before it was finished. It was completed by a colleague, Freidrich Engles – more of him later).


The First World War and the communist coup in Russia

It was Marx view that, to match his view of the inevitable march of history, the first communist revolution would

happen in a fully developed capitalist state, but it didn’t happen that way. It happened in a quite backward nation, only beginning to emerge from feudalism, namely Russia.

While it is foolish to play “what if ” games with history, the revolution would probably not have taken place at all if it were not for the First World War. In fact, it is a myth that a communist revolution happened at all.

Russia had a huge army, but it was too poorly equipped and too badly led to fight a modern war. Troops at the front were not well supplied with military supplies and were inadequately fed, but they kept on fighting even though they were constantly losing territory to the better equipped German army. However, the war was taking its toll on the social structure back home.

The Tsar was overthrown and was replaced by an embry-onic democratic government led by Alexander Kerensky. Kerensky was persuaded by France and England to con-tinue the war so that Germany would be forced to continue fighting the war on two fronts.

It was a very unpopular decision with the Russian people and to take advantage of this Germany arranged for Vladi-mir Lenin, a Russian émigré living in Switzerland to be transported to Moscow. Lenin was a passionate follower of Marx’ doctrine and a leader of the would-be revolutionaries living in Zurich.

Once in Russia, Lenin arranged for mutinying Latvian-


speaking sailors in the Russian navy to seize control of the Duma (the Russian parliament). Since the Latvian sailors did not speak Russian, and the members of the Duma did not speak the Latvian language, before anyone understood what was happening, Lenin had organised a successful coup.

He signed a peace treaty with Germany in which he ceded to Germany large tracts of Russian territory.

After a period of civil war Lenin emerged in total con-trol of what was left of the Russian Empire, and promptly set about establishing the promised communist utopia. He was helped by a large contingent of sufferers from SIIDD, who ardently believed in the coming utopia, and, as is the nature of SIIDD sufferers, refused to acknowledge that it was proving difficult because there was something wrong with what they were trying to do.

After Lenin’s death in 1924 he was succeeded by Com-munist Party Secretary Joseph Stalin.

Stalin tried very hard to make communism work. He also had an army of SIIDDs who knew, from being instructed in Marxism that there would be people who would resist and that they would have to be dealt with ruthlessly. Our new generation of SIIDDs soon became quite nasty people in pursuit of their Socialist Workers Paradise.

It was by using these people, that Stalin tried to make communism work. His first failure was agriculture. Agri-culture was taken under government control and organised into “collective farms”. Productivity dropped dramatically. The Ukraine, previously a grain exporter, could not meet the needs of the Russian people and feed its own people. Stalin decided that the needs of the Russian cities was


more important than the needs of the producers of grain. He took every single grain of wheat that his agents could find, executing anyone found hoarding grain – and left the Ukrainian people to starve. They did! Seven million of them starved to death. (One English writer, Malcolm Mug-geridge, tried to get word of the tragedy to the world at large but no one took any notice.)

Countless, literally countless, others from all over what had become the Soviet Union, died as slave labour in la-bour camps throughout the Soviet Union, Called by Alex-ander Solzhenitsyn the Gulag Archipelago. By this time, it was not clear whether our SIIDDs were operating out of misplaced idealism or simply fear of the Stalinist govern-ment structure. It was not until many years after the death of Stalin that the Russian people were made aware of just how evil a man Joseph Stalin had been.

While Stalin was trying to make communism work, Ger-many was struggling to deal with rebuilding the German economy after the severe disruption of the First World War and the effect of the peace treaty forced upon them.

The economy was a disaster and inflation was running at unmanageable levels. The German communist party was actively trying to take advantage of the economic and social situation that Germany found itself in. The commu-nist party was rigidly organised, and under the control of Joseph Stalin.

The German people, while desperate enough, were aware of some of what was happening in Russia and were not about to try building a socialist workers paradise. The communist party organised protests, marches and civic mayhem but were not taken very seriously. A National


Socialist (NAZI) party was formed and got into violent confrontations with the communists but they were not taken very seriously either.

Meanwhile the German economy, with the help of large US loans, began to improve, and was doing comparatively well, until the US stock market crash and subsequent recession. Unemployment, skyrocketed. To many people, the communists began to look like a serious threat. But in elections in the 1930s they turned away from the devil they knew and supported the newcomer on the political scene - the National Socialist Party led by Adolph Hitler. In 1933, he managed to secure the largest number of seats in the German parliament, the Reichstag, he was short of an absolute majority but was asked by the German President von Hindenburg, to form a government. Early in 1934 he burned down the Reichstag, (The German parliament), blamed the communists and seized absolute power.


The second World War and its aftermath

In 1936 Hitler took over Austria, in 1938, he invaded Czechoslovakia without firing a shot. In 1939, he in-

vaded Poland and was resisted. For the second time in less than a generation Europe was at war again.

In a short time, Hitler had control of Europe from the Mediterranean Sea to the arctic ocean and from the Atlan-tic coast of France to about twenty miles west of Moscow. It seemed to outsiders that the entire German people were falling victim to cognitive dissonance. Adolph Hitler certainly had millions of willing supporters all of them suffering from that self inflicted intellectual development disorder we have called SIIDD.

Hungarian Jews on the ramp at Auschwitz-II (Birkenau), Poland during the German occupation, May/June 1944.


There were many millions of casualties in that war, both in armed forces of both sides and civilians of both sides. Hitler also executed 12 million people in concentration camps – six million of them European Jews. It is important to note that he did not execute anyone himself. His SIIDs did it for him.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the World, Mao Tse Tung had developed a Chinese version of Marxism. And eventually took absolute power in China. In the process millions died. Later, in Cambodia, Pol Pot determined that many people living in cities were living off the backs of rural workers. He forced city dwellers out into the country-side. Two million people died.

Estimates with any degree of accuracy are impossible but there is a consensus that at least 100 million people died as a result of the activities of these four men. (Stalin, Hitler, Mao Tse Tung and Pol Pot). Numbers don’t count when you begin to talk in millions. One is not worse than the other. They are all examples of absolute evil.

These four men did not do it alone! In a normal so-ciety, they would probably be laughed at or ignored, but they did not live in a normal society, and they had help. It bears repeating they had the help of millions of sufferers of SIIDD. It is very important to remember that it is the SI’IDDs that do the damage.


The Vietnam War

Western Civilisation survived the First World War, it also survived the Second World War, (although

it was much changed by both), but there is consider-able doubt as to whether it will survive the Vietnam war. America lost that war. Not only in Vietnam, but in the United States. It was fought in the air and on the ground in Vietnam. In the U.S. it was fought in the media and on the campuses of the U.S. universities.

The United states had set itself the task of preventing the spread of communism. It was successful in South Ko-rea, although China’s involvement meant that North Korea could not be liberated without too great a cost in allied lives. The dramatic difference in the way of life in North Korea compared with South Korea shows that US involve-ment was of considerable benefit to South Korea.

But the American attempt to do the same thing in Viet-nam failed. The South Vietnamese did not care very much, and its soldiers could not be relied upon to do anything other than desert whenever the opportunity offered.

