The ramblings of a lunatic

Finished reading Mein Kampf (an English translation of it to be exact, not the one filled with notes). There's been a lot of debate among historians as to whether Hitler's policies once he became chancellor followed a careful plan or whether those policies (such as the Holocaust) emerged more spontaneously, as a reaction to changing circumstances. Some Nazi sympathizers even claim Hitler had no choice but to do what he did because of the hostility of his foreign adversaries. To me it's quite clear that everything that happened was laid out in detail in this book, written in the mid 1920s, and that no one in Germany or abroad could honestly claim they did now know what Hitler's intentions were.

Reading the book, it's obvious Hitler is bored by economics. He rants a lot about Marxism but very little about its economic implications. He sympathizes with workers and blames the bourgeoisie (and Jews) for the rise of Marxism among the working class. In his views, employers should consider the welfare of the community first and avoid excess discrepancies in wage rates. Hitler's views on capital and stock markets aren't too different from those advocated by the contemporary utopian-fascist Zeitgeist movement. In Hitler's mind, the ills of both Capitalism and Communism are fused together in the "International Jew" who seeks to destroy national economies through the stock market, thus forging some kind of a "Eternal Jewish Empire". To prevent that, national economies such as that of Germany must be liberated from "interest slavery" and the machinations of the stock market. Throughout the book, Marxism is practically considered synonymous with the Jew.

Hitler does not explicitly state any plan to exterminate the Jewish people; but then again he didn't mention anything about that even as the Holocaust was under way. Still, it's quite obvious Hitler harbored such plans early on. He believes Jews would not be content with a state in Palestine because of their supposedly international character; such a state would merely function as a base of operations for the Jews' global quest to destroy all non-Jewish nation states. Regrettably, Hitler doesn't go into detail about the roots of his antisemitism. In his childhood and teens, he was even sympathetic toward the Jewish people for all the persecutions that had taken place in the past. Then, in Vienna, Hitler seems to have been brainwashed by antisemitic literature such as Protocols and Henry Ford's (the American car industrialist) writings. Why he decided to believe such obvious nonsense remains a mystery but then again the vast majority of people on this planet believe in something stupid, be that gods, homeopathy, astrology, UFO landings or 9/11 conspiracies. In the past persecution of Jews has served the self-interests of the persecuting parties (such as the financial and religious interests of spendthrift and zealous monarchs), but if Hitler had merely wanted to use Jews as scapegoats, he probably wouldn't have murdered millions of them in secret. Quite simply, Hitler was both an idiot and a racist.

Hitler is more explicit about exterminating opposing political ideologies and their proponents, expressing regret at the missed opportunity at the end of the World War to exterminate Marxists. Hitler believes that any half-assed attempt to destroy a doctrine is bound to be counter-productive. Therefore, any attempt to destroy a doctrine must be thorough and persistent, but even then such an attempt is almost certain to fail unless combined with a "spiritual revolution" (e.g., National Socialism against Marxism): "Any violence which does not spring from a firm, spiritual base, will be wavering and uncertain." He's also explicit about destroying parliamentarianism, even clearly stating the Nazis would participate in parliamentary institutions only to destroy such institutions for good. In this Gospel of Open and Explicit Intolerance, Hitler has, it seems, learned from the best:

"Here, too, we can learn by the example of the Catholic Church. Though its doctrinal edifice, and in part quite superfluously, comes into collision with exact science and research, it is none the less willing to sacrifice so much as one little syllable of its dogmas. It has recognized quite correctly that its power of resistance does not lie in its lesser or greater adaptation to the scientific findings of the moment, which in reality are always fluctuating, but rather in rigidly holding to dogmas once established, for it is only such dogmas which lend to the whole body the character of a faith."

"The greatness of Christianity did not lie in attempted negotiations for compromise with any similar philosophical opinions in the ancient world, but in its inexorable fanaticism in preaching and fighting for its own doctrine."

"Christianity could not content itself with building up its own altar; it was absolutely forced to undertake the destruction of the heathen altars. Only from this fanatical intolerance could its apodictic faith take form; this intolerance is, in fact, its absolute presupposition."

"The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion."

What is also explicitly stated is the Nazi policy of Lebensraum, that, in order to survive, the German nation must extend its frontiers at the expense of Russia and other territories inhabited by Slavic peoples. He criticizes the Second Reich for adopting a policy of trade & overseas colonies (thus putting Germany on a collision course with the British Empire) rather than of eastward conquest. This perceived necessity of soil acquisition seems to be another result of Hitler's poor understanding of economics: he believes more in Malthusian alarmism than technological progress and trade. Hitler also mentions the necessity to enslave lower races, comparing that to the exploitation and domestication of animals. What later became known as Generalplan Ost, a plan to conquer, enslave and exterminate tens of millions of people in Eastern Europe, is the core Nazi foreign policy doctrine through which everything else is viewed. In order to execute the plan, however, Germany's western front, i.e., France, the "mortal enemy" of Germany, must first be secured militarily, preferably with the aid of the British Empire. Hitler doesn't believe Germany's issues with France can be resolved through defensive strategies but instead pushes for a "final active reckoning with France". The resulting "destruction of France" would merely be a means to enable eastward expansion, not an end in itself. (Hitler seems to consider himself a realist as he emphasizes that Germany should never bother with humanitarian affairs but instead pursue the national interest vigorously, but of course his ideas come off as utopian, reckless and idealistic: Bismarck would turn in his grave. Hitler is not completely paranoid about France though; many French politicians and military leaders were calling for Germany's partition.)

Hitler is also, no surprise, extremely socially conservative. He sees women as passive beings whose job is to get married and start having children, he seems obsessed with STDs, prostitution and contraceptives, proposing early marriage as a solution. Also, like many conservative men, he drools over the idea of a teenage boy's well-trained body. Hitler makes numerous references to God, and believes his actions are guided by Fate/Providence, and sees many benefits in religions ("Precisely for the masses, faith is often the sole foundation of a moral attitude.") but doesn't come off as an adherent to any specific religious doctrine. He even employs God to support his racial views: if "defectives" are allowed to propagate, then in a few hundred years' time "you will find but few images of God, unless you want to profane the Almighty"; thus preventing these people from propagating would be "the most humane act of mankind". He also criticizes Jews on religious grounds, claiming theirs is not a religion at all: "The Jew cannot possess a religious institution, if for no other reason because he lacks idealism in any form, and hence belief in a hereafter is absolutely foreign to him (...) The Talmud is not a book to prepare a man for the hereafter, but only for a practical and profitable life in this world." Jesus is applauded for fighting the Jews' exploitation of religion for financial gain when he tosses them out of the Temple.

