Sixteen Volts

This morning, I made the last corrections to the manuscript. Now it is in a format can be emailed it to the publisher to be printed. Table of contents, index, everything seems to be in order now. One last look through it tonight and then, that's that about that. To celebrate, I took a two-for-one coupon and went to Quizno's to fill my tummy with delicious grilled subs. The guy behind the counter wondered if I will eat both subs in one sitting, but it was surprisingly easy, since "oven-toasted tastes better", as their commercials say.

Perhaps I could next read through Jussi Halla-Aho's older essays and practice some translation. I intend to translate a couple complete essays at some point, but right now we could simply look at some individual paragraphs from essays that I don't feel like translating in full, but just concentrate on the meatier parts.

The arbitrary borders drawn by the colonial masters created dozens of genuinely multicultural nations in Africa. It is a commonly accepted fact that political borders that ignored the ethnic borders are one of the most important reasons for the current chaos in Africa. So how come the very thing that ruined Africa would be a blessing for Europe?

With the boys I entertained the idea that in addition to the regular police that responds to lawbreaking and endangerment, there should be some kind of bearded militia as in the Muslim societies. This militia would respond to annoyances that are immediately recognizable but difficult to codify in law. Members of this militia could patrol the sidewalks and use electric whips to give jolts to howling drunks, grannies who push people around and teens who spit and curse.

One of the most irritating aspects of the modern world is that you can't be left alone in streets. Not moving briskly is dangerous because some mutt will immediately come and try to beg something. A few weeks ago I was smoking in front of our building. From the park on the other side of the road emerged a neatly dressed man who was about my age, who then casually approached me. I thought that he wanted to ask for a cigarette. Instead, he said: "Hi! You like a man who needs a good blowjob." "That is not true", I answered. "Can I show you what I can do?" he asked. "No, you can't", I answered. "Why not?" he asked. "Because I don't want to", I replied. "Are you sure?" he asked. "Yes", I said. "Too bad", he said and walked away.

The gainfully employed white man has been brainwashed to be so nice that he believes he should patiently listen to everything. Sexual harassment is de facto legal when it's done by a gay man or a woman. If I ever complained to progressives about the previous incident, they would ask if I am gay and if I am afraid that I am gay and why can't I take it with good cheer as flattery. What if I proposed a blowjob to a random woman I meet on the street? Should she take my proposal with humour and as flattery? Is she a heterophobe if she is offended?

[Note: Written September 16, 2005]

Watching the aftermath of the hurricane destruction in New Orleans as a fly on the ceiling, an "intolerant" person finds it difficult not to laugh out loud. Today's news report informed us that the majority of evacuees from Louisiana to Houston and other parts of Texas have decided that they want to stay there. Talking heads predicted political and social tensions in Houston.

We were wondering with the boys why Texas doesn't happily welcome its increased diversity and the valuable asset that they gained from the neighbouring state. This could be a real boom when these newcomers give their professional expertise to their new home state, start businesses, buy houses etc. Or does somebody out there hold an intolerant opinion that this will not happen?

I apologize being so mean after a serious natural disaster, but the conflict between the sermons of tolerance and the real practical attitudes is so massive that I can't behave differently. [The Swedish Prime Minister] Göran Persson should also send a few airplanes to Houston, since now there are plenty of human assets over there available for taking.

I'd like to emphasize that I do not oppose protecting enviroment, but I do oppose the Green League, which is simply the old stalinists reincarnated in both the worldview and the biomass that it contains. People who are genuinely interested in protecting the environment were purged a long time ago by the smelly hemp and minority activists. By recycling, using cloth diapers, eating only domestically produced food, riding my bicycle and taking the public transit I believe that I am advancing "green values" far better than I could by smashing windows, throwing rocks at cops, smoking weed, colouring my head red and green and flying in soy from South America (or human assets from Africa).

The worst thing in the current system is that eventually all sides will suffer. The Marxist junta that rules the Western Europe can, for a while, live in their dreamworld high above the reality of the streets. The leftist activists can, for a while, feel important and, with the silent approval of the elite, throw rocks at the businesses whose taxes finance their welfare payments. The middle class will, for a while, listen to tolerance propaganda and demonization of straight white males and pay for the whole thing, partly because middle class consists of decent people who want to believe in their fellow man and live peacefully, and partly because the fear of change that is typical for the middle class also hinders its willingness to engage in radical acts to defend its own interests.

However, the end result will be a colder and harder society. Ordinary people tend to feel solidarity towards each other and empathy towards the less fortunate. They pay an unfair amount of taxes, if that's what it takes to not have children begging in the streets and not having to build high walls around their suburbs, provided that they get at least a silent thank you for the alms that they share. With increased multiculturalism, an ever-larger part of society no longer produces anything but only consumes and instead of showing gratitude, mocks their benefactors and makes them feel guilty. Welfare-shopping immigrants and fake refugees along with their advocates gradually eat the credibility of all refugees and immigrants and the sympathy that the taxpayers have for them. The same goes for those who consider being on welfare their inviolable cultural heritage, since these people also gradually make the Western middle class cynical towards anybody who needs help. If the taxpayer is constantly accused of injustices that he didn't cause or commit, a reaction will necessarily emerge. In other words, he will lose his ability to feel moral responsibility of anything or anybody.