The campaign needed more men than the regular army could provide so the draft was reintroduced. It was a major miscalculation, and an extreme example of the law of un-foreseen consequences.

The US government allowed young men who were drafted to postpone their military service until they had finished their education. This put all the young men who did not want to go to war together in the same place at the same time – in the universities. There, they learned from


the Students for a Democratic Society, that what they were going to the jungles of Vietnam to fight was Marxism – and Karl Marx was all for equality – “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. What could be wrong with that? They did not hear of the starvation in the Ukraine, nor about the harsh regime in North Korea, nor about the Gulag Archipelago. If they had they prob-ably would not have listened. They had every reason for their cognitive dissonance, of seeing no evil. They did not want to go to war. They stayed in school as long as they could and ended up as lecturers or professors in the hu-manities in just about every American University. They, or their ideological descendants are now in control of most universities throughout North America and Europe.

That generation and their descendants swallowed Marx-ism hook line and sinker, but called themselves progres-sives rather than communists or socialists, because of the baggage that those two words carried with them in the United States. To give them credit they recognised some of the difficulties associated with creating a purely Marxist state, but could not give up on “equality” so they came up with postmodernism, (called by others Cultural Marxism). Postmodernism is dealt with in a later essay.



Part 3Emerging philosophies


Feminism

Feminism has been around for a long time. Beginning in the 1870s a twenty-year campaign led primarily by

New Zealander Kate Sheppard, led to women’s suffrage being gained in 1893.

The modern feminist movement began with the pub-lication of The Feminine Mystique by Betty Frieden in 1963, but it did not begin to take on its Marxist overtones until the Vietnam war and was directly related to the awareness of Marxism emerging on US campuses as a result of US involvement in that war.

Young women at US universities, many of them already familiar with Frieden’s book, and the Female Eunuch by Germaine Greer (published in 1970 during the war), were introduced to Friedrich Engles book, The Origin of the Fam-ily, Private Property and the State. In his book Engles, in effect, blamed the traditional family for just about everything that he thought was wrong with contemporary society. In the communist Utopia, there was to be no state, and no private property. He saw the “patriarchal’ family as the enemy to the egalitarian society that communism was to bring about. Thus, the patriarchal family had to go.

(It is interesting to note, but not necessarily relevant to the political philosophies that developed in the last fifty years, that, while families in his own native Germany may have been patriarchal by the time of the Vietnam war the traditional American family was decidedly matriarchal.)

The problem that emerged with feminism was again that same worship of the god of equality and a complete misunderstanding of the nature of equality. (this is as good


a place as any to note that we are no longer trying to solve the problem of poverty. Inequality is now the problem.)

In the 1970s a left-wing book store in a working-class district of Winnipeg, a prairie city in Western Canada, published its own version of the Communist Manifesto. It was a tiny little booklet, about 3 inches square, 32 pages with a construction paper cover and one staple holding it togeth-er. It was printed on newsprint on a Gestetner printer using a template made on a typewriter. On the cover, the title was The Communist Manifesto. The 28 inside pages each had a text summarising a tenet of communism. On one page, the text was;

“Men and women will not be equal until they’re working alongside each other on the factory floor and the children are raised by the state.”

This does not appear to be authentic, and may owe more to Stalinism than Marxism, hence the mention of the state, which was supposed to disappear with the advent of com-munism.

However, whether or not it comes from the overheated brain of a Winnipeg revolutionary running a co-op book store or from a more conventional Marxist it shows the dif-ficulty with equality in stark terms.

At the time, the first manifesto was written, a favorite children’s Christmas story was a version of a child in an orphanage being adopted on Christmas Eve. In the new Utopia, that would not be possible, it would interfere with the equality of men and women, far from taking children out of orphanages on Christmas eve, they would be put-ting them into orphanages, presumably very soon after they were born.


It may very well have been thought progress by our young revolutionary for the mother to work along side her man on the factory floor without giving a thought to the well- being of her baby. The baby, of course would not have known any better, and would have grown up think-ing state orphanages were the natural order of things – so everyone is happy, thinks the young man.

The reader may think that our young man is not quite right in the head, and he would be right. He is a SIIDD sufferer.

The reader may also think, so what? This is not a typi-cal young man. No one seriously thinks that babies should be brought up in orphanages. No? It was tried in Romania during the Ceausescu regime and in every provincial and federal election in Canada, the two left-wing parties prom-ise free 24-hour day care in government facilities. (They never deliver because the price is too high, and politician’s promises are seldom made to be kept). Political parties in other countries are promising much the same thing.

The fact is that men and women cannot be equal, any more than anyone else. All seven billion of us are different and are content to be so. We all want to be free and few of us are willing to give up our freedom in exchange for equality. This does not mean that people are ok with being discriminated against nor does it mean that one is inferior to the other. Although, in the days of hill forts and cattle raiders, young men used to value themselves less highly than they did women and children, and would willingly risk their lives, and sometimes lose them, in defending the more vulnerable members of the tribe. On the Titanic, the cry was “Women and Children first.” There were not enough


life boats for everyone. Nowadays, of course, in the interest of equality, everyone would go down with the ship.

If feminists were honest, they would acknowledge that it is really all about power, and not about equality, their philosophy would be more consistent. At present, they are quite inconsistent when it comes to abortion. Babies are treated quite differently before and after they have en-tered the birth canal while in some cultures babies are safe enough in the womb until their sex has been determined. After that the survival rate for female babies is markedly lower than that of male babies.


Postmodernism

Postmodernism is, in itself, a meaningless term, and seems to have been deliberately chosen to conceal the

real philosophy behind the term – a code word – under-stood by its followers but hidden from the uninitiated. If you like it could be described as a Harry Potter style invis-ibility cloak. Taking the Harry Potter metaphor, a little fur-ther, if you remove the cloak you see that it is Voldemort that the cloak is hiding. Vol de Mort is the French for flight of death which suits postmodernism very well.

(Some call postmodernism cultural Marxism, which gives a hint of the real philosophy it is supposed to describe, but it is not a term that postmodernists use themselves.)

Jacques Derrida (Wikipedia).


In the latter part of the Twentieth Century it was be-coming obvious that communism was not working. The Karl Marx way of achieving equality was not working, perhaps because it was not properly tried, more likely it was not working because it was simply impossible to make it work. In any event in 1989 it became so obvious to the Russian people that the Soviet Union collapsed.

What to do? The SIIDDs still had a god named equality, but it was becoming obvious that neither status nor money carried the solution to equality.

Not to worry.A French philosopher came up with a new solution, and

the SIIDDs have infected themselves with it with enthusi-asm.

Here it is necessary to pause and to mention that, al-though SIIDDs have infected themselves with the disorder, it does not occur out of thin air. It is contagious, and the major sources of infection are the universities. Students pay huge sums of money, and go into debt for years so that they can take courses in the humanities where they are taught that inequality exists in the world and it is their duty to do something about it, that is, they must become activ-ists, or Social Justice Warriors (SJWs), and the route they must follow is Postmodernism as developed by our French Philosopher, Jaques Derrida.