In addition to Hitler's views on the Jewish people, his views on the First World War illuminate his selective reading of history. Like many in Germany at that time, Hitler believed the war was not lost on the battlefield, conveniently forgetting the collapse of the Habsburg Empire, the constant influx of fresh American troops & supplies, and the lack of resources at Germany's disposal. While he viewed the alliance with the Habsburgs with disgust, he perceived the war as inevitable and ultimately fought for German freedom and independence. The lost territories would be regained, along with other German-inhabited regions, in due time and not through peaceful negotiations: "We must clearly recognize the fact that the recovery of the lost territories is not won through solemn appeals to the Lord or through pious hopes in a League of Nations, but only by force of arms." Of course Chamberlain tried to spoil his fun by completely giving in to his outrageous, unreasonable demands. With the gift of hindsight, we know that Hitler would have none of it, for in his mind "Germany will either be a world power or there will be no Germany".

The German people empowered Hitler with absolute authority to do away with democracy, institute racial laws, attack foreign countries and kill millions of people. They shouldn't have been surprised when bombs started falling on their cities.

Challenging family traditions

Kudos to this Australian kid:

A COURT has placed a 16-year-old girl on the airport watch list to prevent an arranged marriage taking place in Lebanon.

The girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, applied to the Federal Magistrates Court for an order to restrain her parents from taking her out of Australia to marry a man she had met only once.

The girl, given the pseudonym Ms Madley by the court, approached the Legal Aid Commission after her parents organised the wedding despite her telling them that she did not want to go to Lebanon and did not want to marry the man.

Mr Harman praised the girl's ''act of great bravery'' in using the legal system to challenge her parents' authority.

Ms Madley was fearful of her mother's reaction to her application, he said, and he ordered her mother and father not to assault, harass, threaten or intimidate her, or question her about the proceedings.

''Her actions in approaching the Legal Aid Commission, let alone this court, might be perceived as disrespectful of her parents and disobedient of their will,'' he said.

Although legally a minor, the girl had displayed maturity not only by taking action to protect herself from an arranged marriage, but deciding to challenge part of the Lebanese Islamic culture which she was brought up in. (Sydney Morning Herald)

In another article from the same newspaper someone says that arranged marriages are not necessarily a bad thing:

    Lyn Fletcher, from Relationships Australia, said there was a big difference between arranged marriages and those which are forced.

    "Some people are happy with an arranged marriage, because that's how they've been brought up they don't have any expectations of falling in love or romantic attachment," she said.

This doesn't really cast arranged marriages in any kind of a positive light. So arranged marriages are not that bad because women in some cultures have learned to live with them, i.e., have learned not to question the system? They've merely accepted their fate of having to live in a suffocating environment for the sake of the (extended) family, not because they want it.

It's precisely for this reason that it's good that this Australian case has gained some publicity, making it to the news even here in Finland. No doubt the city where I live is filled with dozens of immigrant women who think they have no choice but to submit to the authority of their families. These people should be made aware of the fact that there's a life beyond the role your family had decided for you the moment you were born.

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men." -Howard Roark, The Fountainhead

What makes God tick

South Park episode 513 ("Kenny Dies"):

Stan: Why would God let Kenny die, Chef? Why? Kenny's my friend. Why can't God take someone else's friend?
Chef: Stan, sometimes God takes those closest to us, because it makes him feel better about himself. He is a very vengeful God, Stan. He's all pissed off about something we did thousands of years ago. He just can't get over it, so he doesn't care who he takes. Children, puppies, it don't matter to him, so long as it makes us sad. Do you understand?
Stan: But then, why does God give us anything to start with?
Chef: Well, look at it this way: if you want to make a baby cry, first you give it a lollipop. Then you take it away. If you never give it a lollipop to begin with, then you would have nothin' to cry about. That's like God, who gives us life and love and help just so that he can tear it all away and make us cry, so he can drink the sweet milk of our tears. You see, it's our tears, Stan, that give God his great power.

Strip clubs, pornography and feminists

The United States is an easy target when it comes to narrow-minded attitudes toward sexuality. Here's Texas, the heart of the Bible Belt:

In 2007, state legislators passed the Sexually Oriented Business Fee Act, which imposed the fee ["pole tax"] on nearly 200 establishments that feature live nude performances and allow the consumption of alcohol. The $5-per-customer entrance fee, which is imposed on the business and not the patron, is intended to raise money for sexual assault prevention programs and health insurance coverage for low-income people. (NYTimes)

This a form of collective punishment, which is kinda perverse in a country that values individual responsibility. The tax assumes that everyone attending strip clubs is responsible for the actions of a few rapists. 

Moreover, open attitudes toward adult entertainment have actually been found to reduce violence against women. So, if the aim is to reduce the incidence of rape, Texan lawmakers should consider subsidizing strip clubs rather than taxing them.

But at least it's still legal in Texas to take your clothes off for money. In the so-called progressive Nordic countries women's rights and liberties are being curbed by feminists (a female supremacist movement that opposes individual liberties and equal rights) to a much, much greater degree than some conservatives in the United States ever could. Here's Julie Bindel, a feminist author, writing about banning strip clubs and pornography in Iceland:

Iceland has passed a law that will result in every strip club in the country being shut down.

Even more impressive: the Nordic state is the first country in the world to ban stripping and lapdancing for feminist, rather than religious, reasons.

So, feminists are united with religious extremists in their contempt of women's right to make decisions about their own lives. Only their reasons differ.

Kolbrún Halldórsdóttir, the politician who first proposed the ban, firmly told the national press on Wednesday: "It is not acceptable that women or people in general are a product to be sold."

This is just idiotic. How is selling "yourself" at a strip club any different from selling "yourself" at an office? Nearly every profession is a mixture of inherent talent and obtained skill and those are the things you're selling. The labor market consists of people selling themselves. So, the problem is not that these people are selling themselves as "products"; the problem is that feminists don't happen to like this particular product even though it's none of their business. Feminists, like religious extremists, have a vision of what a proper woman is like (even their rhetoric is similar: "It is not acceptable that women..."). Any deviations from this standard are to be looked down upon. Feminists perceive women not as adult individuals capable of using their own discretion but as child-like members of a collective who are to do what the collective tells them to do.