It's quite another thing that, sooner or later, the economic foundations of the Western society will simply collapse. Even though the leftist activist and her third-world wards aren't necessarily able to understand this, their monthly welfare payments must come from somewhere. Somebody had to work for them. Wealth does not radiate from the European ground, but it must be constantly produced. When the number of productive people decreases beoynd certain level (and the current demographic trends will necessarily lead to this), taxes can no longer be increased because otherwise the people who pay them either move away, stop working altogether or fortify inside their walls and openly rebel by no longer paying taxes (all these have already happened in post-apartheid South Africa). The alternative to raising taxes are deficits and the collapse of society that is based on wealth transfers. Ghettoes separate from the remaining fragments of Western civilization, and the former will collapse to anarchy once the cornucopia stops grinding more wealth. What kind of future is possible at this point?

Many people get a dog instead of a baby and think that it will be easier that way. I don't understand the idea at all. A dog (unlike, say, a cat) is a dumb and ugly animal that requires constant attention and wants to go out every time it rains. A baby is dumb too, but the essential difference between a baby and a dog is how rewarding they are. A baby develops and learns new things every day. A dog, on the other hand, remains equally dumb and ugly until it dies.

I don't know what is the ultimate reason why the Western "intellectuals" oppose America. Perhaps because that's the only thing that they can do. If they couldn't oppose America, Western intellectuals wouldn't have anything at all to do.

Leftist intellectuals are mentally very similar to the Hitler Jugend of the past. It's fun to feel communal. It's fun when everybody you know thinks the same way about everything. It is especially fun when your whole existence is based on a totalitarian faith that takes away the burden of thinking. In addition, these morons worship ruthless power that the Soviet Union represented for them. I guess that the leftist intellectuals are angry at America for taking away their beloved Soviet Union. Those members of leftist intelligentsia who have even a trace of a spine love to criticize the USA, because as an open democracy, the USA listens to criticism. Criticizing the totalitarian China and the totalitarian Russia, let alone the countless African dictatorships, is no fun at all, since these nations don't respond to criticism in any way. Nothing is as horrible for the insecure leftist intellectual as not being listened to.

Europe is to both its natives and its immigrants a nice place of peaceful coexistence, collective empathy and a respect for diversity, but only as long as its ruling class lives peacefully, feels collective empathy and respects diversity. These phenomena are currently typical only to the Western culture, as is evidenced by the fact that only Westerners believe that they are guilty of causing the other peoples' problems, and only Westerners believe that all other cultures are equally good to theirs. This leads to a paradox that will eventually cause the collapse of the Western civilization: since all cultures are equal, we can't think that we have a right to assimilate immigrants by forcefeeding them our values (including, say, the women's equality and the inviolable physical integrity of the individual). Slowly but surely those that I (without any arrogance or pangs of conscience) call barbarians will grow from a small and exotic minority first to a significant minority and later to a majority. At that point, it is no longer us who get to define what makes a "good" society. This task will be handled by those who used our values to their own benefit and ends without themselves believing in them for even a moment. That is when the darkness will fall.

Either we agree that all cultures are equal and accept that some immigrants will break our laws (which, in the end, are only codified cultural values), or we will dictate to immigrants what parts of their culture we will allow them to keep. The latter option, which the majority of the "tolerant" crowd in practice subconsciously supports, entails that our culture is better, since both cultures are defined through it. The third alternative that I personally support is that we will accept the diversity of cultures in global level and then do nothing about it. Because I believe that my Western culture is better than African and Asian cultures, I will consider it necessary for us to fortify and defend our values against them. If somebody thinks that I am being arrogant here, remember that peoples vote with their feet. The society that was shaped by my culture is just fine with me. I don't try to enter other cultures to mooch on the fruits of their efforts. Despite this, I support, unlike the "tolerant" crowd, the right of other cultures to exist the way that they are. As long as they live elsewhere.

Greens are either dumb or dishonest. Both are very bad for somebody who is in power. The individual opinions of Greens can be perfectly legitimate, but together they create a set of equations that has no solutions. Allow me to provide two examples that illustrate this.

The basic thesis of Greens is that harsh prison terms are a wrong way to deal with crime. Instead of punishment, we need more understanding and therapy, naturally for the criminal, not for his victims. Harsh punishments do not decrease crime, the Greens claim. During the last parliamentary elections the Greens came up with platform that called for lower punishments for crimes, except for rapes and hate crimes, for which they demanded that punishments should be much harsher.

Is it really so that prison terms are and are not a good way to fight crime? Since I find visualizing this conclusion as difficult as a sphere that has eight corners or the four-dimensional spacetime, there must be something else behind this. Either (a) the Greens believe that prison terms are the right way to deal with crime, but they believe that no other crimes than rapes and hate crimes much be fought, or (b) the Greens believe that rapes and hate crimes must not be fought, which is why we can use a nonworking solution with them, that is, harsh prison terms.

The second basic thesis of Greens is that immigrants are an asset. This means mostly African immigrants, most of all Somalis, because the noisiest arguments about whether immigrants are an asset or not tend to be about them. Another Green policy is that immigrants (= Africans) should not be socially housed so that they concentrate in the poor "problem neighbourhoods", but they should be given apartments all over Helsinki equally.

Since I am, believe it or not, a socially oriented person, I would find it natural that wealth and assets are distributed mainly to places where they are scarce. Assets are needed the most in the poor problem neighbourhoods. Is it really so that immigrants both are and are not an asset? Or do the Greens really believe, along with many non-Greens, that immigrants (=Africans) are not an asset but mostly an economic and social pain in the ass, whose real nature is best covered up by placing it mostly in the wealthy neighbourhoods?

Posted by Ilkka Kokkarinen on Wednesday, March 15, 2006 at 1:43 PM