He claimed that inequality is brought about by lack of equal access to power. People with less access to power become victims of those with more power. The postmod-ernist believes that all cultures are equal and that there are numerous ways of examining any problem, and that one solution is a valid as another, (since all cultures are equal)


and there is no real truth. (I am not making this up. This is what Postmodernists believe. They are, of course, not quite right in the head).

Postmodernists have now succeeded in taking over the reins of power and have become our political elite. But our postmodernist ruling class needs victims who have limited access to power to justify the need for their postmodern-ism. If they have no victims they would have to create them.

As it turns out it is not too difficult. Social workers in our postmodernist society hand out benefits to various kinds of victims. It works beautifully. Victims get benefits, there is no shortage of people willing to be victims in order to get benefits, so the social worker has a job, and gets paid, and the victim gets paid. Even the taxpayers are happy – they are helping to rid the world of inequality. It could be a problem if the taxpayers realise they are being exploited, and are, in reality, the real victims. There are signs that they are beginning to notice this.

Since the Vietnam war and the emergence of postmod-ernism there has been a relentless attack on Christianity and the Judeo-Christian value system. This is because post-modernism and the Judeo-Christian value system cannot co-exist. It is beginning to have a damaging effect on our confidence in ourselves and our value system. In western Europe, the postmodernists appear to be winning, but the general population seems to be becoming aware of the threat.

It is important to note here that if postmodernism suc-ceeds in destroying the value system that made western civilisation possible then western civilisation will go down


with it. So will postmodernism. Postmodernism is parasitic on Western Civilisation and cannot exist without it.


The attack on the Judeo-Christian value system

To date, every civilisation that we know anything about has a unifying value system, and often, but not neces-

sarily, a unifying religion. Several religions existed side-by-side in most recent western civilisation, the Roman civilisa-tion, with varying levels of tolerance or intolerance, but it had a unifying value system amongst Romans that can probably be best summarised, but perhaps oversimplified, as personal honour. However, Christianity was spreading rapidly, and was finally accepted in 313 when the Emperor Constantine the Great (306-317) decriminalised it. There-after Constantine described himself as Emperor of the Christians. The Roman civilisation survived until the Fall of Rome in 476 as a result of a massive migration of people from north-eastern Europe which the Roman legions were powerless to control. The mass migration coincided with the end of the Roman warm period and was probably caused by a global cooling and resulting crop failures.

The western Roman empire then disintegrated into what is now known as the dark ages. The collapse was rapid. In Britain, the ability to read and write was lost in a single generation and there are no written records for about 200 years after that.

Christian missionaries from Ireland re-evangelised Brit-ain and western Europe, beginning in Scotland in 563. At first, they were more successful among the Celts, who per-haps had a folk memory of the early religion, but eventu-ally were able to convert the eastern European peoples who had migrated to Britain and France after the Romans left.


So the Christian world we are dealing with here dates back to the founding of the first abbey established by those Irish monks on the island of Iona off the west coast of Scotland a little more than sixteen centuries ago. (The eastern church, centred in Constantinople (Now Istanbul) continued without interruption).

The Christian church had its trials and tribulations dur-ing that time – especially during the French Revolution-but also during the conflict between Catholics and Protestants, but in general Christianity expanded and was accepted by just about everyone until the publication of Charles Darwin’s book The Origin of the Species. The book sold all 1170 available copies two days before its publication on 24 November 1859.

It was immediately obvious that the evolution of the species was in conflict with the literal interpretation of the Bible. The publication of Darwin’s book did not begin the conflict between science and Christianity, but certainly reinforced it. Some Christians accepted Darwin’s thesis and gave up on the literal interpretation of the Bible, others rejected evolution. (The relationship between science and Christianity is dealt with in a later essay.) Christianity itself survived, somewhat weakened by the controversy, but the Judeo-Christian value system survived more or less intact.

That is, it survived intact until the aftermath of the Vietnam war. As previously mentioned, when young men and women became politicised on US campuses during that war, they adopted Marxism in its various derivatives, culminating in Postmodernism. Postmodernism and Chris-tianity are polar opposites and cannot co-exist. The result has been an ongoing and relentless attack on Christianity


by the intellectual elite, first in the United States and then in western Europe.

The attack on the church was more successful in west-ern Europe than in the United States, perhaps because Christian churches in western Europe are primarily main-line protestant churches, that is, Lutheran and Church of England, and these churches had been more weakened by the advent of Darwinism than the Baptist churches of the United States.

At the same time journalists on both sides of the Atlan-tic were beginning to call themselves progressive, and ev-eryone else reactionary. No one likes to be called reaction-ary so the progressive view became the politically correct view; journalists joined in the attack with enthusiasm.

About the same time came the birth control pill. Women could now indulge in sex without the risk of pregnancy. Up until this time the risk of pregnancy to women had provid-ed a major restraint on the sexuality of young people. That constraint was now removed.

Up until this time the basic social unit had been the fam-ily, in western civilisation it had become the nuclear family. The church had developed strong positions to protect that basis social unit, and had frowned on pre-marital sex, adul-tery and divorce. The Catholic church had proscribed birth control and abortion.

It was a perfect storm. The postmodernists wanted to attack the church, the press wanted to be in fashion and politically correct and was eager to co-operate, and young people were free to satisfy the basic sexual drive which is a powerful influence on the young.

But the church said no.


So young men and women had to make a choice. Pass on sex or stop going to church. It was a no-brainer. The less than perfect behaviour of some members of the clergy did not help, and was exploited with relish by the press and the postmodernists.

In any event, and whatever the causes, the attack on the church has been very successful, and is striking at the very existence of western civilisation which, as is explained later, depends on, and owes its existence to, the Judeo-Christian value system.


Journalism

Thomas Jefferson saw a free press as an integral part of a properly functioning democracy. He saw newspapers

as a way to criticize and keep governments in check. At that time there was no real attempt to be objective in reporting. Newspapers would take an editorial position that was fra-grantly one-sided. Their names often reflected this. In the United States they would either be Democrat or Republi-can, in England either Whig (Liberal) or Tory. Remnants of that era can be seen in the name of one of Canada’s oldest continually-published newspaper, the Kingston Whig-Standard.

Thomas Jefferson


In the late 19th century, rapidly increasing rates of lit-eracy gave rise to a large increase in the demand for news-papers. To take advantage of this increase in the market, and to deal with the competition, newspapers began to be less partisan and to attempt to report the news objec-tively and editorial comments began to be restricted to the opinion pages. Since that time, most people have come to expect balanced and transparent journalism from their media sources and get upset when they see what they view as bias in reporting.

But the media’s flirtation with objectivity is long over, and was actually quite brief. Towards the end of the 20th century, journalism schools began teaching students not to supress their biases. The general thought was that every journalist was going to have a bias anyway, so striving for objectivity would only serve to obscure the bias and make it less apparent. It should also be noted that the academic ranks of journalism schools were becoming occupied by postmodernists and their kind.

There was also the argument that objective reporting tended to be dull and boring, and that some issues were so obviously evil, lynching for example, that objective report-ing could be seen as being almost complicit in the event.