Supporters of the bill say that some of the clubs are a front for prostitution – and that many of the women work there because of drug abuse and poverty rather than free choice. I have visited a strip club in Reykjavik and observed the women. None of them looked happy in their work.

What an idiot. If "not looking happy" or "working just to make ends meet" is a qualification for banning an occupation, I guess all of us are to be unemployed in the not-so-distant future. Simple-minded authoritarians like Bindel are not really helping the situation by not showing much of any respect for these women. If feminists and cultural conservatives actually respected women working in the adult industry (and taught their children to respect them as well), these women might have a better time at work and life in general. I'd guess that a big reason why some women in the adult industry don't feel appreciated is precisely because narrow-minded people like Bindel don't appreciate them as adults capable of making their own decisions. Instead, they're trying to force-feed the "you're a victim" mantra. This could also explain why drug abusers and poor people are overrepresented in the adult industry; only they've really got nothing to lose. Mainstreamization of pornography would attract more "mainstream" people. In fact, it's not surprising anymore to find that an adult entertainer holds an academic degree. Of course, feminists probably consider well-educated women who choose to work in the adult industry as traitors.

Let's end this post on a positive note:

Let’s look at attitudes towards women – studies of men who had seen X-rated movies found that they were significantly more tolerant and accepting of women than those men that didn’t see those movies, and studies by other investigators, female as well as male, essentially found similarly that there was no detectable relationship of the amount of exposure to pornography and any measure of misogynist attitudes. No researcher or critic has found the opposite, that exposure to pornography – by any definition – has had a cause and effect relationship towards ill feelings or actions against women. No correlation has even been found between exposure to porn and calloused attitudes toward women.

Lisää kieltoja ratkaisuiksi ongelmiin

Pettämätöntä logiikkaa:

Sisäministeri Päivi Räsäsen (kd.) mielestä ravintoloissa tapahtuvaan seksikauppaan puututtaisiin parhaiten kieltämällä seksin osto Ruotsin malliin.

Räsäsen mukaan ostokielto selkeyttäisi pelisääntöjä.

- Toimintaan pystyttäisiin aina puuttumaan, tapahtuipa se sitten yleisellä paikalla tai ei, hän sanoo lehdelle. (Iltalehti)

Pari päivää sitten uutisoitiin, että tullin haaviin jäi kevään ja kesän aikana lasti laittomia potenssilääkkeitä. Kerta oli tuskin ensimmäinen, eli voimme olettaa mustan pörssin lääkekaupan olevan jonkin sortin ongelma. Räsäsen logiikan mukaisesti ehdotan lääkkeiden oston kieltoa. Samaan hengenvetoon ehdotan pelien ja elokuvien ostokieltoa, jotta piratismiin "pystyttäisiin aina puuttumaan".

Kristillisdemokraattien Räsänen nähtävästi käyttää asemaansa sisäministerinä hyväkseen ajaakseen kristittyjen sairaita seksuaalinormeja Suomen lakiin.

Gay extinction, to a degree?

Homosexuals across the world are celebrating their sexuality, expecting their numbers to increase in the near future as tolerance spreads from one corner of the globe to another. However, it should be at least considered that the result of this tolerance may be the exact opposite of what they're expecting: that homosexuality as a biological trait may, in fact, become endangered as a result of this tolerance. Let's establish a few facts first:

First, it'd be ludicrous to claim that homosexuality is, by and large, a choice. Some Christians want it to be so, so that the "naturalness" of homosexuality would not conflict with their "God created man in his image" view.

Second, as implied above, homosexuality is, to a degree, hereditary, i.e., the offspring of a person with "gay genes" (but who's not necessarily gay) is more likely to be gay than the offspring of a straight person. Obviously genes are not the only biological factor affecting sexuality but they are a significant factor nevertheless.

Third, one reason why homosexuality has survived this far despite its obvious selective disadvantage is precisely because of the society's negative attitude toward homosexuality in the past. When gays weren't tolerated and it was assumed that everyone marries at one point in their lives, this effectively ensured that homosexuals too managed to pass on their genes even if in an unwanted union with a straight person.

Combine these and you've got a situation where the "coming out" of gays might contribute negatively to the overall number of homosexuals. If homosexuals are no longer under societal pressure to procreate with the opposite sex then they won't whileas their own sexual desires are an evolutionary dead end.

This isn't to be misunderstood. Genes influencing homosexuality can spread even if there are no homosexuals left and even if we disregard genes, homosexuality may still result from fetal-stage disruptions. But the point I'm making is that the recent openness toward homosexuality may have a negative effect on the proliferation of those genes, not that gays will go extinct.

This also makes all fears of homosexuality overblown. The reason why homosexuality seems to be on the rise is because of the "coming out" factor, not because homosexuality as a biological feature is on the rise. The latter would be ludicrous as there are no evolutionary benefits to being gay. (In fact, there may be some but hardly anything that'd lead to a notable proliferation of homosexuality.)

And for the same reason it's stupid to claim that "heteronormativity" is a social construct. People are not heterosexual because society forces them to but because heterosexuality is the only kind of sexuality that makes sense from an evolutionary point of view. If, as a result of genetic drift (chance) maybe, bisexuality were the norm, it wouldn't take long for evolution to take us right back to "heteronormativity".

Thou Shalt Not Burn the Qu'ran

A recent stunt by Finnish freethinkers involved exchanging bibles (and other religious nonsense) for porn magazines. This aroused some controversy but, as far as I can remember, there were no calls to have the freethinkers arrested for inciting religious hatred. But in Britain, and quite probably soon in Finland too, you can get arrested for burning the Qur'an. Of course, British freethinkers would not even be able to pull off a stunt like the one described in the opening sentence because local Muslims would immediately resort to violence, if necessary, to prevent their worthless book from being traded for porn. And local authorities, instead of guaranteeing the freethinkers' right to exchange goods for goods (and voice their opinion in doing so), would side with the Muslims to preserve whatever peace and order (our consensus) Europeans happen to value over liberty.

Chief executive officer of the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, Catherine Heseltine, slammed the burning of the Koran - one of the most offensive acts to Muslims she could imagine.

