Culture, politics, science, philosophy.

General manifesto ***** Immigration manifesto
The deep Crisis of the West
Permalinks

Václav Klaus

A president worth listening to

29.08.2009. President Václav Klaus of the Czech Republic is an interesting political thinker. I recommend the following three articles of his:

• Post-Communist Era: Atmosphere of Victory or of Lost Illusions (2002).
• What is Europeism? (2006) .
• Neosocialism Threatens Europe (2009).

HonestThinking comments: I find it particularly encouraging that Klaus speaks out against the European elites' attempt to dismantle the continent's nation states.

Sweden

The destruction of a democracy

23.08.2009. Excerpts from a recent article by Fjordman at Atlas Shrugs (emphasis and hyperlinks in original):

As I have stated in my essay Why Europeans Should Support Israel, the demonization of Israel should be rejected not just because of Israel, but because of Europe. The very same people who are demonizing Israelis are also demonizing native Europeans who resist the Islamization of their lands and the state-sponsored colonization of their countries by alien peoples. The truth is that Israelis defend themselves so that their daughters do not have to suffer rape at the hands of Muslim Jihadists, the way the authorities in Western European countries, and in Sweden in particular, allow to happen every single day. Here are a few relevant quotes from the chapter The Case of Sweden, taken from my book Defeating Eurabia. I suggest that Israelis send some of these quotes to Aftonbladet, Helle Klein and Carl Bildt and challenge them with the information it contains:

The Swedish organization Expo has demonstrated a willingness to “share information” with radical groups of “anti-Fascists” in Antifascistisk Action (AFA). The thugs of AFA in the spring of 2008 destroyed the car of an elderly woman and wrote “nasse“ (Nazi) on top of it. As it turned out, they picked the wrong car. Yet years of such attacks against private citizens have not prompted the authorities to crack down on their activities.

Leading newspaper Aftonbladet has close ideological ties to the Social Democrats, the country’s dominant party for most of the past century. Helle Klein, its political editor-in-chief from 2001 to 2007, during a demonstration organized by Islamic and anti-racist organizations in December 2006 stood in front of a banner which read “A Sweden for all - Stop the Nazi violence“ and held a speech warning against Islamophobia in the media. Klein has voiced sympathy for terrorist organization Hamas in her editorials while warning against the threat posed to world peace by Israeli aggression and the Christian Right in the USA. Hamas is a Fascist organization openly calling for mass murder of Jews. Violent attacks against Jews in Europe in 2008 are to an overwhelming degree caused by Muslim immigration, which is encouraged by the EU and the national political elites. The irony of warning against “Nazi violence” while showing sympathy for an organization that wants to finish what the Nazis started apparently doesn’t strike Ms. Klein.

One of Klein’s fellow columnists at Aftonbladet, the long-time Communist Robert Aschberg, is the publisher of Expo magazine. Leading Expo member Charles Westin in October 2007 published the book Brunt! (“brown,” as in “Fascist”), where he let members of AFA contribute some of their intelligence regarding “right-wing extremists,” among them people associated with the legal party the Sweden Democrats. In addition to Mr. Westin, the book was co-authored by Mats Deland, who is a journalist in Aftonbladet. Why is it considered OK that a representative of one of Scandinavia’s largest newspapers, with ties to the country’s largest political party, thus associates himself openly with an organization known for physically assaulting members of a legal opposition party, even in their private homes?

Before the elections in 2006, the established parties cooperated in boycotting the Sweden Democrats and other “xenophobic” parties. In one of many similar incidents, which extreme Leftists bragged about on the Internet, around 30 members of the SD were attacked during a peaceful, private party outside the town of Växjö. The brave “anti-Fascists” threw tear gas into the building, forcing people outside where they were beaten with iron bars and axes. Open, aggressive and sometimes violent harassment of critics of the country’s immigration policies has been going on for years while the authorities have largely turned a blind eye to the problem. Seemingly encouraged by the silence from the establishment to political violence, extreme Leftists have stepped up their attacks to include mainstream parties. Sweden is witnessing the greatest explosion of street violence in its history, and a woman is raped every two hours. Expo, which is backed by the media and the major parties, has been campaigning against the Sweden Democrats for years. Daniel Poohl from the unelected organization Expo states that it’s “not undemocratic” to deny the SD access to political influence.