There can be no denying the strength of these argu-ments. The debate raged on in the journalism schools in the latter half of the 20th century, and eventually the arguments against objectivity won out. In 1996, the Society of Professional Journalists removed the word “objectivity” from their code of ethics.

This development opened the door for a new wave of activist journalism. Herr Professor Kantorek would have


been in his element. (See later essay on Isolating Source of SIIDD Contagion)

The new activism didn’t show up immediately in news-paper and television reporting. Old school editors and producers would insist on multiple sources and balanced reporting. But every journalist who graduated after 1990 would have been indoctrinated with the anti-objectivity viewpoint.

Today, journalistic activism is the standard and objectiv-ity is increasingly rare in journalism, but the debate that got us to this point happened without the knowledge of those who used the media to try to understand the world around them – to try to make some sense of order out of the chaos around them. They cannot understand why news coverage has become so one-sided, they are turning more and more to the wild-west landscape of online forums, blogs and alternative media to try to make sense of what is becoming increasingly incomprehensible.

Journalists should not be surprised at this. If a newspa-per journalist chooses not to tell his readers the truth, then he should not be surprised if his readers choose not to buy his newspaper. It is, perhaps, interesting to note that the New York Times lost fifty per cent of its readership between 2005 and 2017.


PART 4Other issues


Phobia of phobias

President Roosevelt once said. “We have nothing to fear but fear itself,” We should remember it now.

Today, Social Justice Warriors and victims of SIIDD are taking a few choice words and weaponizing them by adding phobia, the Greek word for fear and accusing their oppo-nents of being “victims” of one or more of them.

Hydrophobia, homophobia, xenophobia and islamopho-bia are examples.

Let’s look at some of these.We’ll start with hydrophobia, because there are no posi-

tive or negative values attached to it. Hydrophobia means fear of water. It is an old name for rabies, because suffer-ers from rabies seemed to be afraid of water. Actually, they would reject the offer of water, even though they were extremely thirsty, because they found it very painful to swallow anything. It was a misunderstanding, but an under-standable misunderstanding. Victims of rabies exhibit other abnormal mental behaviour, and is included here because it was a misunderstanding, although, in this case the misread-ing of the symptoms was accidental.

In the contemporary use of the word phobia, however, the use of the term is deliberately misinterpreted so that it can be weaponised and used to attack political opponents.

Phobia originally meant fear pure and simple. Psycholo-gists have modified the meaning to “irrational fear” as in the misunderstanding of the rabies victim rejecting an offer of water. SJWs and SIIDDs have since, for their own rea-sons, changed the meaning of the word to hatred.

Let’s look at the second on the list. Homophobia. There


does not appear to be any reason for a straight person be-ing afraid of a homosexual. There are certainly people who have an intense dislike of homosexuals, and they may not be very nice people because of that, but they are not afraid and the use of the term homophobic is a misuse of the word.

Xenophobia is another misused term. SJWs and SIIDDs use it to mean an extreme form of nationalism. It is used to accuse people of being Nazis without actually saying so. When applied to xenophobia however, nothing could be further from the truth. Xenophobia, (fear of Strangers) is built into our genes. If it was not for xenophobia the reader and the writer quite probably would not be here. At some time in the past an ancestor would have been killed because he or she trusted the wrong stranger. Throughout history people have surrounded their towns and villages with fortifications to protect themselves from strangers who meant them no good. Throughout history, there have always been people out there who want something you’ve got, and are prepared to kill you to get it. It was true in the past and is true today. Not being very wary of strangers is an evolutionary dead end.

To take this perfectly natural caution and equate it to an extreme form of nationalism does no one any service except the SJW and the SIIDD (who here play the role of the strangers that we should be very, very wary of.)

And so to Islamophobia. First it is important to recog-nise that we are talking about Islam, not Muslims. There are about a billion Muslims in the world and to be afraid of all of them is mind boggling! Muslims are like most people in this world. It is probably a good idea to be wary of those


that are strangers and also a good idea to befriend those that are not.

Islam itself is different. First it is not just a religion, it is a system of government – a system of government which denies the concept of the nation state. The nation state first emerged in England a little over a thousand years ago, (the first king of all England was crowned in 954), and has been found to be the most favourable for good govern-ment. It is legitimate to challenge Islam’s alternative to it.

The western world is losing confidence in itself, and partly because of this, is perceived to be under threat from Islam, which is full of energy and self confidence. Islam is simply filling a vacuum the west has left for Islam to oc-cupy. If we don’t care about our own value system and our own way of life it is rather pointless to be afraid of a phi-losophy, religion or legal structure that is eager to replace it. If we do care then we have to overcome the SJWs and SIIDDs that are creating the problem. Islam will get rid of them if we don’t, but by then it will be too late to save Western Civilisation. If we do not recover our confidence in our centuries-old value system then the result is inevi-table.

We have to generate a new phobia - SIIDDophobia. It is legitimate to be afraid of SIIDDs and there is certainly nothing irrational about it.


Global warming

About fifty years ago the Scientific American carried an article in which the author stated that the concentra-

tion of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere was increasing at about 0.06% per year and that was because of the increas-ing use of fossil fuels.

To this author that seemed to be a small amount to be measured so accurately – especially since the concentration varies from place to place –it is higher in cities than the countryside for example, and varies with the time of day in forests –

At the time, the article was published, all nations pub-lished their consumption of fossil fuels. (including the Soviet Union who were notoriously reluctant to publish statistics that could be used to examine the health of their economy). These statistics were published in the 1960 edi-tion of Encyclopaedia Britannica so it was easy enough to check.

Sure enough, the consumption of fossil fuels was exactly right. The calculation showed that the fossil fuel consumed was equal to an increase of 0.06% per year, or 2 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It was so close that we might come to the conclusion that the cal-culation, rather than measurement, was where the 0.06% came from.

Carbon dioxide is very soluble in water, but, according to the calculation, none of the carbon dioxide identified in the Scientific American article dissolved in rain, nor did it dis-solve in the oceans, it all stayed in the atmosphere, which could only reinforce the suspicion that the percentage was


a calculated number rather than a real one.It happened that these calculations were made at a time

of high sunspot activity. With high sunspot activity, there is an increase in radiation from the sun causing a change in the climate and a warming trend., but this, and the tempo-rary change in climate was ignored. (It stopped warming about twenty years ago along with a reduction in sunspot activity). Instead “global warming” was blamed on the increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere caused by the “greenhouse effect” of having an increased concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

The name “greenhouse effect” should have been a warn-ing. Almost all of the heat in a greenhouse comes about because the hot air cannot escape by convection and keeps getting hotter. That is not true in the open air, but everyone knows what a greenhouse is and knows that greenhouses get hot, so the “greenhouse effect” proved to be a good vehicle if the intent was to mislead the general public.

It might be asked why would anyone want to mislead the general public? One answer is that the Global warming scare has generated a trillion-dollar industry. Another rea-son is the Self Inflicted Intellectual Development Disorder. Here we have our SIIDDs again.