Why have extremists been interviewed for the news article? This woman is obviously only concerned with the fact that someone dared to burn their holy book rather than with the fact that authorities arrested a 15-year-old girl for it. Some local dhimmi politician interviewed for the article also failed to see this in terms of freedom of speech and religious liberty, instead bringing up how damage control is being done to appease Muslims. Once again, it's the feelings of the local Muslim community that matter the most, not liberty.

'You can see that in the way Muslims treat the Koran - washing before touching it and in many Muslim homes you will find it on the top shelf above all other books.

Is this supposed to make one respect Muslims' beliefs? I for one consider it merely hilarious and pathetic that some people feel the need to clean themselves before touching junk.

I also wouldn't mind seeing some British Muslims arrested the next time they incite ethnic hatred by burning the Union Jack, for example. Of course, both Muslims and non-Muslims should have the right to express their opinion but for as long as these double standards exist, Muslims won't give a damn about freedom of speech.

God is responsible for ethnic conflicts

There was a time when mankind was united, in pursuit of a common goal, the goal of living up to our potential. And what did God do? Well, he'd have none of it so he struck us down and divided us among nations in order to keep us separated.

Genesis 11:5-9:

But the LORD came down to see the city and the tower the people were building. The LORD said, “If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other.”

So the LORD scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. That is why it was called Babel—because there the LORD confused the language of the whole world. From there the LORD scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Let's take some tiny leaps of logic: God wanted us not to get along --> Christians believe that everything God does is for the good (the "God works in mysterious ways" thing is just another way of telling you that you're too stupid to understand why bad things need to be done) --> Christians think ethnic conflicts are good --> Christians support ethnic conflicts (they wouldn't want to be against God now would they?).

Church of Immorality

Vatican's record of immorality spans for a hefty 1700 years. These days theVatican is kept in check thanks to the fact that it happens to exist in the middle of a civilized world. Unlike people in the Middle East, we don't allow totalitarian and evil institutions to run the show.

One of the most distinguishing features of the Catholic Church is clerical celibacy which is based on the sick view on human sexuality presented in the Bible, the idea that sexuality is wicked (or should at least be considered a necessary evil) and should be suppressed.

Suppressing sexuality is of course as unnatural as it gets. The constant barrage of news stories exposing clerical paedophilia merely demonstrates this and that it is not worth trying(unless you're a pedophile, in which case you should consider castration). Don't get me wrong: it is not a bad thing that religious extremists refrain from participating in reproductive activities. If anything, clerical celibacy should be celebrated if it worked. It, however, does not.

Now that the Church is once again under paedophilia charges, it is acting exactly the way it's been acting for the past two millennia, with one exception. The history of the Church is filled with anti-Semitism and downright persecution of Jews but here, in the 21st century, the Church is now identifying with the people it has been persecuting for millennia.

And as for how the Church is acting like it's business as usual, well, now they're blaming sodomites for the rampant wave of paedophilia within the Church:

“Many psychologists and psychiatrists have shown that there is no link between celibacy and pedophilia but many others have shown, I have recently been told, that there is a relationship between homosexuality and pedophilia,” [Cardinal Tarcision Berdone] told a news conference in Santiago.

If there is a link between homosexuality and paedophilia, it is the same link that links Catholic priests to paedophilia: suppression of human sexuality. Rather ironic then that it's largely thanks to the Catholic Church that homosexuals have been forced to suppress their sexuality for two millennia now. Moreover, holding homosexuality responsible for paedophilia is like holding heterosexuality responsible for rape in general (well, sexuality is to blame but that's not a very fruitful argument). Apparently the Church considers the "sodomite card" useful now that they can no longer blame the Jews for everything.

So, the Catholic Church seems more than willing to continue its track record of immorality and depravity which, for a religious institution, is just business as usual.

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.

Minareettikiellosta

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.

Thou Shalt Not Insult

An anti-Israel brain trust also known as the United Nations is now selling the idea that its member states should reinstate blasphemy laws (in case they ever went away in the first place which is not the case in Finland). Contrary to some slightly exaggerated reactions here, this short analysis suggests that this thing probably won't affect a thing for now, but the whole thing just goes to show how useless an organization the UN is: it is essentially a charitable organization ("Keeping the World's Poor Poor").

But countries have lately become more sympathetic to the view that religious feelings should not be hurt. If the amount of Muslims in European countries keeps growing the political pressure to adopt strict anti-defamation laws grows as well. We already have left-wingies persecuting individuals such as Geert Wilders for daring to criticize Islam for being a fascist ideology. Wilders has an idea:

I propose the withdrawal of all hate speech legislation in Europe....In Europe, we should defend freedom of speech like Americans do....Millions think liberty is precious. That democracy is better than Shariah....there is no stronger power than the force of free men fighting for the great cause of liberty.

The UN is not even a western organization so why should we pay any attention to what it is saying? It's a forum where crap countries are worth just as much as civilized countries. There is no reason for it to exist. John McCain's idea (originally proposed by Robert Kagan) of a League of Democracies sounds much better, though its main purpose would be to counter the threat of notable authoritarian states such as Russia or China, not to counter the threat of Islamist fascism. The bottom line is that western nations should not belong to any organization where they're worth just as much as, say, Jordan.

Visiting at the UN, Ali G asks the right question: "With full respect, why do you give crap countries a vote?"

Helsingin Sanomat liittyy anti-Israel-kuoroon

Suomalainen media jatkaa Israelin vastaisten fiilisten ilmaisua. Ensin Olli Kivinen syyttää Israelia Gazan kurjuudesta, sitten vaaditaan sotatoimien lopettamista pelkästään sillä perusteella, että sodassa kuolee siviileitä. Varsinkin tuossa jälkimmäisessä artikkelissa kannattaa kiinnittää huomiota siihen, miten Helsingin Sanomat näyttää nojaavan gazalaisiin lähteisiin Israelin puolustusvoimien sijaan. Kirjoituksessa kerrotaan räikeästi, miten Israel säälittä pommittaa ja ampuu siviileitä, nähtävästi ilman mitään syytä.

Toiseksi viimeisessä kappaleessa sanotaan näin:

Hamas kantaa oman vastuunsa siitä, että se ilmoitti jatkavansa raketti-iskuja huolimatta YK:n turvallisuusneuvostossa torstaina lopulta hyväksytystä päätöslauselmasta, jossa vaaditaan välitöntä loppua myös raketti-iskuille. Tämä ei vähennä Israelin vastuuta siitä, millaisia keinoja se käyttää omassa sotimisessaan.

