Thursday, 23 March 2017

Western Man's cultural practice of mass murdering Muslims abroad and complaining about Muslim immigration and terrorism at home

This video only complains about Muslims and their propensity to terrorism, without once considering the role of UK foreign policy in provoking Muslim terrorism. So much easier to point to Muslims who are visibly different than to trouble one's pretty head about bad UK foreign policy, is it not? Demanding the mass expulsion of Muslims and the banning of Islam in the West is a much more attractive option than wondering where UK foreign policy might have gone wrong over the past century.

What year was the Brighton bomb?

What year was the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Do you think Muslim terrorists are better at putting two and two together than shit for brains MPs sitting in Parliament as representatives of the idiocracy?

It would appear Islamophobic Western Man considers the neocon policy of bombing and invading Muslim countries as an expression of Western masculinity.

The Military Industrial Complex of the Western Man has the perfect modus operandi: keep invading Muslim countries and keep allowing Muslim immigration.

Allowing Muslim immigration while preventing people from complaining about immigration and giving Muslims special status causes Muslims to be hated, creating the desire in beta male cannon fodder to bomb and invade Muslim countries, which is brilliantly self-perpetuating.

Creating a fear of Muslims in the West also allows the state to pass ever more repressive laws to justify spying on everyone, another beneficial side effect for the intelligence community who are part of the deep state.

It cannot be healthy or decent to express your masculinity in enabling, facilitating and committing mass homicide, can it? This is after all what serial killers do.

Part of the white man's cultural identity is the belief he has the right to mass murder Muslims globally with impunity from retaliation.

When he suffers retaliation in the form terrorism in his own country, the degenerate Western matriarchy calls for the observation of pointless rituals of a minute's silence and candlelit vigils, clearly designed to generate emotion and to suppress thought so its victims never think to question Western foreign policy or their government's immigration policy, both designed to prop up the stinking degenerate matriarchy of parasitical female voters and their spawn, who are voracious clients of the welfare state.

Why does the white man feel he has to mass murder Muslims abroad as a cultural practice? Because at home he is a pussywhipped mangina whose social status is below that of a fornicating slut or Slut Single Mother with variously fathered feral bastards who live off his labour and his taxes whom he doesn't even get to fuck. 

Simon Sheppard on How Feminism Caused Two World Wars
"We should ask, and seek a satisfactory answer to the question: Was it a coincidence that the British government capitulated to women at precisely the same moment in history that it directed a blood feud of a savagery unknown for centuries? Extraordinary lengths were taken to prevail in the First World War, and extraordinary measures were taken rather than accede to the German and American peace overtures which were made, especially during December 1916."

"It is generally acknowledged that the First World War directly led to the Second."

"A man who has lost control at home can seek to dominate elsewhere."

"The desire to dominate and subdue women, a natural male instinct with sound evolutionary origins, was expressed another way. Germany was subjugated instead. Moreover the British government had itself become feminized, choosing as its adversary one more masculine than itself, the sort of enemy the female would choose. By attacking a more masculine opponent, males were serving the female interest."

"A nation, like a man, that is secure in itself and in its masculine capacity to control does not wish to cruelly persecute a vanquished foe. This took place after both world wars."

'... feminization played a part in the instigation and unprecedented magnitude of violence of the subsequent two world wars. One cannot help but wonder at the carnage and suffering which might have been avoided had British bobbies, on facing organized suffragette rebellion in the years around 1910, simply been told to “roll up their sleeves.” '

Why doesn't Western Man stop waging war on Muslims abroad?

Why does he continue to allow Muslim immigration into his country while he wages war against Muslims abroad? It makes no sense, but then it makes no sense for men to let irresponsible and promiscuous women have the vote and most women in the West are irresponsible and promiscuous, do not have legitimate children, are not good wives and badly parent what children they manage to have leading to a shortage of employably literate and numerate citizens, leading to a labour shortage, leading to an insatiable demand for cheaper and more willing immigrant labour.

Why does this deep-seated and long-standing problem remain addressed? Because politicians are not capable of planning beyond the next election.

How should it be addressed? My proposals to abolish multi-party democracy, abolish the welfare state, repeal pro-feminist legislation and impose a one-party Secular Koranist theocracy capable of promoting social conservatism and the long term national interest will be unlikely to get any publicity from the corrupt liberal media more in the business of suppressing news than reporting it.