But what about the 97% of scientists who claim that we are past the “tipping point” and the world is going to boil over next Tuesday afternoon.

First the 97% is phoney. There are some academics who go along with it because it makes it easy to get funding, and to academics funding is everything, but most scientists and certainly retired scientists will tell you that it is all nonsense.

In fact, anyone with high school physics and chemistry


in the US and Canadian education system, or an A level or good O level in the British System has enough science to know that it is all nonsense.

To the media the fact that the world is going to boil over next Tuesday afternoon is a much better story than that it is not going to boil over at all. Reporters, by and large, have managed to get where they are without any knowledge of Physics and Chemistry, but they also have their own mo-tives for misleading the public which are dealt with else-where in this booklet.

There can be no doubt that climate changes. In fact the only constant thing about climate is that it changes, but even a cursory study of history will show that global warm-ing is good and global cooling is bad, sometimes very bad – for human beings anyway.

10,000 years ago, most of northern Europe and almost all of Canada was covered by up 1,000 feet of ice. It took a great deal of global warming to get rid of that, and the sun did it all by itself, without any help from SUVs or thermal generating stations. The Roman Empire emerged during a warming period that lasted for several hundred years. (It is known as the Roman warm period) A later cooling period resulted in a massive migration of people from eastern Eu-rope that the Roman legions were powerless to do anything about. The collapse of the Roman Empire and the dark ages in western Europe was the result.

That cooling period was followed by another warming trend, The Medieval warm period, which saw the rebirth of Christianity in Western Europe and the building of the great cathedrals. Another cooling period probably had a serious impact on Europe resulting in the age of revolu-


tion. The twentieth century warming period probably made it possible to feed, (in some cases not very well) a massive increase in world population to 7 billion people.

The truth is that, in a period of high sunspot activity, the world, including the oceans, is warmed. Carbon dioxide is more soluble in cold water than in hot, so global warming causes the oceans to release some of the carbon dioxide that dissolved in cooler periods. You expect an increase in Carbon dioxide in warm periods. It is caused by the sun.

In light of all this, why is there a concern that global warming will be a disaster? Remember we are dealing with an intellectual development disorder, sufferers from SIID-DS don’t have to be rational and it is fruitless for the rest of us to try to understand them, but the fact is that there is money, a great deal of money, trillions of dollars a year, in the global warming scare and our SIIDDs are not immune from being tempted by that money


The European Union

This is another example of a self inflicted intellectual development disorder at work.

The European Union is a new version of the very old concept of empire. Empires come and empires go. They al-ways have, but there are always people who believe that, de-spite the lessons of history, their particular empire will last for ever. In the first half of the twentieth century Adolf Hitler spoke of the 1,000 - year Reich. It came and went in twelve years. Winston Churchill said in 1940, commending the fighter pilots of the Battle of Britain. “should the Brit-ish Empire and its commonwealth last for a thousand years men will say ‘This was their finest hour” The dismantling of the British Empire began seven years later.

Empires collapse because people would rather govern themselves than be governed by someone else.

There have been Empires in Europe since the Romans. They mostly came about through conquest. A king might


conquer a neighbouring country and hence become an em-peror, which is a promotion in royal circles. He would also get more revenue, which is always nice to have.

Apart from the religious wars where they kept on fight-ing until there was nothing left to fight with, not very much harm was done. That is until the first half of the twentieth century, when two world wars brought about the destruc-tion of several ancient empires and the death of people in their millions and millions.

After the second world war, sensible people said we must not do this again. Then they stopped being sensible and began to do the very same thing, but without invading armies. They built the European Union, in effect just an-other European Empire, but did it by diplomacy instead of war; and they thought they had done a splendid job. They thought that the European Union was the cause of peace between the nation states of Europe.

But the closer they got to forming a United States of Europe the more uneasy the member states became. Britain has voted to leave. It is beginning to look as if others will soon be joining them.

What the creators of the Union had neglected to notice was that nations like to govern themselves. It is generally believed that Germany started the Second World War. It did not. It was Poland. The war did not start when Austria was taken over by Germany, because Austria did not resist. It did not start when Germany invaded Czechoslovakia, because Czechoslovakia did not resist. It began when Ger-many invaded Poland - because the Poles resisted.

The Americans did not like being governed from Eng-land and declared themselves independent. They were


forced to fight to achieve that independence. The Irish fought the English, on and off for two or three hundred years before they finally achieved independence.

We don’t need any more examples. People like to be governed by themselves rather than someone else. And that applies to every nation in Europe. The European Com-mon Market was a good idea, within limits. The European Union was a silly idea. It is coming to an end. The SIIDDs are fighting tooth and nail, but they cannot win. The Euro-pean Union is an empire run by a headless bureaucracy, and cannot change direction quickly enough to meet changing economic or political conditions.



PART 5Conclusions


Isolating the source of SIIDD Contagion

As already indicated SIIDD is contracted in universities. While it is a self-inflicted disorder the victim almost

always has to be exposed to a source of contagion and that source is primarily western universities. Those people who took over the universities during and after the Vietnam war, are teaching our children to become Social Justice Warriors and telling them that they have an obligation to “Make the World a Better Place.” They bring to mind the high school teacher of the movie All Quiet on the Western Front, Herr Professor Kantorek, who persuaded an entire class of stu-dents to fight for the glory of the Kaiser in the First World

John Snow memorial and public house on Broadwick Street, Soho (Wikipedia).


War. All of them signed up, and every last one of them died. In spite of their sacrifice the Kaiser was not covered in glory.

The modern version of Herr Professor Kantorek is now teaching the humanities in our universities, and is taking ad-vantage of the naivete of our young men and women and infecting them with SI’IDD. Their success is demonstrated by the fact that freedom of speech has been all but elimi-nated in our universities by young victims of SIIDD.

How do we stop the spread of this contagion?In 1854, an outbreak of cholera in London killed 616

people. A London doctor, John Snow mapped the locations of those who had contracted the disease and found that they were all clustered around a well on Broad Street, He arranged for the well to be shut down and the local govern-ment removed the pump handle. The local people got their water from a different well and the outbreak ceased.

If we are to stop the spread of SIIDD we must do the same thing, that is, isolate potential victims from the source of contagion. Obviously, we cannot shut down our univer-sities, but we can provide our young people with an unpol-luted source of post secondary education.

YouTube can replace a great deal of post secondary education currently being provided by universities.

Post secondary education via YouTube is so incredibly cost efficient that state or provincial governments could provide it at virtually no cost to students. Thus eliminating the source of contagion and at the same time eliminating the massive debt that students accumulate while obtaining a university education.

The problem, is that a government is not likely to be


persuaded to provide the service in the face of universi-ties lobbying intensively against it, and universities are very good at lobbying.

Not to worry!University education will be replaced by YouTube, at

least at the graduate level, and there will be nothing that either universities or government can do about it.

Let us suppose, for example, that there is a young, re-cently graduated engineer by the name of Jim.

There are two things we need to know about Jim. The first, he is wondering how on earth he is going to repay his student loan, and the second is that he has an entrepreneur-ial spirit. He sees an opportunity in YouTube.