Ei sanaakaan siitä, miten Hamas systemaattisesti käyttää siviilirakennuksia (sairaaloita, kouluja jne.) tukikohtinaan. Ehkä Helsingin Sanomien toimittajien kannattaisi lukea esimerkiksi Jerusalem Postia, josta heti löytyisi hieman perspektiiviä:

Hamas is using Gaza's Shifa Hospital as a meeting place and even distributed salaries to its operatives there over the weekend, Public Security Minister and former Shin Bet head Avi Dichter said Monday morning.

"Shifa Hospital has long ago ceased to be just a hospital, just as the UNRWA humanitarian and health services in Gaza long ago ceased to be just humanitarian services providing food and medical services."

"UN schools in Gaza long ago stopped being just schools," the minister said. "All these services and places are refuge for Hamas terrorists and commanders."

Ministerin mukaan Israel on päättänyt jättää kyseisen sairaalan rauhaan "ilmiselvistä syistä". Toisaalta Hamas näyttää käyttävän sairaalaa turvapaikkanaan samoista ilmiselvistä syistä. Myös Ynetnews-saitin uutisannista selviää, että terroristit säilöivät runsaasti aseita erääseen kouluun ja olivat virittäneen koulun räjähtämään. Tämäkin on jäänyt HS:n artikkelin kirjoittajalta nähtävästi huomiotta, mikä tosin ei ole mikään ihme, kun huomioidaan objektiivisuuden taso kyseisessä sanomalehdessä.

Myös maailmalla Israelin toiminnan tuomitseminen jatkuu. YK:n alaisuudessa toimiva Human Rights Council äänesti Israelin sotatoimia vastaan. Ranska haluaa sotilastarkkailijoita valvomaan tulevaa tulitaukoa. Ranska on todennäköisesti unohtanut, miten vastaavanlainen operaatio Libaononissa johti Hezbollahin aseistautumiseen sotilastarkkailijoiden nenien edessä. Italiassa ammattiyhdistysliikkeet ovat palanneet ajassa 70 vuotta takaisinpäin kannattaessaan juutalaisten pitämien liikkeiden boikottia. Näitä juutalaisvastaisia boikotteja tosin löytyy vähän joka paikasta.

Vasemmisto ja islamofasistit ovat jälleen löytäneet toisensa kaduilta. Atlas Shrugs -blogissa on hyviä kuvia nats... palestiinalaisia kannattavien mellakoista (1, 2, 3). Joukkoon mahtuu myös muutama, todennäköisesti uskonnollisten hörhöjen järjestämä pro-Israel-mielenosoitus, mutta eipähän näy ketään potkimassa kauppojen ikkunoita säpäleiksi. Taidanpa hankkia jostain tuollaisen komean Israelin lipun.

Huumorina vielä lopuksi video ajalta ennen Gazasta vetäytymistä, jossa israelilaispoliitikot argumentoivat vetäytymisen tuovan kaikkea hyvää. (Via The Muqata.)

The Finnish media keeps pounding Israel

A major Finnish newspaper is calling Israel's campaign in Gaza a genocide. Not only that, but it compares operation Cast Lead to the First Chechen War (during which maybe even a hundred thousand civilians died). I may be wrong, but isn't the comparison quite disproportionate? The article then states that those in Finland who're backing Israel are mostly the kind of people who're doing it for religious reasons. (Israel is a very secular country by the way, which is quite an achievement in the middle of all that religious extremism.) In other words, those who support Israel in Finland are apparently idiots. So, I take it the smart ones don't support Israel?

The article then claims that Israel is an artificial creation. But if Israel is an artificial creation, then what is Palestine? And how exactly is Israel any more artificial than, say, Finland? Just as we, the Finns, have our roots in Finland, a region historically occupied and settled by Finns, so do the Jewish people have their roots in Israel. Hell, the Jews had a culture and a history in Israel long before we even existed as a people.

Of course Muslims have their roots in the "Holy Land" as well. When the UN proposed to divide the British Mandate of Palestine into two states the idea was that both Jews and Muslims could settle in and around an area that has such a huge historical meaning to both groups. Muslims rejected the plan out of principle simply because they opposed the idea of Jews acquiring any piece of that land. Seeing how many Muslim leaders sided with the nazis only a few years before the plan I could go even further and argue that Muslims simply hated Jews.

In all fairness, there is a mention in the article that some of Israel's actions may be justified on the grounds that Hamas has launched more than 7000 rockets over the border to Israel during the past two years. The article also states the fact that Hamas wishes to see Israel destroyed. However, since the article condemns Israel's campaign against Hamas I'm not sure what the writer thinks should be done. There is a proposition that the international community should arrange a ceasefire but as I argued earlier, a ceasefire is simply a way for Hamas to catch a breath and rearm.

After this the article goes on to repeat the usual "both sides are wrong" and that "violence won't solve a thing" arguments.

But violence has solved things for Israel. With these "excursions" into Gaza, Lebanon and the West Bank Israel can keep herself safe while waiting for a change in the Middle East that'd push the region forward. No doubt Hamas, Hezbollah and others will continue to attack Israel from time to time but considering the alternative, the destruction of Israel (not by Hamas or Hezbollah but by Iran, Syria and others who'd love to see Israel severely weakened), this is something Israel can manage. After all, despite all the recent attacks on Israel it is still a relatively safe country to live in.

So, the media has been at it again. In case you're a European, keep your eyes on Israellycool (and vote for it as the best Middle East blog) for a comprehensive account of the situation including links to relevant articles, Youtube videos and so on. The fact that Israel is mostly backed by religious nuts in Finland is no doubt a result of the never-ending media campaign against Israel and the fact that most people, even those with an access to the internet, rely on local newspapers.

Eid al-Adha

Less than a week ago Muslims celebrated a holiday called Eid al-Adha, Festival of Sacrifice. Remember the story about Abraham where he was about to kill his own son (Isaac if you ask Christians or Jews, Ishael if you ask Muslims) simply because God asked him to? Well, that's what they're celebrating:

Eid al-Adha is a religious festival celebrated by Muslims (including the Druze) worldwide to commemorate the willingness of Ibrahim to sacrifice his son Ishmael as an act of obedience to God.