According to Jonathan Friedman, an American Jew working in Sweden for years, “no debate about immigration policies is possible, the subject is simply avoided. Sweden has such a close connection between the various powerful groups, politicians, journalists, etc. The political class is closed, isolated.” The elites are worried to see their power slip away and therefore want to silence critics, for instance the Sweden Democrats, a small party opposed to immigration: “It is a completely legal party, they just aren’t allowed to speak.…In reality, the basis of democracy has been completely turned on its head. It is said: ‘Democracy is a certain way of thinking, a specific set of opinions, and if you do not share them, then you aren’t democratic, and then we condemn you and you ought to be eliminated. The People? That is not democratic. We the Elite, we are democracy.’ It is grotesque and it certainly has nothing to do with democracy, more like a kind of moral dictatorship.”

Read the entire article at Atlas Shrugs.

Feminism

Is there anything good about men?

15.08.2009. Excerpts from an invited address by Roy F. Baumeister given at a meeting the American Psychological Association in San Francisco on August 24, 2007:

You’re probably thinking that a talk called “Is there anything good about men” will be a short talk! Recent writings have not had much good to say about men. Titles like Men Are Not Cost Effective speak for themselves. Maureen Dowd’s book was called Are Men Necessary? and although she never gave an explicit answer, anyone reading the book knows her answer was no. Louann Brizendine’s book, The Female Brain, introduces itself by saying, “Men, get ready to experience brain envy.” Imagine a book advertising itself by saying that women will soon be envying the superior male brain!

Nor are these isolated examples. Alice Eagly’s research has compiled mountains of data on the stereotypes people have about men and women, which the researchers summarized as “The WAW effect.” WAW stands for “Women Are Wonderful.” Both men and women hold much more favorable views of women than of men. Almost everybody likes women better than men. I certainly do.

My purpose in this talk is not to try to balance this out by praising men, though along the way I will have various positive things to say about both genders. The question of whether there’s anything good about men is only my point of departure. The tentative title of the book I’m writing is “How culture exploits men,” but even that for me is the lead-in to grand questions about how culture shapes action. In that context, what’s good about men means what men are good for, from the perspective of the system.

Hence this is not about the “battle of the sexes,” and in fact I think one unfortunate legacy of feminism has been the idea that men and women are basically enemies. I shall suggest, instead, that most often men and women have been partners, supporting each other rather than exploiting or manipulating each other.

Nor is this about trying to argue that men should be regarded as victims. I detest the whole idea of competing to be victims. And I’m certainly not denying that culture has exploited women. But rather than seeing culture as patriarchy, which is to say a conspiracy by men to exploit women, I think it’s more accurate to understand culture (e.g., a country, a religion) as an abstract system that competes against rival systems — and that uses both men and women, often in different ways, to advance its cause.

Also I think it’s best to avoid value judgments as much as possible. They have made discussion of gender politics very difficult and sensitive, thereby warping the play of ideas. I have no conclusions to present about what’s good or bad or how the world should change. In fact my own theory is built around tradeoffs, so that whenever there is something good it is tied to something else that is bad, and they balance out.

I don’t want to be on anybody’s side. Gender warriors please go home.

Continue reading the article Is There Anything Good About Men?.

Western Civilization

Can it still be saved?

15.08.2009. I've just been made aware of the book Preserving Western Civilization, which appears to have some interesting chapters. Quoting from the editorial review at Amazon:

American politicians constantly talk about various problems facing our country; however, they typically avoid discussing certain topics that are considered politically incorrect, even though those topics are of great importance. In February 2009 a conference was held near Baltimore in which three of those taboo topics were discussed openly. One of the most taboo topics is that of racial differences in intelligence. Although it is widely understood that American blacks have (on average) much lower IQs than American whites, no nationally prominent American politician ever mentions it. Furthermore, on the rare occasions when a journalist or college professor mentions that fact, he almost always claims that the difference is not caused even in part by genetic factors, but is completely due to differences in environment and upbringing. Scientific studies show that assertion to be false. It is hardly surprising that government policies based on a false premise work out poorly. So far political correctness has prevented an honest discussion of the problem. Another taboo topic concerns the nature of the Islamic threat to our country, and indeed to Western civilization. Our last president kept insisting against all the evidence that Islam is basically a religion of peace, and large numbers of Americans have been eager to believe that. Alas, Islam is most emphatically not a religion of peace, but rather an expansionist and militaristic ideology that has already subdued many other peoples. The West cannot hope to defend itself from the Islamic threat if it refuses to face the reality of the nature of Islam. The third broad topic discussed at the conference concerned the problems that are caused by large-scale immigration of Hispanics (particularly Mexicans) into the United States. Although many American citizens are aware of the problem, very few prominent politicians will discuss the matter honestly (perhaps because people who do discuss it are likely to be accused of racism ). The conference on Preserving Western Civilization was held February 6th 8th near the Baltimore-Washington International Airport. Ten well-known speakers addressed the audience, each one discussing a topic on which he or she had special knowledge and expertise, and each freely answered questions from the audience following his or her talk. Since the attendees almost universally felt that the conference was a great success, it was decided to collect and publish the talks given there. This book is the result. Michael H. Hart, editor March 2009

For a critical review of the conference on which the chapters of this book is built, see article in Searchlight Magazine.

France

Calculating the real immigration figures

10.08.2009. Excerpts from an article by Tiberge at The Brussels Journal (emphasis added):

So in 2060 we will have a France of 108 million inhabitants, composed of 55 million persons (24 + 31) belonging to black, Arab and Asian ethnicities and 53 million Europeans. Yes, 2060 may appear far off, but well before this date Europeans under the age of 40 will be a minority in relation to the Third Worlders of the same age group.

These results belie the affirmations of those who claim France is not a country of massive immigration. In fact, our "thought police" now acknowledge that the face of France is going to be transformed very soon and adhere, in substance, to the following line: "You were deceived for thirty years with bogus statistics. Now, the situation is irreversible. In the name of anti-racism and obligatory 'métissage', you ought to be happy to have become a minority in your own country!"

Now imagine that the Algerian government announces that soon Europeans will be in the majority in Algeria! There would be a general insurrection. That means that this "post racial" doctrine, which claims to be universal, only applies in reality to the Western populations who are told to dissolve themselves as rapidly as possible. Alas, the majority of Frenchmen are resigned to this evolution that seems inevitable.

HonestThinking comments: I cannot comment on the specific figures for France, but would not be surprised if the authorities have indeed provided the French with bogus statistics and/or misleading demographic projections. Similar things have happened in the UK and Norway, and probably other European countries as well.

Jews and the West

Is it true that the Jews are conspiring to destroy the West?

07.08.2009. If you think so, please read Critique of the Culture of Kevin MacDonald by Takuan Seiyo. His article concludes as follows (boldface emphasis added, hyperlinks in original):

Extreme Jewish leftism in the past had partial motivations of resentment and vengeance toward the social classes that had harmed and despised Jews. It represented as well class interests, as most Jews were poor and deprived of opportunity. But since the 1950s, it’s a different story.

Liberalism, which is the true religion of most Jews, is the antithesis of an evolutionary mechanism for survival and dominance. Rather, it’s the application of various political and economic means to establish “peace, social justice and universal brotherhood” on earth, fueled by the best intentions and by the worst disregard for how reality works. Contrary to MacDonald, the Jewish project is not to evolutionize the Israelite but to immanentize the eschaton.

Reality never fails to punish those who snub her, including whole societies built on liberal delusions. The Jewish weight applied on the side of open borders and amnesty, affirmative action and endless coddling of undeserving minorities, legal activism, pacifism and world government, punitive taxation and income redistribution, is harmful, first and foremost, to the Jews themselves, though the rest of us will succumb after the coal mine canaries.

It’s Jews whose influence will wane in direct proportion to the ratio of non-whites and Muslims in the American population and political elite. It’s Israel that will lose out the more American politicians distance themselves from Israel for the sake of the colored plurality’s votes. It’s Jewish money that’s being confiscated through high taxes and redistributed to people who don’t like Jews. It’s Jewish university applicants who are rejected for the sake of admitting black and brown applicants with two-thirds the IQ and two-thirtieths the future potential. It’s Jewish lives and property that are increasingly in jeopardy due to the Jewish-endorsed influx of criminal illegal aliens, Jewish “anti-racist” judicial activism, and the Jews’ antipathy to the Second Amendment and to freedom over equality.