There are about 500,000 English speaking students studying engineering in the various English-speaking uni-versities around the globe. Jim wonders how many of those 500,000 yearly students would conceivably be interested in learning engineering on-line. He decides not to go to the cost of a market study, but first to determine what it would cost to make it work.

The first two years of a four-year engineering course are of a general nature. Engineers tend two specialise in the second two years. Jim decides to start with the first two years – with general engineering courses that are a prereq-uisite to all specialised branches of engineering.

Jim remembers that in those first two years of his own degree he had only twenty different professors. He makes a not unreasonable assumption that he could find twenty engineering professors who would happily videotape their lectures in the last year or so prior to retirement and to


make them available to Jim for use in his on-line engineer-ing program, in return for a pension of (say) $50,000 per year.

So Jim’s basic operating costs prior to administrative costs would be about a million dollars a year.

At this point Jim starts to get really interested. He dis-covers that if he can get only one percent of the market he can cover his basic costs by charging only $200 a year – or a total of $800 for a complete four-year course.

Jim can already hear the cash register. He is quite sure that he can charge $500 a year without encountering any market resistance, looking back at his university days, and his knowledge of his own attitude and that of his fellow students, he is also fairly confident that he will be able to get ten per cent of the market. That’s a total revenue of 25 million dollars a year, leaving 24 million after operating cost - more than enough to cover his student loan, and maybe a little pocket money besides.

Administrative costs should be quite small. There would be on-line multiple-choice tests to enable students to know how well they are doing, but that would be developed by his original professors as part of their $50,000 a year pen-sion. Sales and accounting staff and rent etc. would be needed but a million dollars a year should easily cover that.

Jim would probably charge a little extra for the final two years of specialisation, but probably not too much. He would, after all, be making about twenty-three million a year and would not want to encourage competition.

As with engineering so with every other discipline. It would be idle speculation to imagine the reaction of the universities to this existential threat to their existence, but


hopefully they would recognise the origin of the threat and stop promoting post modernism. In any event we will still need universities for post graduate work, but by that time their students will be more mature and less likely to suc-cumb to SIIDD.

Jim’s YouTube engineering course would not be in a position to grant an engineering degree, but professional engineering associations allow for would be engineers to write examinations for entry into the profession, usually with a short internship. Other professions offer the same route to professional standing so there would be no prob-lem with the professions.

Those wishing to study the humanities might have a problem with recognition of an on-line post-graduate education, but immediately after writing this it was learned that a team headed by University of Toronto psychology professor Jordan Peterson is in the final stages of preparing a series of on-line courses in the humanities that will cost about a tenth of the cost of a university degree, and will have provision for professional recognition of the course. It was also learned that Jim was too late. There are already many, many on line courses. Lots on history, several on Chaos Theory. Free engineering courses, (You pay for a certificate that says you have completed the course satisfac-torily. There is even a course by a charming young woman on good manners in polite English society.

So it would seem that universities are likely to be vic-tims of the new technology, and all our would-be Herr Professor Kantoreks in the humanities would be looking for work. They could, of course, take an on-line course in something useful.


The Importance of Christianity to Western Civilisation

`Two major issues are important:1) The effect of the Judeo-Christian value system on

the culture and behaviour of those affected by western civilisation.

2) the fact that the Judeo-Christian faith did not miti-gate against science and the scientific method, but actually facilitated it.

In the first place, Christianity places a great deal of stock in honesty and truthfulness. In any civilisation communica-tion and commerce between individuals and organisations is the life-blood of a civilisation. If this can be carried out with a minimum of corruption or bribery it will result in a higher civilisation. The Judeo-Christian value system con-tributed that, and more, to western civilisation.

But what made western civilisation so outstandingly suc-cessful was the contribution of science in the last two or three hundred years.

Science could have developed in any of the previous civilisations, but it did not. Mathematics made great strides in Indian, Greek and Moslem civilisations but did not develop into a study of cause and effect which is the basis of science. Why the conditions for the development of science in other civilisations did not develop is interesting but not part of our discussion here. (An excellent paper by Ohio State University Professor Michael Bumbulis, Chris-tianity and the Birth of Science gives an explanation of why conditions for the development of science did not exist in previous civilisations. It is available on the web).


Of interest here is why the Judeo-Christian tradition did provide the necessary conditions for the development of science and the scientific method.

“Of course I don’t believe in God, I’m a scientist” This was said by a Scottish Scientist at a Robbie Burns celebra-tion in Winnipeg, Canada, about 40 years ago, but it has been said many times before that, and many times since then.

It was not always so.Today many believe that reason and faith are mutually

exclusive, but the Christian church has always held that reason and faith can serve the same purpose.

Roger Bacon, a thirteenth century Franciscan Friar, is generally accepted as the first to formulate the Scientific method, that is, that scientific hypothesis should be tested by experiment. It seems obvious now but was new at the time. There appears to be no reason why it was not pro-posed by Greek or Muslim scholars, but it was not. Greece and Islam, along with Indian scholars made tremendous contributions in mathematics, but these were more like tools for the development of science than science itself.

In both the Christian and Judaic traditions, man was made in the image of God and it seemed natural for man to seek to understand the nature of God’s creation. Two of our most famous scientists, Isaac Newton and Charles Darwin, believed in a creator, although neither of them were Christians in the generally accepted meaning of the word, either then or today. Newton did not believe in the Trinity, but believed that the splendour of creation was an indication of the magnificence of God. Darwin, at the time he wrote The Origin of the Species, believed in a creator,


and appears to have thought that he was describing the way that that creation actually took place, - rather than that de-scribed in the bible. Darwin later drifted into what he called “agnosticism but not atheism”.

Up until about a hundred years ago it was perfectly reasonable to be both a Christian and a scientist and that was the way it was with most of them until that time, and science was a natural pursuit of a Christian, because he was a Christian, rather than in spite of his being a Christian which is a more common attitude today.

As has been said, science is rather like a rebellious teenager. It was created and nurtured in a Judeo-Christian cultural environment but wants to give no credit to his or her culture for influencing the way he or she is now.

It is interesting to note, and perhaps significant that in the Wikipedia item on Roger Bacon, that he, Roger Bacon expanded on ideas first proposed by Greek philosopher, Aristotle more than a thousand years earlier, and on the work of Alhazan, a Muslim, who did a great deal of work on optics about 500 years before Roger Bacon proposed testing every hypothesis by experimentation. It is possible that Alhazan did propose something similar, but no Arab science developed out of it. It was completely forgotten and played no part in the “golden age of Islam“, which saw tremendous strides made in mathematics. They brought the concept of zero from India, which is of immense impor-tance, they also gave us Arab numerals. (To understand the significance of this, try doing long division in Roman numerals.) They also gave us algebra, but they did not develop a scientific culture. In Islam there was not, and still


is not, an incentive to understand the workings of the mind of Allah.