It is impossible to get an answer from a patient who is in a catatonic state.

Is this patient's response analogous to that of the media - being able to hold an unnatural position for a surprisingly long time? 1:36 Watch out in particular for waxy flexibility, sustained abnormal position, opposition, resistance to movement, negativism including aversion

This is what the male politician secretly thinks about himself, his career and the entire political process that he wastes his life engaging in, because he won't say what needs to be said about feminism and Western foreign policy.

New President, same old neocon US foreign policy being pursued by NATO members/US vassal states

Western Man is simply in a state of neurotic suspension, on the one hand compelled to do the same thing again and again because that is what he has been doing ever he can remember, and on the other fearing the consequences when he wakes up to admit that he has been in error for God knows how long and for how many generations for allowing indiscriminate universal suffrage, tolerating widespread bastardy and allowing his addiction to extramarital sex and cheap foreign labour to go unaddressed.

How Claire Khaw would have answered the Moral Maze questions David Conway was asked on Nationalism


How I would have answered the questions David Conway was asked

Is nationalism, justified, desirable because we simply cannot identify with shared mutual responsibilities which make sacrifices for the world at large?

Charity begins at home. The nation is the most powerful group we can join that is small enough to care but big enough to matter. God if He exists divided us into nations the way schools divide pupils into houses, to promote competition for the advancement of civilisation.

Economic integration, democracy, national self-determination. Out of this we can have two, but we can't have three. Do you think that's true? 

What do you mean by economic integration? If you are nationalist, you would of course choose national self-determination.Why would I choose this? I refer you to my previous answer. The only antidote to globalisation is nationalism, obviously. Globalisation is about running the world as if it were under one government. This means running the world under the principles of transnational progressivism which means uncontrolled and unlimited immigration under the principles of neoconservatism and neoliberalism.

Do you think there is a fundamental tension between nationalism and multiculturalism?

Not really, if there is a morally defensible dominant culture. Nationalists accept the necessity of a dominant culture, which understandably makes minorities nervous. They must however remember that they are a minority and if they don't like it under the dominant culture, they will have to find alternative arrangements. The question that falls to be asked is what our dominant culture is and whether it is morally defensible. Then the next question to be asked is what is morally defensible. Obviously, any dominant culture that does not protect the marriage and the family is not morally defensible.

Everything about feminism undermines marriage and the patriarchy.

All advanced civilisations are patriarchies, and all declining and primitive societies are matriarchies. 

It is the Abrahamic faiths which promote patriarchal moral values and therefore the only values that are morally defensible are in fact patriarchal moral values.

What is the purpose of morality?

The promotion of group solidarity to promote the strength and cohesion of the group.

How do you know when there is group solidarity and social cohesion?

When the laws of God are obeyed, in particular the laws contained in the Ten Commandments, thereby creating greater co-operation to facilitate imperial expansion.  

How can you tell if the laws of God are being obeyed?

When you have a low crime rate in a society where most of its members are not bastards, divorced, Slut Single Mothers or Morally Compromised Slut Fuckers incapable of uncompromisingly supporting marriage. 

How can you make your society more socially cohesive?

By imposing a one-party theocracy, obviously.

New President, same old neocon US foreign policy being pursued by NATO members/US vassal states

How Feminism Led to Two World Wars

We should ask, and seek a satisfactory answer to the question: Was it a coincidence that the British government capitulated to women at precisely the same moment in history that it directed a blood feud of a savagery unknown for centuries? Extraordinary lengths were taken to prevail in the First World War, and extraordinary measures were taken rather than accede to the German and American peace overtures which were made, especially during December 1916.

It is generally acknowledged that the First World War directly led to the Second.
A man who has lost control at home can seek to dominate elsewhere.
The desire to dominate and subdue women, a natural male instinct with sound evolutionary origins, was expressed another way. Germany was subjugated instead. Moreover the British government had itself become feminized, choosing as its adversary one more masculine than itself, the sort of enemy the female would choose. By attacking a more masculine opponent, males were serving the female interest. 
 A nation, like a man, that is secure in itself and in its masculine capacity to control does not wish to cruelly persecute a vanquished foe. This took place after both world wars.
... feminization played a part in the instigation and unprecedented magnitude of violence of the subsequent two world wars. One cannot help but wonder at the carnage and suffering which might have been avoided had British bobbies, on facing organized suffragette rebellion in the years around 1910, simply been told to “roll up their sleeves.”

