Sixteen Volts

I mentioned in an earlier posting a Finnish thinker Jussi Halla-Aho. His recent article "Profeettaa loukkaamatta, sananvapaudesta tinkimättä" analyzes the Muslim reaction to the now famous cartoons. The article first presents a hypothesis that making the Muslim world angry for something minor that happens on the other side of the world is a conscious strategy to prevent them from rebelling against their leaders. The article then goes on to note that there are many liberal Muslims out there. In this light, I think that I shall translate the end of this article into English for the non-Finnish readers to think about, since it is almost something that Lawrence Auster could have written.

The real tragedy is not in the fact that only a small portion of Muslims sees Islam as a reason to their low lot in life. The real tragedy is that the West is chaining them into their reactionary doctrinal prison. Occasional reasonable voices from the Muslim world are not listened to, but we rather kowtow in front of imams. For example, why doesn't Finland throw [Muslims who advocate violence] in jail charged with advocating violence, and suggest that they listen to [Muslims who denounce violence]? I believe the answer can be found in the very ontology of "tolerance" and multiculturalism.

"Tolerance" is feeling superior for your goodness and ethical values. Since it is a form of superiority, it must be something that distinguishes the "tolerant person" from the majority of people. It must be an esoteric doctrine with complex rules, because otherwise there would be no need for diversity experts and consultants. Most people happily tolerate everything that makes sense and doesn't harm them or their environment. For example, the small islamic community of tatars in Finland has never caused any fear or passions in Finns. Because everybody agrees with tolerance like this, it is not good tolerance, since the purpose of "tolerance" is to distinguish the "tolerant" from other people. For this end, the "tolerant" will without exception choose something sick to tolerate. This way they can do something (= tolerate) that others can't. Most people are automatically excluded from the inner circle of tolerant people. When "tolerance" is clearly irrational, it needs enlightened high priests to instruct others.

If the tolerant people started to support the elements of Muslim world that are sympathetic to our values (individual liberties, human rights) they would have to admit that Western system is better than Islamic, and the Islamic system as it currently usually exists must change. This idea is naturally horrific to them, since the "tolerant" cultural relativism means that we must change and adapt. Everyone else is untouchable.

"Tolerance" is therefore mainly about the tolerant people and the problems that they have with themselves. Multiculturalism and its problems are a way for the "tolerant" to maintain a situation where their "tolerance" gets credit and it has a meaning. This means that if the object of tolerance is a group that deserves tolerance, everyone would tolerate it anyway, and tolerance could not be used for gaining points or making money. A "tolerant" person thus needs the world as it is now. Black people must be poor and criminal, and Muslims must be backwards and violent. The secular Islam is a direct threat to the tolerant Western person, since its spread would destroy the paradigms from which he gets his sense of superiority and in many cases his livelihood.

It is one thing that by sucking up to imams and appeasing terrorists and their supporters the Western elite destroys the unique society that the secular Christianity has built during the last few centuries, and leaves their children a world that is worse than the one that the silver spoon elite itself inherited. Another thing is that by supporting [Muslims who advocate violence] the Western world denies the moral standing for liberal Muslims and this way helps to keep a billion people chained to a cruel stone-age doctrine of life. A liberal Muslim considers the Western culture as an example to follow and tries to raise his own culture to the same level, but what is the Western reaction? "The Lord giveth, the Lord taketh, accept your place you little darkie." [1] We are doing fine, but our mental well-being requires that you are doing badly.

The whole cartoon battle is not the first and definitely not the last station on the trip to hell. It has been illuminating, since the question of what "real Islam" is like has been answered. Muslims riot, burn and threaten, and their highest authorities consider it to be justified. The Western elite follows the Muslim authorities, does not condemn Muslim violence and demands that Denmark should apologize. According to "real Islam" violence seems to be justified. The claim that "real Islam" is not a violent religion can be true only if the Western nations consciously support and understand "false Islam".

[1] This quote is taken from a well-known few decades old Finnish rock song, where it is ironically put in mouth of a South African racist. I have translated it here the best I can.

Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen on Sunday, February 05, 2006 at 6:14 PM