Chandra Levy, murdered by an illegal alien from El Salvador in 2001, was Jewish. Adrienne Levine, aka Adrienne Shelly, the actress who was murdered by an illegal alien from Ecuador in 2006, was Jewish. David Rosenbaum, a veteran journalist who was beaten with a metal pipe by black robbers in 2006 and died from his injuries due to the incompetence of Washington’s minority-stuffed public services, was Jewish. Alan Senitt, who had his throat slashed and his companion sexually assaulted by black recidivist criminals in 2006, was Jewish. Jewish liberal activist too.

It was an Egyptian immigrant who shot up the El-Al Airlines terminal in Los Angeles in 2002. It was a Pakistani immigrant who shot up the Seattle Jewish Federation in 2006. It was an Arab neighbor who cut the throat of and mutilated Sébastien Selam, a 23-year old Jewish DJ in Paris, in 2003. It was a gang of African immigrants who kidnapped, tortured and killed the 23-year-old and Jewish Ilan Halimi in a Paris suburb, in 2006. It was the British-born son of Pakistani immigrants, Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh, who decapitated Daniel Pearl in 2002.

Yet the Jewish love affair with Babel through unrestricted immigration continues, in the US just as in Europe. And by misinterpreting as evolutionary clawing the grand and suicidal delusion, the lunacy that lies beneath the harmful political activism of Jews, MacDonald misses its connection to the harmful political activism of Christians as well.

The American Roman Catholic Church engages in a Hispanization scheme on a scale undreamed of by the most committed apparatchiks of the Hispanic section of ADL — ostensibly an organization existing to combat anti-Semitic defamation. The scale of the subversion in just one diocese, Cardinal Mahony’s Los Angeles, may be glimpsed here and here. It’s no different in any other American city, e.g. Chicago or Washington. And the activism is not just on immigration issues, what with Catholic phenomena such as Dorothy Day’s Catholic Worker Movement or Father Pfleger’s antics in Chicago.

To walk into a random Protestant church in an American city — an exercise I have performed a hundred times — is to walk into a branch office of the Swedish Social Democratic Party — a name that serves as a garnish of parsley on top of a thick Socialist slab slathered with a cultural-Marxist sauce. The notices on the bulletin board, the literature on display, the sermons — I am not aware of anything in Eastern Europe during the height of communist rule that was so suicidally nation-dissolving, white-ethny demonizing, and Western heritage destroying

And it’s not only at the base of the pyramid, or on its left side. To read George W. Bush’s (or John McCain’s) paeans to the Hispanization of the United States, his homilies to Hispanic family values, his speeches on the merits of immigration amnesty and the related home downpayment amnesty, is to experience nausea. It’s not coincidental that Bush is himself a committed Christian, and his Big Government Proposition-Nation ideology was poured into templates prepared by equally deluded Christian hands like Michael Gerson.

It’s useful and legitimate to isolate Jewish leftism and cultural Marxism, to assemble relevant facts and discuss their characteristics and harmful consequences. But it can’t be done reliably by people who testify for the defense in Holocaust deniers’ trials (pdf), and then deny the denial. It cannot be done by people who ascribe a collective malignancy to others, but are themselves so tainted by a malignancy that they view all of Western history with shades fashioned to block all light frequencies but the narrow band of cherchez le juif.

And this cannot be mitigated by the recognition that Prof. MacDonald’s chief enemies, the ADL, SPLC et al. are themselves deluded, defamatory, meretricious and repulsive.

America is in a situation so dire, in so many ways, that it can no longer afford the lying leatherette upholstery on its aging hemicuda bought with money borrowed or printed wantonly. It’s time, among others, to give the finger of derision to the R-taboo, to stop the evasive noise about “divisiveness” and to highlight that “toleration” is very far in meaning from “celebration.”

As far as the Jewish community is concerned, this means that the price of utopian social lunacy is already so great, and the trajectory visible from now to the conceivable future so disastrous, that the most-humming of all the motors driving the country to the ruins of dystopia cannot but become the object of wide antipathy.

There isn’t a day that I don’t hear someone I know as cultivated and reasonable, Gentile and Jew alike, express bitter frustration with the Jewish community because of its leftist-multicultural thrust and the damage it’s doing to America. If the Jewish community won’t wake up to criticism from friendly parties, it will eventually face criticism from the growing number of unfriendly parties.