Oh, what a wonderful thing to celebrate! Seriously, what goes on inside the heads of these people? (And by "these people" I don't mean Muslims only; naturally Christians consider this a great tale as well.) Doesn't surprise me though: following a religion requires one to completely give up his sense of reason and to make a slave of himself.

It is worshipping silly stories like this that infects cultures with toxic traits. If someone's willingness to kill his own son for some insane reason is something to be celebrated then is it any wonder that honor killings are so (relatively) frequent among Muslims?

And what is Europe going to do about this? My guess is that as the amount of Muslims in Europe shoots up our politicians will find ways to accommodate holidays like Eid al-Adha.

Ora et labora

Myönnän lukevani Raamattua silloin tällöin. Kun nuorempana koin kristinuskon ehkä jopa vakavimmaksi yhteiskunnalliseksi ongelmaksi, Raamatusta oli kiva etsiä kaikenlaisia juttuja joiden avulla pystyin puhkomaan reikiä kristinuskon käsitteisiin maailmankaikkeudesta. Raamattu on parhaimpia argumentteja kristinuskoa vastaan. Liberaalille egoistille Raamattu tietenkin edustaa kaikkea hirveää: yhteisöllisyyttä, alistumista, irrationalismia jne.

Mutta miksi kristityt ovat niin kommunismin vastaisia ja miksi kommunistit ovat niin kristinuskon vastaisia? Onko Marxin asema auktoriteettina niin merkittävä, että käsitteestä uskonnosta "oopiumina kansalle" ei voida luopua? Kommunistithan eivät ole mitenkään erityisen rationaalisia ihmisiä, uskovathan he esim. talousasioissa kaikenlaiseen magiaan, ja kommunismin romahdettua marxilaiset ovat päätyneet mm. vihreisiin liikkeisiin, joiden tiedetään suhtautuvan myönteisesti kaikenlaiseen hömppään (vaihtoehtoinen lääketiede, sukupuolen - genderin - biologittomuus, Gaia-teoria jne.).

Raamattu on läpeensä sosialistinen kirja. Raamatun mukaan raha on kaiken pahan alku ja juuri, itsekkyys on paha asia ja yhteisomistus rulaa:

Uskovat pysyttelivät yhdessä, ja kaikki oli heille yhteistä. He myivät talonsa ja tavaransa, ja rahoista jaettiin kaikille sen mukaan kuin kukin tarvitsi. (Ap.t. 2:44-45)

Koko uskovien joukolla oli yksi sydän ja yksi sielu. Kukaan ei pitänyt omanaan sitä, minkä omisti, vaan kaikki oli heille yhteistä... Ne, jotka omistivat tilan tai talon, myivät sen ja luovuttivat kauppasumman apostolien haltuun, ja näiltä jokainen sai rahaa tarpeensa mukaan. (Ap.t. 4:32-35)

Seuraavassa Pyhä Henki lahtaa ahneita kapitalisteja, jotka eivät suostu kollektivisoimaan omaisuuttaan:

Muuan Ananias-niminen mies myi yhdessä vaimonsa Safiran kanssa maatilan, mutta pani vaimonsa tieten osan kauppahinnasta syrjään. Loput hän luovutti apostolien haltuun. Silloin Pietari sanoi: "Ananias, miksi olet antanut sydämesi Saatanan valtaan? Miksi yritit pettää Pyhää Henkeä ja jättää maatilan hinnasta osan itsellesi? Tilahan oli sinun, kun et vielä ollut myynyt sitä, ja sinun olivat myös rahat, kun sen myit. Kuinka saatoit ryhtyä tällaiseen tekoon? Et sinä ole valehdellut ihmisille, vaan Jumalalle." Nämä sanat kuullessaan Ananias lyyhistyi kuolleena maahan, ja kaikki, jotka olivat tätä kuulemassa, joutuivat kauhun valtaan. Nuoret miehet kietoivat Ananiaan ruumiin vaatteeseen, kantoivat hänet ulos ja hautasivat hänet.

Kolmisen tuntia myöhemmin tuli Ananiaan vaimo sisään, tapahtuneesta mitään tietämättä. Pietari kysyi häneltä: "Sano minulle, tähänkö hintaan te maatilan myitte?" "Niin, juuri siihen hintaan", vastasi nainen. Silloin Pietari sanoi: "Kuinka te yksissä tuumin ryhdyitte koettelemaan Herran Henkeä? Kuuletko askelia oven takaa? Ne, jotka hautasivat miehesi, kantavat täältä myös sinut." Siinä samassa nainen kaatui kuolleena Pietarin jalkoihin. Nuoret miehet tulivat sisään ja näkivät naisen kuolleen. He veivät hänet pois ja hautasivat hänet miehensä viereen. Kauhu valtasi koko seurakunnan ja kaikki jotka tästä kuulivat. (Ap.t. 5:1-11)

Seuraavassa vielä hyvä ohje niille, jotka eivät muuten hyväksyisi kollektiivien johtajia:

Jokaisen on suostuttava esivaltansa alaisuuteen. Eihän ole esivaltaa, joka ei olisi Jumalalta peräisin, häneltä ovat vallankäyttäjät saaneet valtuutensa. Joka vastustaa esivaltaa, nousee siis Jumalan säädöstä vastaan, ja ne, jotka näin tekevät, saavat rangaistuksensa. Ei sen, joka tekee oikein, tarvitse pelätä viranomaisia, vaan sen, joka tekee väärin. Jos siis tahdot elää pelkäämättä esivaltaa, tee oikein! Silloin saat siltä kiitosta. Se on Jumalan palvelija ja toimii sinun parhaaksesi. Mutta jos teet väärin, pelkää! Esivalta ei kanna miekkaa turhaan. Se on Jumalan palvelija ja panee täytäntöön väärintekijälle kuuluvan rangaistuksen. Siksi on suostuttava esivallan alaisuuteen, ei vain rangaistuksen pelosta vaan myös omantunnon vaatimuksesta. Sen vuoksi te verojakin maksatte, sillä viranomaiset ovat Jumalan palveluksessa, kun he hoitavat tehtäviään. Antakaa jokaiselle se, mikä hänelle kuuluu: kenelle vero, sille vero, kenelle tulli, sille tulli, kenelle pelko, sille pelko, kenelle kunnia, sille kunnia. (Room. 13:1-7)

(Ylläoleva on varmasti ollut niiden tuhansien johtajien mieleen, jotka ovat pyrkineet oikeuttamaan asemansa muin kuin demokraattisin perusteluin.)

