Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Avatar: Cameron's manifesto

One word defines this film: naivety. In James Cameron's world, white men are evil capitalists who're willing to slaughter innocent natives or sacrifice colonists and marines for a profit. The natives are of course depicted as beings living in total harmony (even symbiosis, as in the film) with nature, which is how the left views tribes living in rainforests and on the prairie. In fact, harmony is an understatement: Cameron goes to great lenghts to push some sort of a Gaia hypothesis.

Of course, I wouldn't use the word harmony to describe the relationship some natives are perceived to have with their environment in our world. In reality, the relationship is one of oppression, based on keeping the native population in check. This also explains why natives (be that the Na'vi in Avatar or some bushmen in Africa) have little use for precious minerals lying beneath their "sacred" lands.

To be more specific, the relationship with nature is one of death, famine and an endless stream of deadly diseases. The population size is kept constant so that there's no need to build megacities, not to mention spaceships. It is only after this "harmony" is broken that man is able to break free from the oppression of his environment and of his tribe where individuals are delegated to roles they were chosen for by their elders (or some imaginary beings).

This oppression, or harmony, is not anyone's choice. It's merely a sad state of affairs. An individual wishes to preserve his or hers genetic heritance. Pumping out as many babies as you can, hoping that one or two of them reaches maturity is not ideal considering the opportunity costs of being nothing but a birth machine which is why we desire to improve our living standards so that we can settle for a smaller number of children. To get around this oppression, we discover ways to exploit our surroundings, to cultivate land. This results in production surpluses. We end up having countries instead of small and isolated tribal areas which are far from ideal from a genetic point of view; problems such as inbreeding depression result from low levels of genetic variation.

Since living in that state of oppression is not a choice, it's only stupid for people to perceive this primitive way of life as something that is much closer to man's true nature. It's usually echoed that Western people have lost their touch with that something magical in the dirt and have embraced techno-consumer culture instead. Of course, that "something magical" is nothing but ignorance. Having lost this ignorance does not make us Westerners any poorer but richer, both materially and spiritually. Science and magic cannot co-exist. Pockets of superstition and oppression such as Indian tribes or Islamic neighborhoods cannot exist where the West rules.

And then there's imperialism. We are to believe that Westerners only brought tears and sorrow to the darkest corners of the world while in reality we brought technology, education and, ironically, the means (agricultural technology, food aid and modern medicine) to maintain surplus populations in 3rd world countries, populations that would not exist without Western aid. (This wouldn't be such a bad thing if 3rd world economies were liberalized in order to end this dependency. Aid, however, only provides an excuse not to liberalize.) Of course, property should not be taken by force (although property rights of extraterrestrials have not been defined: would we consider aliens as animals, comparable to dogs and cats instead of humans?) as in the movie, not when it's already being utilized by the natives.

Even worse, in the film imperialism is mixed with modern American politics. America never was an imperial nation (except for their sole possession, the Philippines). The film makes references to America's post-9/11 foreign policy, mentioning well-known concepts such as "pre-emptive strikes" and "shock & awe". In the movie, marines are used to further commercial interests, pushing the ridiculously simplistic view that the Iraq War is/was about oil. This only hurts the credibility of the movie and it's totally unnecessary. (The same thing happened with V for Vendetta.)

As a 3D experience the first half of the movie was incredible but the story (its premise was copied directly from Unreal) turned out to be so repulsive, predictable and naive that I was in great pains watching the second half. No wonder: Cameron's political views have been well known since at least Aliens but while Aliens is a brilliant movie with subtle reflections on human nature, Avatar is an in-your-face type of political manifesto.

Labels: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, December 14, 2009

Hate to be proven right

As I was saying:

A bunch of anonymous clowns, whose apparent role models include the Italian Blackshirts (with the exception that the Blackshirts at least had the guts to show their faces) and the Hitler Youth, riot in Copenhagen. Even the habit of smashing store windows as part of an attack on capitalism is something they may have picked up from their German idols. The only thing holding these fascists back is the fact that they're in the minority.

Labels: , , , , , ,

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Are greens simply evil?

They seem to be:

While mere exposure to green products may “prime” us to think about social consciousness and perhaps improve our behavior, if we actually buy a green product, we appear to take it as license to act like jerks.