It’s not gratuitous to mention that America is now treading the same economic path where Weimar Republic once trod. Jews were the most prominent in the left’s leadership in Weimar too, with sorry consequences. Maybe a beacon of truth shined on all that can do some good both for America and for its Jews.

Among the growing number of genuinely conservative and race-honest Jewish-Americans whose voices are worth listening to are names like Mark Levin, Michael Levin, Paul Gottfried, Michael Hart, Lawrence Auster, Dan Stein, Ilana Mercer, Julia Gorin, Nicholas Stix and others. Perhaps from them and others like them will come the impetus that can turn the left-tilting rudder of the multiculti ship of America’s Jewry.

Read the entire article at Gates of Vienna.

Pat Condell

Is he ignorant or hypocritical when it comes to race?

03.08.2009. Pat Condell is an English stand-up comedian, writer, and internet personality, known e.g. for his flaming speeches against Islam and political correctness on YouTube. Ironically enough, however, he is himself being quite politically correct in his latest video Apologists for evil.

While he does a great job of thoroughly ridiculing the inconsistent and hypocritical position of the liberal left "who occupies such moral high ground that you can hardly see them up there through the clouds of self righteousness", and of pouring some well-deserved scorn on all these self-hating leftist 'intellectuals' who would be willing to sell their own mothers and daughters if only they could succeed in destroying the Western civilization, I believe Condell commits two serious errors in this video.

First, Condell is being unfair to moderate muslims. I realize there are problems with this term, and that there are indeed moderate muslims who are unhappy being labeled as such. However, I am using the term the same way Daniel Pipes, scholar of Islam and the Middle East, uses it, and I think it is important that we all try to deal as truthfully as possible with these issues.

Second, Condell appears to be either ignorant or hypocritical when it comes to issues of race. He is clearly of the opinion that having "a racial agenda" implies being "racist", and he justifies his extreme position as follows: "Race is irrelevant. We're all one race. That's obvious to anybody with half a brain. We're all part of the same organism." After which he immediately adds: "But we're not all one religion, are we? And we're not all one culture."

In other words, Condell is pointing out that we are facing serious challenges having to do with culture and/or religion, and therefore (?) race is irrelevant. Or perhaps because it is common usage of the English language to refer to "the human race", he thinks that Homo sapiens consists of one race only, and so feels justified in claiming that "race is irrelevant". (The number of races is arbitrary, but that does mean they do not exist.)

However, the fact that there are other important factors we have to deal with, does not automatically make the race factor irrelevant. And from a scientific point of view, Condell is obviously in need of education. Race is not irrelevant, and the race-related issues are not going to go away by pretending they do not exist. On the contrary, our only hope of avoiding a complete breakdown of our societies, is to start taking these issues seriously, and to deal with them in a manner that is consistent with the ideals of human rights and democracy.

Please allow me to quote from the UNESCO (!) document Statement on the Nature of Race and Race Differences (page 2, emphasis added):

We agreed that races had reached their present states by the operation of evolutionary factors by which different proportions of similar hereditary elements (genes) had become characteristic of different, partially separated groups. The source of these elements seemed to all of us to be the variability which arises by random mutation, and the isolating factors bringing about racial differentiation by preventing intermingling of groups with different mutations, chiefly geographical for the main groups such as African, European and Asiatic.

Man, we recognised, is distinguished as much by his culture as by his biology, and it was clear to all of us that many of the factors leading to the formation of minor races of men have been cultural. Anything that tends to prevent free exchange of genes amongst groups is a potential racemaking factor and these partial barriers may be religious, social and linguistic, as well as geographical.

We were careful to avoid dogmatic definitions of race, since, as a product of evolutionary factors, it is a dynamic rather than a static concept. We were equally careful to avoid saying that, because races were all variable and many of them graded into each other, therefore races did not exist. The physical anthropologists and the man in the street both know that races exist; the former, from the scientifically recognisable and measurable congeries of traits which he uses in classifying the varieties of man; the latter from the immediate evidence of his senses when he sees an African, a European, an Asiatic and an American Indian together.