With respect to Aristotle, if he ever proposed the sci-entific method, or anything like it prior to Roger Bacon he failed to act on it. Aristotle said that if two different weights were dropped from the same height at the same time the heaviest would hit the ground first. Galileo, about a thousand years later, tested this hypothesis by dropping two different weights from the tower of Pisa. They hit the ground at the same time. Aristotle was wrong. The Greeks were excellent mathematicians, they knew the earth was round and they had calculated its diameter, but they did not do science.

It is true that the Roman Catholic Church had its differ-ences with Galileo, but this was at a time when the Catholic church was having problems with maintaining its authority over Christendom, and Galileo’s house arrest was more to do with the politics of the day than with Christianity. (the church had no problem with Copernicus who sometime previously had said that all the planets revolved around the sun and that the earth was one of those planets. Coperni-cus was, however quite careful in the way he promoted his ideas.

Why all this is interesting and perhaps significant is the fact that Wikipedia can be edited by anyone. Perhaps some-one who has an antipathy to Christianity, a postmodernist SIIDD for example, has decided that it would be intolera-ble for Christianity to take credit for anything, let alone the fostering of science, and therefore added in the bit about the credit really belonging to Aristotle and Alhazan.


A call to action

It has been fairly well established that postmodernism is in conflict with Christianity. Whether or not that con-

flict is in the shape of mortal combat, it seems certain that postmodernism is, in fact, trying to bring about a revolu-tion in the culture of western civilisation. It may, or may not succeed, but it would be folly to ignore it. (Unless, of course, if it is deemed that western civilisation is so degen-erate that it is not worth saving).

If we decide that what we have is better than what the postmodernists want us to have then we really ought to organise a resistance to it (postmodernism, that is). Any resistance right now is intermittent and scattered. It is cer-tainly not organised.

It is likely to take a great deal of effort. It is well en-trenched in the universities, and in the media. It is either entrenched in government or politicians are paralysed with fear of it.

This fear is not irrational. In the old days politicians would go about the country telling voters what they thought was good for the country, or what was bad for the country and try to convince their voters that the politicians’ solution was the right one. However, since the introduction of the public opinion poll politicians have taken to tell-ing their voters what the public opinion polls tell them the public want to hear, hoping that they got the message right and that they will get the support they need on election day.

Since public opinion is formed to a large extent by the media, the result was that the polls mostly repeated what the media had told the voters. Then the politicians repeated


it back to the voters. The development of public opinion polls gave the media a huge amount of power.

But, as mentioned elsewhere in this little book, the media collectively swallowed the postmodernist message that there is no objective truth, and have also come to the collective conclusion that it is impossible to be objective so it is not necessary to try.

Given this, it is easy to understand why politicians live in mortal fear of the media.

(This is of more than incidental importance. Our demo-cratic system relies on the existence of a free and, more or less objective, press. By buying into the postmodernist phi-losophy, reporters have succeeded in cutting off democracy at the knees. However, the situation is not as hopeless as it seems. The pubic is becoming more and more aware of the lack of reliability of political commentary in the media. Newspaper circulation is dropping, many are being forced to discontinue printing and are switching to on-line editions on their way out of existence altogether. They need to be replaced. Hopefully a new, objective, truthful generation of reporters will emerge, but that will require the replacement of undergraduate postmodern propaganda in the universi-ties. As indicated earlier, that is underway.

The fact that postmodernists are so numerous and so well entrenched requires that opposition to it be mounted with a considerable force of numbers. Those numbers can only come from Christians and those who accept that our Judeo-Christian Philosophy has served us well and is worth defending.

The attack on postmodernism has to recognise two things. The first is to choose the battlefield and not leave


that to the opposition. The second is to choose tactics that are within the power and capacity of the people who will be doing the attacking.

Obviously, the choice of battlefield is where the enemy is weakest. There are two outstanding choices; freedom of speech and ridicule. The two are directly related.

Their philosophy is so silly that they cannot tolerate it being openly and publicly challenged. It is also very easy to ridicule.

Openly challenging their opposition to free speech is likely to provoke a violent response which does not fit well with Christianity. However, ridicule is easy, fun and inex-pensive.

Let us recap the basics of postmodernism.It is also called cultural Marxism for a reason. It is yet

another derivative of Marxism, but where previous phi-losophies of the ideology, before and after Marx, dealt with equality of status, then of income, the new version deals with equality of access to power. Those without access to power are, by definition, victims. Social Justice Warriors feel it their job to rid the world of this injustice. The fact is that they cannot do it unless they exercise more power than the victims and thus are not equal to the victims they claim to be helping. Because of their SIIDD affliction they are un-able to recognise the oxymoron that is obvious to everyone else.

Another tenet of the postmodern philosophy is that, since there are many ways of looking at an issue, and that all of them are of equal value, there can be no objective truth. The same is claimed for culture. All cultures are of equal value and it is somehow immoral to prefer your own


culture to that of someone else. Those cultures can ap-ply to diet, music, sexual orientation, religion, or politics. Presumably postmodernism is no better or worse than anything else. What they have created is, in fact an infin-ity of oxymorons. They are in much worse shape than the revolutionaries that stormed the bastille, who only had a three-way oxymoron to deal with.

Postmodernists have a myriad of oxymorons that deal only with gender. There are not only men and women, but there are men that think they are women, and women that think they are men, in more or lesser degree. There are, in postmodernism an infinite number of sexes. There are, no doubt, readers who cannot believe that anyone, no matter how psychologically misguided, would believe any of this nonsense, but if so, why the huge attention paid to the pro-vision of cross gender washrooms in public places, and the need for some men to be free to use women’s washrooms because of who they think they are, and vice versa. We are instructed that it would hurt the feelings of the cross-gen-der people, and we must not do that because that would be exercising illegitimate power over the cross-gendered, and that just is not acceptable under the new, postmodern phi-losophy. Hopefully the reader has not become lost trying to make sense of this nonsense. Don’t worry. It only makes sense to sufferers of SIIDDs. The problem is there are so many of them. They are everywhere.

One example will suffice to show both the nature and the extent of the problem. It will also provide an example of how ridicule can be used as a weapon against the post-modernist.

Recently a man in England was convicted of rape and


was sent to jail. Nothing new there. But the convicted rap-ist declared that he was not a man, but a woman.

Tilt.If this rapist thought he was a woman, then what count-

ed was that he thought he was a woman. That has to be accepted. To think otherwise might hurt his feelings. Given that he had to be treated as a woman and that he, (now she), had been sentenced to prison, he, of course, had to be sent to a woman’s prison. (This is a true story).

We would never have heard any more of this story if the prisoner had not, once inside the women’s prison, chosen to rape one of the inmates. Some members of the media thought that was a good story and we got to hear about it. He/she was immediately transferred to a male prison. (In September 2018), Presumably His/her feelings were less important that the possible embarrassment to the cabinet minister responsible for Her Majesty’s prisons (the UK has recently opened its first trans-gender prison).

Here is where its usefulness as a weapon comes in. When we get that story, we post it on our Facebook page and ask our friends to forward it to their friends. (With an LOL at the end of it.) With any luck it will go viral.

There are numerous stories like that one. Let us not be too sensitive of the feelings of our postmodernist oppres-sors. Get these stories out there.