9/11 was used by the US government to launch wars that have destroyed in whole or part seven countries, killing millions of peoples and producing millions of refugees. 9/11 was also used to create an American police state, which is a far greater threat to freedom and democracy than Muslim terrorism.

my condolences to you and the United Kingdom at this shocking time
They were bound to get round to us sooner or later. Interesting, isn't it, that neocon policies just carry on no matter which President is in power, no matter what the presidential candidate says about ending war? It is like US foreign policy is nothing to do with POTUS. Trump is just not saying anything about foreign policy like he is not saying anything about the weather in Timbuktu, because it is nothing to do with him. What a farce of a political system democracy is. No one's in charge, everyone's doing their own thing, no one has any idea where the buck has now been passed to, until it goes bang ... 

The deep state probably threatened to murder Trump and his entire family if he didn't toe the neocon line.

What is the point of a "democracy" like this?

"Democracy" just means public ignorance and indifference to Western foreign policy and hatred of Muslims and immigrants while refusing to challenge feminism.

The CIA-controlled European media ... 

Tuesday, 21 March 2017

David Goodhart traduced by The Guardian's Jonathan Shainin who disapproves of Road to Somewhere

It shocked me to read of David Goodhart apparently confused with me. While I am generally known to be a horror known for upsetting libtards through the use of truth and logic, David Goodhart is politeness and charm personified. I also look nothing like heartthrob Colin Firth.

Is this Colin Firth?

Is this David Goodhart?

Apparently, Jonathan Shainin and others of his ilk do not believe that white people have the right to national self-determination, though for some reason other races do, which is a bit racist, don't you think?

Why would the dominant race of any nation passively accede to allowing so many other races into their country in the name of being non-racist until they are no longer the dominant race, just because middle class feminazis in the Labour Party insist they must do so?

Why would any group voluntarily agree to lose status and be overwhelmed by other groups when they can easily prevent it by eradicating feminism and socialism? It is truly a mystery.

As I keep saying to anyone who will listen, the slut and socialist are the eternal enemies of society and civilisation.

Sunday, 19 March 2017

Why the Koran is such a clever book

The Koran is such a clever book that it doesn't forbid imperial wars that you win, only aggressive imperial wars that you lose.

Koranic principles of warfare only allow defensive wars which obviously would have prevented the two crazy World Wars that ended European hegemony. Why did Britain enter WW1? To protect Belgian neutrality. Britain's Liberal Prime Minister Asquith only entered it thinking it would be a short successful war after which the boys would be home for the Christmas of 1914 so he could win the subsequently cancelled election of 1915.

The priapic PM who wrote love letters to his mistress as he sent a generation off to die in the trenches

Poppy Mania Day prevents any rational and impartial analysis of the insanity of UK foreign policy for the past 100 years

Imagine! To lose your world empire over a stupid election because of a lecher of a Liberal Prime Minister, henpecked by his wife and writing love letters to this mistress after the war had started!

Oh yes, and multi-party democracy is obviously wrong because it warns us against dividing our national ideology into sects and rejoicing in our own doctrines such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism etc which are now indistinguishable from each other in terms of policy except in hating Donald Trump.

The Koran also says slave girls are part of war booty but you must marry them if you want to have sex with them and must have no more than four wives. While they are allowed to be prostitutes to earn their manumission, you must not compel enough, which is fair enough.

This does suggest that the Confederate South should have won the American Civil War because slavery is tolerated by the Koran. If that were so, America would not have entered WW2 because it would just not have been united or powerful enough to take over from the empires of the Europeans after the they destroyed themselves in two World Wars ignoring the Koranic rules of warfare.

This of course also means that the Yanks would not have nuked the Japanese twice, which is also against the Koranic principles of warfare, by the way.

God rewards those who obey His laws, and punishes those that do not, as we are now seeing from the imminent collapse of the West.

Would a quick collapse be better than a slow collapse? There would be less suffering and bloodshed, I imagine.

Anyone legally trained would know the superiority of the Koran compared to the Bible. God if He exists is the best legal draughtsman of all. A good legal draughtsman states the terms of the contract clearly and has the foresight to anticipate the situations when questions could arise over the validity of the terms.