One of the greatest biologists of the 20th century, Theodosius Dobzhansky, wrote in another UNESCO document, The race question in modern science - the race concept (page 81) the following (emphasis added):

But while the number of races which we recognize is, thus, arbitrary, the existence of racial differences is an objectively ascertainable fact. Mankind is not a single breeding population, but a very complex system of breeding communities. These communities are maintained by geographic, cultural and economic barriers. And these communities are racially distinct when they differ in the frequencies of various hereditary traits. We set up races and give them names for the purpose of describing human diversity; racial differences between human populations are a biological reality.

In his book Mankind Evolving: The Evolution of the Human Species from 1962 (page 267) Dobzhansky wrote (emphasis added):

It will, I think, be generally admitted that the ideal classification of the races of man is yet to be proposed. The existing ones are tentative, but they serve as cataloguing devices. Yet it does not follow that races are arbitrary and “mere” inventions of the classifiers; some authors have talked themselves into denying that the human species has any races at all! Let us make very clear what is and what is not arbitrary about races. Race differences are facts of nature which can, given sufficient study, be ascertained objectively: Mendelian populations of any kind, from small tribes to inhabitants of countries and continents, may differ in frequencies of genetic variants or they may not. If they do so, they are racially distinct.

The above quotes are old, but still valid. Actually, they will remain valid for the foreseeable future. However, here are some good examples of ethically sound and scientifically up to date books on this topic:

• Gregory Cochran & Henry Harpending, 2009. The 10,000 Year Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolution.
• Frank Salter, 2003. On Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration.
• Vincent Sarich and Frank Miele, 2004. Race: The Reality of Human Differences.

Frank Salter's book is somewhat demanding, but the two others are easily accessible to the general reader.

The idea that the multicultural disaster is only to do with Islam, or with cultural and religious differences between non-Western immigrants and their hosts, and nothing to do with ethnic/racial issues, is a serious obstacle to finding viable solutions to our problems.

When Pat Condell says that "Race is irrelevant", he is either ignorant or hypocritical. Actually, I suspect it is some kind of combination of the two. He is probably unfamiliar with the scientific literature, or he has only some vague idea about these things. At the same time it seems to me that he tries to claim some moral high ground (to justify his all out attacks on Islam) by emphasizing how very politically correct he is when it comes to race. If my reasoning is not too far off the mark here, I suggest he considers these issues earnestly, and changes his ways in the future.

In fact, I am eagerly awaiting the day when Condell, having gotten around to reading at least two of the above mentioned books, releases a YouTube video where politically correct lemmings who deny the reality of race are given their due share of scorn and ridicule. His views on issues related to immigration and integration have, according to his own admission, changed before, and there is clearly a need for similar things to happen again.

Home

Permalinks to older articles

HonestThinking is dedicated and committed to the art of thinking honestly. Yet honest thinking is not the same as true thinking, for it is possible to think honestly, but be mistaken. For the same reason, honest thinking is not identical with objective thinking either. Honest thinking is striving to get things right. This involves being truthful about whatever one publishes, but just as importantly, it involves an uncompromising dedication never to suppress relevant data, even when data collides with dearly held prejudices. Such an approach may sometimes cause hurtful revisions in one’s belief system. That’s what HonestThinking is all about! Read the entire manifesto.

Provoked or enthusiastic?

Please send e-mail to postmaster at honestThinking.org (replacing ' at ' with '@') if you would like to tip us about a web resource that we should link to, or if you wish to submit an article for publication here. Quality contributions are welcome from anyone.

The current European immigration and integration policy is profoundly disrespectful of both Muslims and Islam, because it is built on the tacit assumption that the Muslims will become like us. One claims to have respect for Islam and for Muslims, but one also expects Muslims to give up their orthodox faith when they come here. At the same time one is assuming that Islam will be reformed and modernized as soon as the Muslims become integrated and understand and appreciate how superior our Western culture is compared to their own. This is cultural shauvinism and arrogance indeed! The unspoken premise for this scenario is that Western socities are superior to Islam. Read more.

Human rights and democracy are under pressure. One threat comes from the Western world, in the form of lack of or dishonest thinking. There exists a peculiar Western "tolerance" which is so "tolerant" that it even tolerates totalitarian or anti-democratic ideologies. A tacit assumption underlying such an attitude is that all cultures, world views, and religions are really equally good. As a consequence of this assumption one is cut off from the possibility of critically examining the above mentioned ideologies. Read more.