Things got interesting when these students were subsequently given $6 for an economic task and asked to share it with an unknown partner. The students who had purchased products in the green store, it turned out, were far less generous with the $6 than students who had merely been exposed to the green products.

A subsequent experiment pushed things even further. Students were again asked to shop in a green or a conventional store. They were then put through an experiment where they had the opportunity to earn extra money by cheating — even to steal money from an envelope left in the room. Consistent with the previous experiment, participants who had purchased from the green store were significantly more likely to cheat and to steal than participants who purchased from the conventional store.

I'd draw a different conclusion than the one in the first paragraph. I don't think that buying green products makes you act like a jerk. Instead, it's the way the left-wing brain has been wired that makes you act like a criminal, a mentality of total disregard for the property and freedom of others. It doesn't surprise me in the least that a green person would steal the money from an envelope. These are the same people who see nothing wrong with high marginal tax rates. These are the same people who think it's acceptable to break store windows and burn cars of private individuals while demonstrating against government policies.

Labels: , , , ,

Sunday, December 06, 2009

Feminists couldn't care less about women's rights


Copenhagen's city council in conjunction with Lord Mayor Ritt Bjerregaard sent postcards out to 160 Copenhagen hotels urging COP15 guests and delegates to 'Be sustainable - don't buy sex'.

"Dear hotel owner, we would like to urge you not to arrange contacts between hotel guests and prostitutes," the approach to hotels says.

Now, Copenhagen prostitutes are up in arms, saying that the council has no business meddling in their affairs. They have now offered free sex to anyone who can produce one of the offending postcards and their COP15 identity card, according to the Web site

According to the report, the move has been organized by the Sex Workers Interest Group (SIO).

"This is sheer discrimination. Ritt Bjerregaard is abusing her position as Lord Mayor in using her power to prevent us carrying out our perfectly legal job. I don't understand how she can be allowed to contact people in this way," SIO Spokeswoman Susanne Møller tells

(Boldface and italics mine.)

Ever wondered how little feminists appreciate the liberty of women to choose their own occupation? I haven't. It's common for these types of socialists to have such a high opinion of themselves as to be able to make decisions about how individuals are supposed to live their lives. Another feminist trait is the perception that whenever a woman chooses to be a model, a pornstar or a prostitute instead of a chief executive she has somehow betrayed other women and the feminist cause, as if individual women are worth something only as members of their respective genders and not as individuals acting on their own.

Also, this is a gross violation of state's appropriate role in the economy. What if she had attacked retailers, suddenly telling people that they should not buy anything and just let the retailers starve?

Labels: , , , , , ,

Tuesday, December 01, 2009


Kaleva-lehti spekuloi, että ääri-islamin uhka Sveitsissä kasvoi minareettikiellon myötä. Jutussa on paljon muutakin huomionarvoista:

Vastoin kaikkia mielipidemittauksia maan äänestäjät hyväksyivät perustuslain muutoksen, jonka mukaan maan moskeijoihin ei saa rakentaa minareetteja. Tulos oli selvä: 57,5 prosenttia äänestäneistä kannatti kieltoa, samoin 22 kantonia 26:sta.

Tulos löi ällikällä siksikin, että maan hallitus ja lähes kaikki suuret puolueet kampanjoivat minareettikieltoa vastaan. Kieltoa ajoivat siirtolaisvastainen Sveitsin kansanpuolue sekä oikeistolainen pikkupuolue Federaali demokratialiitto.

Sinänsä äänestystuloksen poikkeaminen ennakkoon tehdyistä mielipidemittauksista ei ole mikään ihme, sillä nykyisessä älyllisessä ilmapiirissä on vaikea esiintyä islaminvastaisena. Äänestyspaikoilla kukaan ei kuitenkaan ole kysymässä sinulta, miten äänestit. Se, että kaikki suuret puolueet kampanjoivat kieltoa vastaan, kertoo lähinnä siitä, miten mainstream-puolueiden maahanmuuttopoliittinen linja poikkeaa rankastikin äänestäjien todellisista, mutta toistaiseksi osittain piilotetuista, preferensseistä. Mainstream-puolueet eivät ole jättäneet pahemmin valinnanvaraa, joten aloite on siirtynyt äärioikeistolaisille hulluille.