Why the Koran does not forbid bestiality

The Koran does not explicitly forbid men from having sex with animals because God in His wisdom assumed women wouldn't want to marry men known for having sex with animals.

The Koran forbids sexual relations between father and daughter but the Bible does not

One of the most notable features of all the lists is that sexual activity between a man and his own daughter is not explicitly forbidden. Although the first relation mentioned after the Levitical prohibition of sex with "near kin" names that of "thy father",[10] it must be taken into account that the Hebrew original text only addresses male Jews with regard to their female relatives.[11] The talmud argues that the absence is because the prohibition was obvious, especially given the proscription against a relationship with a granddaughter,[12] although some biblical scholars have instead proposed that it was originally in the list, but was then accidentally left out from the copy on which modern versions of the text ultimately depend, due to a mistake by the scribe.[13] The second list in the Holiness code noticeably differs from the first by not including the closer relatives, and it might be assumed that obviousness is the explanation here as well.[1] One might argue that the explicit prohibition against engaging in sexual activity with a woman as well as with her daughter,[14] implicitly forbids sexual activity between a man and his daughter. However, the rationale might suggest otherwise (the original text is unclear here), since it mentions only that "they" (i.e., the woman and the daughter) are related.[15] John Calvin did not consider the father-daughter-relation to be explicitly forbidden by the bible, but regarded it as immoral nevertheless.[16]

The Bible does guarantee religious tolerance and freedom of worship and belief

By how many years did the Koran precede the First Amendment?

The Koran is conceptually superior to the Bible

The Koran is conceptually superior to the Bible, because it is said to be the directly transcribed Word of God revealed over a period of 23 years by the same prophet while the Bible is only hearsay evidence from many sources over many many many centuries.

The Bible does not propose a flat rate income tax of 20%

The Bible does not propose a flat rate income tax of 20% nor does it give you the constitutional right not to be pay more than a flat rate income tax of 20%, does it?

While the Bible is silent on divorce, the Koran devotes an entire chapter to it.

Because Muslims treat marriage as a contract, the state supporting marriage in these terms allows it to implicitly abolish no fault divorce, because this means divorce will only be allowed if the terms and conditions of the marriage contract are breached by the party at fault.

Finally, sluts will be shamed by - the only way to curtail the power of sluts in the matriarchy.

Only a one-party theocracy governed under the principles of Secular Koranism can effectively overthrow the matriarchy and stop it from re-establishing itself again.

Thursday, 16 March 2017

CrossTalk: What's Left?

 John Laughland:

There is much too much talk about the Far Right and the Extreme Right and too much head-scratching the rise of parties like the National Front in France and the Freedom Party in the Netherlands. What has happened in fact is not that these parties have risen, it's instead that the centre of gravity across Western Europe has shifted inexorably to the left. When I say the left, I'm not referring to old style socialism which indeed has been abandoned. I am referring instead to the body of liberal left-wing opinion which believes in the end of the nation state, which believes in progress and progressivism and so on and which is daily fighting and winning new battles on completely unexpected things like transgender and gay marriage and all the rest of it. The centre of gravity having moved to the left and the political class having become increasingly dominated not by any relationship to reality, but increasingly by ideology, yes, voters feel alienated and they feel alienated precisely because of this ideology which dominates and which means that political decisions are taken not with respect to reality, not with any desire to influence reality or to react to it, but instead within the self-referential terms of the ideology of left liberalism. So, political decisions are taken to justify even on a symbolic level the ideology to which these people apply. I have increasingly said that politicians, including the famous Brussels bureaucrats, are not politicians or bureaucrats or technocrats, they are instead a kind of clergy engaged in a series of symbolic acts which have meaning for them but which don't have any meaning outside their point of reference and certainly not to an increasing number of voters.

Peter Lavelle:

What we have right now is a crisis of terminology, a crisis of lexicon because you can look at political parties that are hovering around power. They are more interested in power than representation. They are more interested in ideology than the will of the voters. And it is a crisis as to what Conservatism and Liberalism really mean. I really think we have a crisis of lexicon. 