Luostarilaitoksessa kehittyi ajatus rukoilemisesta ja työnteosta, mutta luostarilaitoksetkin olivat käytännössä kollektiiveja. Max Weberin mukaan kapitalismin syntyyn vaikutti kristinuskon kehittyminen protestantismin suuntaan, mutta ei henkilökohtaisen omaisuuden akkumulaatioon ainakaan Raamatusta löydy mitään perusteita. Ehkä protestantismi on tässä mielessä jonkinlainen kristinuskon perversio.

Kristinusko on muutenkin yhteensovittamaton länsimaisten arvojen kanssa. Tästä huolimatta mm. moni amerikkalainen kristitty uskoo demokratian, kapitalismin ja vapauden olevan Jumalan lahjoja ihmiskunnalle, vaikka Raamattu on mitä vihamielisin näitä länsimaiden peruspilareita kohtaan.

The UK endorses Sharia

A member state of Eurabia, the United Kingdon, has legalised Sharia courts:

ISLAMIC law has been officially adopted in Britain, with sharia courts given powers to rule on Muslim civil cases.

The government has quietly sanctioned the powers for sharia judges to rule on cases ranging from divorce and financial disputes to those involving domestic violence.

This is nuts. Now there exist two legal systems in the UK. Can we refer to the UK as a civilized country anymore now that some of its people are legally governed by barbaric laws and practices, practices that should be considered utterly alien to European culture?

Under the act, the sharia courts are classified as arbitration tribunals. The rulings of arbitration tribunals are binding in law, provided that both parties in the dispute agree to give it the power to rule on their case.

This is fantasy. As if Muslim women are even asked. Thousands of Muslim women are living under constant threat in the UK, fearing their male relatives who might kill their sisters, wives and friends for failing to practice Islam properly. There is no consent when your decision is done under threat.

The whole point of having a justice system is to have justice. Islamic justice, being vehemently anti-women, is a joke. Only western ideals of justice that put the individual ahead of the collective should govern the civilized world.

A tale of three girls

United States (FoxNews):

The uncle of a young Vermont girl found dead could face the death penalty on federal kidnapping charges connected with the case, prosecutors said Thursday.

About 300 people attending a candlelight vigil Wednesday night found themselves mourning the news that her body had been found a few hours earlier

Iraq (FoxNews):

A horrifying video showing a 17-year-old Kurdish girl being stoned to death for having a relationship with a Sunni Muslim boy has made its way onto the Web,

A large crowd watched as eight or nine men dragged Aswad from a house, and then hurled stones at her for about 30 minutes until she was dead.

Another one from Iraq (TeleGraph):

An Iraqi father who murdered his 17-year-old daughter after she fell in love with a British soldier said death was “the least she deserved”.

Abdel-Qader Ali claimed the 'honour killing’ was supported by local police, and said his only regret was that he had not killed his daughter at birth.

It's true that every country has psychos willing to molest and kill innocent, underage girls. (This is an inevitable result of a permanent biological process: from time to time the genetic cocktail results in monsters whose inability to engage in normal, stable and fruitful relationships is so severe that it leads not just to their demise but takes innocents with them too.) This argument is often used by multiculturalists to show that the west is just as corrupt as the Islamic world. But the significant difference is how the surrounding society reacts to acts committed by degenerates. In the two Iraqi cases the society reacted by praising these degenerates. It was no less than the police that showed understanding for the killing of a teenage girl. No candles were lit for the victims. And no, this isn't merely about Islamic versus Christian values. After all, Christianity sees the individual as a part of some greater good, not valuable in itself but only in respect to God. It was classical liberalism, i.e., libertarianism, that placed the individual first and abandoned the idea that an individual is valuable only in respect to his family, clan, race or nation. Until the Islamic world recognizes the individual as the primary functional unit of society their world should not be considered equal with ours. This is also why there should be no such thing as national sovereignty, an idea that is inconsistent with classical liberal principles. If liberty is not actively defended it ceases to exist.

Individualismi, kollektivismi ja kulttuurien menestys

Luin Ayn Randin The Fountainheadin tämän keskustelun ja Lostin (kuva) innoittamana. Eräässä kohdassa kirjan protagonisti, arkkitehti Howard Roark, toteaa tällaista:

"Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage's whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilizations it the process of setting man free from men."

Tästä tuli mieleen eräs junamatka n. kuukausi sitten. Joku romaniperhe piti aivan hirvittävää meteliä junassa. Perheen äitee huusi ja kiroili kännykkään. Kuulosti siltä, että tyypillä olisi mennyt bänät miehensä kanssa. Äiteen huutaessa perheen pennut (poika ja tyttö) pyörivät pitkin vaunua, hakkasivat jalkojaan lattiaan jne. Suomalaiset olivat tietenkin hiljaa ja minä naureskelin itsekseni.

Yhteiskunnan suhtautuminen yksilöön on merkittävin ero lännen ja primitiivisten kulttuurien välillä. Kun yksilöllisyyttä ja yksityisyyttä ei ole, kaikki asiat ovat julkisia. Näille romaneille oli nähtävästi täysin normaalia huutaa yksityisasioista julkisesti. Kollektiiviset kulttuurit eivät tunnista yksilöä tai yksilön oikeutta yksityisyyteen. Rakkausasiat (avioliitot) eivät kuulu yksilöille; ne kuuluvat perheille, heimoille tai klaaneille. Naisten seksuaalisuus ei kuulu naisille vaan miehille. Häpeä ei ole yksilön asia, vaan perheen asia. Tästä syntyy "maailman myrkyllisin arvosysteemi". Islamilaisissa maissa ei tunnisteta yksilönvapauksia, vaan sukupuoleen ja uskontoon perustuvia privilegioita. Aasiassa perheen nimellä ja statuksella on enemmän merkitystä kuin perheenjäsenen yksilöllisillä kyvyillä.