Niiden [oikeistopuolueiden] viesti oli, että minareetit ovat vieraan uskonnon vallan symboleita, joiden leviämistä ei pidä suvaita. Se sanoma upposi.

Tässä tulee nimenomaan huomata, että islam todellakin edustaa ulkpuolista valtaa; se ei ole uskonto traditionaalisessa mielessä, vaan fasistinen ideologia, jonka mukaan uskonnollisten lakien tulee hallita ihmisten elämää ja muslimien tulee olla muiden ryhmien yläpuolella. Vieraat uskonnot sinänsä eivät ole ongelma; tuskin kovinkaan moni pitää buddha-temppeleitä hirvittävänä ongelmana.

Muslimeja maassa on arvioiden mukaan 350 000 -- 400 000. Ylivoimainen enemmistö tuosta joukosta on aivan muita kuin fundamentalisteja.

Tuskinpa ne "maltilliset" muslimitkaan mitään kosmopoliitteja, liberaaleja eurooppalaisia ovat.

Muutenkaan islam ei sveitsiläisten elämässä näy. Eurooppalaisia kavahduttavia, naiset päästä varpaisiin peittäviä burka-asujakaan ei maan katukuvassa juuri tapaa. Moskeijoita maassa on 160, niissä yhteensä neljä minareettia. Sharia-lakia ei ole vaadittu voimaan.

Mitä tästä nyt sitten pitäisi päätellä? Että sveitsiläisten kannattaisi vielä hieman odottaa, että islam on pysyvästi juurruttanut asemansa sveitsiläisessä yhteiskunnassa, ja vasta sitten lähteä ottamaan vauvanaskelia islamilaisen uhan torjumiseksi? Sveitsi ja esimerkiksi Itävalta ovat huomattavasti paremmassa asemassa kuin esim. Ruotsi ja Ranska nimenomaan siksi, että sveitsiläiset ja itävaltalaiset ovat suhteellisen ajoissa lähteneet vastustamaan yhteiskuntiensa islamisoitumista.

Olennainen kysymys äänestyksen jälkeen on se, ampuivatko sveitsiläiset omaan jalkaansa. Lähiajat näyttävät, oliko kyseessä lyhytnäköinen voitto. On täysin mahdollista, että äänestystulos päinvastoin toimii herkästi roihahtavana sytykkeenä maan ja maailman islamilaisille uskonkiihkoilijoille.

Relativismi, passivoituminen ja yleinen heikkous ovat olleet sodanjälkeisen Euroopan ongelmia tähänkin asti ja ovat nimenomaan syinä islamin hipumiselle osaksi eurooppalaista yhteiskuntaa. Ja jos nyt todellakin on niin, että islamilaisen terrorismin uhka tämän kiellon myötä kasvaa, niin ehkä kannattaisi miettiä, mistä niitä maahanmuuttajia kannattaa tänne tuoda, ja että eikö islaminvastaisuudessa sittenkin olisi jotain perää.

Toinen vaihtoehto olisi ollut lähettää maailman 1,3 miljardille islamilaiselle myönteinen viesti uskontojen rinnakkainelosta.

Muslimeja tuskin voisi vähempää kiinnostaa jokin uskontojen rinnakkaiselo. Päinvastoin kuin lännessä, muslimimaissa ei tunneta uskonnonvapautta. Länsimainen liberaali ei myöskään pidä islamilaista kulttuuria yhtä arvokkaana kuin länsimaista kulttuuria eikä näin ollen pidä hyväksyttävänä, että sharia-lain dominoimia yhteisöjä ilmaantuu keskellä sivistynyttä Eurooppaa. Tällaiselle rinnakkaiselolle ei ole tarvetta. Islam voi elää ainoastaan selvässä alistussuhteessa liberaaliin yhteiskuntaan nykyaikaisen kristinuskon tavoin. Tähän asti islamisteille on tosin viestitetty, että eurooppalainen yhteiskunta on muokattavissa alisteiseksi islamille.

Labels: , , , , , , ,