Jeff Deist:

When John mentions clergy, I think that's correct, because I think what we're talking about here is a faith - a faith in neoliberalism that doesn't necessarily match the facts, and I do think that the old left/right paradigms are breaking down. He mentioned Margaret Thatcher stealing votes away from voters. Well, Donald Trump did the same thing in the United States by taking blue collar working class votes from Democrats and at some point we have to ask ourselves a question which is what does that blue collar union truck-driver in a state like New Jersey who likes American football aqnd beer - what does he really have in common with the left wing professor of feminism at Berkeley? What does he have in common with a non-profit ideologue at a place like the Sierra Club? The answer might be not much. So I think we are reaching a point where populism is a healthy thing. When elites become corrupt and when they become corrupt by virtue of their relationship with a state and finance nexus then anti-elitism or populism can be healthy and warranted. 

Peter Lavelle:

You have these elites and they have these party labels on them, but you can look at the elites in both parties particularly the Democratic ones obstructing Trump every step of the way. You have Republicans who are just as obstructionist in many ways as well. They're not representing their party, they're representing their own interests inside this clergy. They are a clergy of ideology and power. 

A lot of people are tired of identity politics, because identity politics doesn't get you a job, it doesn't give you prosperity, it doesn't give you security. It gives small groups of people a good feeling inside - nice and fluffy and warm - but it doesn't make a better society.

John Laughland:

I didn't say voters were moving to the left, I said the political class and the centre of gravity of political debate was moving to the left and voters have stayed where they are, so when we describe the rise of the extreme right, I am implying that the voters have stayed where they are but the politicians have moved to the left leaving the space open for what might wrongly be called the Far Right. 

It is true that the left have abandoned its traditional values and traditional electorate, but the right has as well, and I speaking as a Conservative, I believe very strongly that on balance the left has won battle after battle in the last 25 years since the collapse of state socialism in the Soviet Union and its satellite states in Eastern Europe. The left has not given up its basic ideology of progressivism, revolution, anti-authoritariaism, anti-traditionalism and so on. Instead it has simply transferred itself away from state socialism - so its completely abandoned that aspects of its policy - but it hasn't abandoned any of its underlying ideology of constant revolution and constant progress. Indeed, to the extent that it has adopted the free market and the ideology of globalisation, it has done so only because it sees in those things - as Marx himself incidentally did - an instrument for dismantling structures like the nation and the family. So I see in the last 25 years left and right converging around what is a left liberalism where Conservative values are basically absent or they come out in a mangled and somehow extreme way. A straightforward Conservative party does not exist in Western Europe.

Jeff Deist:

Conservatism Inc is on life support in America. Trump does not represent the resurrection of the GOP. On the contrary, the GOP is dead and buried when it comes to ideas and deservedly so. No one is going to die on a hill for Ryancare. Progressives have shown time and time again they will die on a hill for all kinds of things the American public cares very little about. This is a party that doesn't organise in union halls, it organises in the sociology department of some wretched university somewhere. This is the left in America that has suffered a black eye with Trump, perhaps, but this is a speed bump, not a roadblock. The left in the West controls academia, it controls the media, it controls mainstream religion, it controls corporate boardrooms ... 


Peter Lavelle:

Politics and politicians are supposed to resolve problems, that's what we elected them to do. I don't elect people to moralise and tell me what my values should be and this is the speed bump we've been hitting for decades now. We're not solving problems. We're just told how to think about them and usually not your own problems but some other person's problems.

 Kees Van Der Pijl:

Jacque Chirac was once asked about the power of  politics. Chirac said there was no power. We are the ones who see the trains go by and we make sure the barriers are down on time.Society was developing in a progressive way in the post war period. There was work for people, excellent education and healthcare and so on. From the late 70s that has been dismantled. In that situation, people who call themselves left have not replaced this and instead concentrated on such things as transgender rights. Society has moved right because it is in a state of profound stagnation and crisis.

Peter Lavelle:

Peter that call themselves Conservatives who are not, people who call themselves from the left who are not, they have just created on train wreck after another and this is why people are voting in an angry way. They want some new solutions and what we hear is retreads. 