There are, in the English-speaking world, about half a billion people of whom roughly 50% are nominally Chris-tian. Let us suppose that one in a million of them, about 250 people, decide that they will take up the cause with enthusiasm, and every morning surf the web for the funni-est example of political correctness they can find, then post


it on face book. Also suppose that one in a thousand join the network, that’s 250,000. If the system works the way it should, that ridiculous example of political correctness will be on close to 250,000 face book pages by the end of the next day. If that political correctness item appeared in the New York times, then the editor may find that the next day several thousand people have e-mailed him telling him that, if he is wondering why his readership is dropping by 50,000 a year, to check out that column in his newspaper.

It could work very well. It could get rid of the contagion left behind by the universities before they priced them-selves out of the market.

Remember! These twenty-first century SIIDDs have the potential to do as much damage as those of an earlier generation did in the twentieth century.

But it may not be necessary to do very much organising at all.

Western Civilisation consists of about a billion people. (Its technology is rapidly spreading throughout the whole world, but technology is not the same thing as civilisation).

Let us consider Western Civilisation as a living organ-ism with a billion cells. It has been invaded by a pathogen, postmodernism, which has contaminated some of its cells with a condition we have called SIIDDs. Some of these are relatively harmless, some have developed into a particularly virulent strain which could prove lethal.

Like the cholera referred to earlier we have diagnosed the condition – postmodernism -and have located the source of contagion, (the pump in the first case, the uni-versities in the second), and we have found a means of preventing the spreading of the contagion, (removing the


pump handle in the first, YouTube in the second).It only remains to rid our civilisation of the remaining

infected cells.To take the metaphor of the infected organism a little

further, we need to develop antibodies to these pathogens.The problem has suddenly become a whole lot simpler.We don’t have to cure our billion cells of the disease at

all. It is an overwhelming task for any individual and un-necessary. Instead we just need one antibody to tackle one pathogen at a time. No one has to organise all the antibod-ies to act all at once. One antibody confronts one pathogen at a time and stops it reproducing. The weapon is ridicule. The pathogen withers when confronted with ridicule, especially if caught alone without the support of other pathogens. It loses its self-confidence and is no longer able to spread its contagion.

Once our billion-celled organism realised it had been threatened with a fatal condition it immediately began pro-ducing antibodies. There are many more antibodies than pathogens. Western Civilisation is secure.

Well, not yet. All of you antibodies out there have to make it your business to expose just one pathogen to ridicule, when the job is complete then our own self-confi-dence will return.

Then and only then will Western Civilisation be secure.It remains to be seen weather the antibodies will develop

fast enough to overcome the pathogens before they do their lethal damage. It also remains to be seen whether or not we care enough to abort this suicide attempt in time. Maybe the damage is already lethal. Time will tell.

If our civilisation does collapse it will be academic


whether or not Toynbee was right or not and academic if it was murdered by the postmodernists or committed suicide by letting them do it.

The cause of the collapse of Western Civilisation may be debated by academics of future civilisations. The academ-ics that survive the collapse of this civilisation will not be very much interested. They will have other things to think about, but among those things will not be anything to do with equality of access to power.


AFTERWORD

The reader may have noticed that four words normally found extensively in this type of work are hardly used

at all in this book. Those words are right, left, progressive and reactionary. They are all value-laden words and they all mean different things for different people. They may be very useful in terms of rhetoric or propaganda but are not very useful as a means of communicating anything else. That is especially true of the first two if they are qualified by the word far, as in far right and far left. To someone on the far left everything else is far right. The converse is also true.

Since the extremes on both the left and right are inflicted with the same psychological disorder I have decided to forgo the use of the terms left and right and identify them all as SIIDDs

There are similar problems with the words progressive and reactionary “progressive” usually comes with positive connotations and “reactionary” with negative connotations, but it depends what you are progressing towards. Lem-mings are progressive. They are always going forward.

Below is a piece I published in a Manitoba Community newspaper about thirty years ago (About the time when the term “going forward” was coming into general use). It’s about a lemming called Charlie.

Charlie was a progressive. He prided himself on being in the vanguard of every progressive movement. Today was no exception.


He and his fellow lemmings were on the move, all of them going in the same direction. All of them mumbling to themselves “Going forward… Going forward” Charlie was out in front – way out in front, where he always liked to be. He couldn’t see very far ahead, but that didn’t worry him, when you’re a lemming even a small hill looks like the horizon.

But this time something was different. There really was nothing ahead. He stopped just in time, just before he went tumbling over a cliff edge. Just before he smashed himself to pieces on the rocks below, or drowned in the surf crash-ing onto the rocks.

Then he remembered all his fellow lemmings rushing towards their doom. He ran back as fast as his little legs could carry him. (That is not strictly true, lemmings don’t really run, their legs are too short, they just sort of scrabble quickly).

He soon got back to the others. He found a small mound, climbed to the top, got up on his little hind legs to make himself as tall as possible. He put his front paws out with his palms towards the rushing lemmings.

“Stop.” He cried. “There’s a cliff, and rocks and huge waves and things.” He panicked. He could not think of the right words.

But whatever words he used, would not have made any difference. No one was listening. “Going forward… going forward… going forward.” they mumbled.

Charlie saw his friend Jack scrabbling towards him. “stop Jack.” He pleaded. You’re going straight for the edge of a cliff. You’ll all drown or get smashed to pieces on the rocks.”


Oh, come on Charlie “. said Jack. “How can you be so reactionary - You of all people.” He rushed past. Charlie saw another friend. “Mary” he called. “Mary” but it was too late.

Another lemming knocked him off his little mound. He tumbled over, tried to get up, again he tried to warn them, but he was knocked over again. He found himself tumbling over and over.

Then nothing.He had been swept over the cliff. “Nooooo!” he

screamed. He was lucky, he thought. He hit the sea and not the rocks, but he hit the sea hard enough to knock the wind out of him. He went under, but came up soon enough to take a great gasping lungful of air. But at that precise mo-ment another lemming hit him from above and sent him under, instead of air he got a lung full of seawater. He sank to the bottom.

That is why I have not used the words progressive and reactionary. What it means depends on where you’re com-ing from. Charlie was both progressive and reactionary on the same day.





Set to Self Destruct!The title sounds like science fiction, but it is not fic-tion. The pathogen is Postmodernism and the author claims it is a threat to the Judeo-Christian value sys-tem that made Western Civilisation possible. It not only aims to destroy the foundation of the greatest civilisation ever, but will, if not checked, destroy al-most every structure that made it possible.

Charles Norman is a retired journalist living with his wife Helen on Vancou-ver Island off the west coast of Cana-da. They have three children and six grand children. He was born in Eng-land, lived in London during the Blitz, was educated at East Ham Grammar School and East Ham Technical col-

lege, and served for two years in the Royal Air Force Coastal Command. He emigrated to Canada in 1960 where he followed two careers, first in engineering, then in journalism.

Date post:	23-Apr-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	6 times
Download:	0 times

SET TO SELF DESTRUCT - WordPress.com · Set to self Destruct 3 In the first half of the twentieth...

Documents