Kaikki kollektivistiset aatteet ovat vallitsevina ideologioina poikkeuksellisen tuhoisia. Keskiaikainen kristinusko alensi yksilön palvomaan satuolentoa ja pitämään omaa maanpäällistä olemassaoloaansa kärsimyksenä. Tätä kärsimystä voitiin lieventää toimimalla altruistisesti. Kärsimyksen lähtökohtana oli se, että ihminen oli maistanut kiellettyä hedelmää, koska uskoi tämän vievän hänet askeleen lähemmäksi jumaluutta. Sankaritaru käännettiin syntiinlankeemukseksi. Natsismi ja kommunismi tekivät yksilöstä koneiston osan. Natsi-Saksassa ei tunnistettu yksilöiden etua, ainostaan arjalaisen Natsi-Saksan etu. Neuvostoliitossa ei tunnistettu yksilöiden etua, ainostaan kollektiivin etu. Nykyajan kollektivistisia aatteita ovat mm. monikulttuurisuus ja environmentalismi.

Käännekohta ihmiskunnan historiassa oli 13 pohjoisamerikkalaisen siirtokunnan itsenäisyysjulistus heinäkuun neljäntenä 1776. Yhdysvaltain itsenäisyysjulistuksen ytimenä oli yksilön itsemääräämisoikeus. Tämän pohjalta laadittiin Yhdysvaltain perustuslaki. Ranskan vallankumous kolmetoista vuotta myöhemmin oli toinen merkittävä käänne, mutta se ei johtanut kovin pitkäaikaisiin muutoksiin; Ranska oli muutamassa vuodessa palannut diktatuuriin. 1800-luvun lopulla kollektivistiset aatteet (sosialismi ja nationalismi) nousivat keskiöön Euroopassa. Näiden pohjalta syntyi kaksi maailmansotaa. Eurooppa vapautui kollektivismin kiroukselta vasta toistuvien jenkki-interventioiden seurauksena.

Puhtaasti traditioihin perustuva kollektivismi ei myöskään toimi kovin hyvin kapitalismin kanssa. Tästä esimerkkinä Japani. Japanissa kilpailu on herrasmiesmäisempää kuin lännessä (esim. valtauksia vältetään). Sodan jälkeen valtio osallistui aktiivisesti firmojen subventointiin. Sääntelyllä tuettiin säästämistä. Säästämisen seurauksena tehtiin laajoja investointeja. Nousukauden jälkeen firmojen julkista tukemista jatkettiin. Japanin keskuspankki piti korot nollissa, mikä pelasti lukuisia elinkelvottomia firmoja (The Economist kutsui näitä "zombie-firmoiksi"). Tuloksena heikko talouskasvu ja sen sivuvaikutukset, kun resursseja allokoitiin tehokkaasta toiminnasta tehottomaan toimintaan. Kollektivismi myös heijastuu japanilaisten mielipuoliseen työpaikkakulttuuriin: palkat perustuvat työsuhteen pituuteen, eivät meriitteihin, firmat ovat vähemmän halukkaita hankkiutumaan eroon tehottomista työntekijöistä, työntekijät katsovat velvollisuudekseen roikkua työpaikoillaan yöhön asti, minkä jälkeen vielä lähdetään pomon ja kollegoiden kanssa baarikierrokselle (tästäkin oli juttua em. uutislehdessä) jne. Erityisesti näistä jälkimmäinen on aivan sairasta fyysisen ja henkisen terveyden uhraamista jonkin kuvitteellisen yhteishyvän vuoksi. USA:ssa pitkät työpäivät näkyvät palkassa; Japanissa ne näkyvät itsemurhatilastoissa.

Välitapauksia tietenkin on. Valtio voi valita pelkästään taloudellisen liberalismin (Singapore, Kuwait, Arabiemiraatit jne.), jättäen sosiaaliset vapaudet odottamaan. Elintason noustessa yksilöt rupeavat vaatimaan sosiaalisia vapauksia, kuten äänestysoikeutta, kun ensisijaiset tarpeet on tyydytetty. Tässä mielessä demokratiaa voidaan pitää ylellisyyshyödykkeenä. Toisaalta pelkät sosiaaliset vapaudet voivat johtaa esim. kansanäänestyksen kautta taloudelliseen liberalismiin ja elintason nousuun, mutta korrelaatio pelaa heikommin tähän suuntaan. Ehkä se johtuu siitä, että taloudellinen liberalismi kykenee konkreettisesti osoittamaan yksilöllisyyteen pohjaavan systeemin hyödyt, kun taas sosialistisessa valtiossa elävän yksilön äänestysoikeus (tosin vielä ei ole kuultu demokraattisesta sosialistisesta valtiosta) ei paljoa lohduta, jos rahaa ei riitä ruokaan ja asumiseen.

On Fatal Conceit & PZ Myers

Pharyngula, a popular "science" blog, was a blog I loved to read a few years back. PZ Myers, a professor of biology, used to make funny remarks about creationists and other religious fools whose small brains couldn't comprehend even the most basic ideas behind evolution (this actually seems a challenge to many atheists as well). Then it turned out that Myers had naive ideas about economics that were no more rational than anti-evolution arguments by creationists. Myers also argues like a child. When someone makes a good point (assuming the discussion is not about creationism; creationism cannot be defended rationally) that conflicts with Myers's ideas on economics, Myers makes a few sarcastic comments that avoid discussing the issue. A common strategy of Myers is to associate all opponents with evil Republicans. Then his loyal fanbase follows with their misguided opinions.

It was particularly entertaining when Climate Audit, a global warming skeptic blog, was about to win (and won) the Best Science Blog 2007 award. PZ Myers instructed his minions to vote for another blog because, well, apparently all material that challenges the so called "consensus" on climate change is right-wing propaganda that should be ignored.

I understand the importance of biology but you cannot dismiss the importance of economics. Professors and intellectuals should take at least some university-level courses on economics before preaching their anti-market rhetoric. It's especially regretful when biologists, who should understand the importance of and mechanisms behind spontaneous order, are guilty of the fatal conceit, the idea that a scientist (or an enlightened intellectual) can guide an economy like God guides evolution.

A country that firmly believes that some biblical version of Jesus actually existed (he did not nor was he a historical person) but that also understands the importance of free markets can thrive. A socialist country cannot thrive whether it's religious or not. Teaching kids creationism is perverted but it cannot destroy a country like bad economic policies can. After all, nearly all Finnish kids are taught that Jesus was the son of God from the moment they hit first grade.

Maybe someone should tell these professors that socialism is to economics what creationism is to biology.

Well, Merry Christmas! (We avoid all controversy on the name by calling the occasion Yule)

Edit: Btw, here's a good entry on why militant atheism is needed and why it's sometimes okay to ridicule religious people.