John Laughland:

Jeff's speed bump metaphor was meant to imply that the election of Trump was a minor obstacle and will not prevent the onward march of the left and Jeff is absolutely right. I very strongly agree with this: to emphasise the degree to which the left dominates the world of the media and the world of culture and so on. We are a hundred years after the Russian Revolution and Lenin thought that the way to state socialism was by controlling the state, but there is far more powerful revolutionary figure whose influence goes way beyond that of Lenin and that is Antonio Gramsci who theorised this idea that indeed that the left to win had to colonise the great institutions: universities, schools and so on and as Andrew Breitbart used to say "Politics is downstream of culture." That's why Jacque Chirac said "Politicians just watch the trains go by or the caravans pass" whichever metaphor you prefer, because politics is downstream of culture. We have observed the Soviet system 25 years ago. What people perhaps forget in watching this spectacular historical event is that Marxism was alive and well in the West in Western universities throughout the entire Cold War period with strong Communist parties, plus there were strong pro-Soviet Communist parties, so you had a vast reserve of people in the West - never mind people in the East who believed in Marxism and left wing politics generally, whereas in the East no one really believed in Marxist ideology including senior Soviet leaders. They didn't believe it any more, they stopped believing in it a long time ago. That was not true of the West, so the Soviet system having collapsed we are now left with the inheritance of these generations of people who have been educated in a broadly Marxist system, and those people, educated as I say, in those universities, those people who were young in the 1960s and who were affected by the other great revolutionary - not Lenin but John Lennon - those people are of course in their 60s, and they have now been governing us for decades. 

Peter Lavelle:

I had the opportunity to live in Poland and Hungary before they joined the European Union and I've lived in Russian for almost 20 years but I told Poles and Hungarians "You think your culture is important and that's your right, but you want to join a club that doesn't care much about your culture and your values and - voila! - we have two countries in the European Union that are criticised severely by the "clergy" - but culture does matter! The political class don't want to respect culture and if you do you're backward, you're primitive, you're old fashioned, but they're wrong and we're right. 

Jeff Deist:

Poland will forever be a renegade for the simple fact that they are a religious country within the EU. This is not allowed or accepted any more and it's interesting when John mentioned this blathering about the Far Right and AfD and Geert Wilders and Marine Le Pen being white noise and nonsense - it is white noise and nonsense because the real authoritarians are in every public school in America, they're in every university in America - the petty people on the left who would control us and gtovern us, who would restrict our speech. There's one thing they're right about and I don't want to call them liberals because I don't think that's a term that's earned, but I will say that the one thing the left is correct about is that Trump and Le Pen and Geert Wilders is that they are reactionaries. This is a reaction. The question is a reaction to what? The answer is a century of progressivism that has never been popular in a pure democratic sense in any Western country. This has always been imposed from the top down and has never arisen from the bottom up, and people don't like it. There's still a pulse, there's still a heartbeat that says I want transgender people to be treated well and to have happy lives but I don't think it is the momentous issue of the day where they go to the bathroom, for God's sake. We've reached a point where left and right doesn't matter and that heartbeat, that pulse does matter. 

Peter Lavelle:

I don't want to give the transgender point more time than it deserves, but that's the point, isn't it? This is what people are told to talk about and think about when the infrastructure of Europe is in decay, when the infrastructure of America is in decay, and we need more space for those issues and I will never stop talking about the need for people to have work and well paid work, because that's where you get dignity in our society and I don't see our political classes addressing those issues. 

Kees Van Der Pijl:

In 2012 Francois Hollande was elected on the promise that he would end austerity. One trip to Berlin was sufficient to forget about that promise and gay marriage was then the compensating factor. It cost him the Muslim vote in France which he had won because of his promises on the economic front. I am of the left and am in a university but in the 1960s our relevance was not because of our brilliant ideas because behind that was a powerful working class which was unionised. Behind that was the Soviet Union which is unrelated but it was there, and now we can have fantastic ideas but there is nothing behind us and that is why we are completely ignored.

Peter Lavelle:

One thing that seems to be prevalent in all of this in the US elections and now Europe is the lack of introspection on what has gone wrong and all you do is blame Russia for it. That is one of the most pathetic reactions to not knowing what to do and not owning up to your own mistakes.

John Laughland:

It just enters psychiatric territory, doesn't it, when every single conceivable evil is projected onto Russia with no evidence whatever. I think that this is a consequence of a more general trend. What I said just now quoting Andrew Breitbart that politics is downstream of culture, I was referring to what I believe to be a left wing political culture in universities, but there is a cultural problem in more general terms. As education has declined, as people have fewer cultural references and fewer external cultural references, as they have fewer religious references, they just don't have the fabric, the intellectual or moral or spiritual fabric to do anything other than what the herd -  the political herd or the political caste - tell them to do. So you have this narrowing of the cultural base and you have an ever increasing series of taboos ...