Saturday, May 20, 2006

Germany finds self by seeing others

The best way to find out who you are is to create a situation in which you're surrounded by people different from you. You're then a microcosm of broader culture, as Germany demonstrates:
Experts fear new conflicts after a study published this week showed most Germans doubt the Western and Islamic worlds can peacefully coexist. Mistrust of the 3 million Muslims living in Germany appears to be growing. ...

The case of a Berlin "honor killing," a quarrel over two Bonn students who wore burkas to school and discussions concerning increasing schoolyard violence among immigrant children have all made headlines in the German press recently.

"In view of the diffuse feeling of being under threat, and the suspected intolerance of Islam, the readiness of Germans to show tolerance to the Muslim faith is sinking," Noelle and Petersen wrote.

A philosophical foundation built on tolerance is inherently self-immolating. Unfettered tolerance does not have an answer for intolerance. If tolerance suggests intolerance should moderate, the former is revealed to be a fraud. There are two ways to fight bad intolerance: Combat the bad intolerance with "good" intolerance, or bar the bad intolerance in the first place. Similarly, a functioning democracy requires that a majority of the population support democratic ideals. If the proportion of the population supporting said democratic ideals falls to minority status, democracy dies. Thus, "free" democracies must either amalgamate their supporting elements to fight undemocratic elements within the society, or keep these elements out in the first place. In both cases, the third option is to allow tolerance/democracy to whither away and be replaced by something different.

Of Germany's 82 million people, only 3 million are Muslim. Germans have the luxury of choosing whether to suppress Muslims in Germany, bar more of them from coming in, or allow Islamic culture to increasingly influence Germany's social composition. Recent news doesn't favor the third option:
The case of a Berlin "honor killing," a quarrel over two Bonn students who wore burkas to school and discussions concerning increasing schoolyard violence among immigrant children have all made headlines in the German press recently.
Stepping outside of Germany, we could also add the Muslim riots in France, the Madrid and London bombings, vicious hostility toward other religions in Denmark, Theo Van Gogh's slaying in the Netherlands, the cartoon chaos, clashes between Muslims and Aussies down under, 9/11, ad infinitum. Without even considering the deleterious economic impact a relatively low IQ, welfare-consuming underclass has on free-market-based systems, there is no reason to have lots of Muslims in the West outside of the fallacious argument that diversity is an inherently good thing. That is, multiculturalism not as a means to some end (stronger economy, healthier or more creative or safer society, etc), but a self-evidently desirable end in itself, justifying the burdensome baggage it brings.

Germans overwhelmingly do not view diversity brought by Muslims in a favorable light:
When asked what they associate with the word "Islam," 91 percent of respondents connected the religion to the discrimination of women, and 61 percent called Islam "undemocratic." Eight percent of Germans associated "peacefulness" with Islam.
Many Teutons are willing to exercise option one or two (of the three mentioned earlier) in defense of Occidentalism:
About 40 percent of Germans queried were willing to limit the constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion if constricting the practice of the Muslim religion could lead to fewer violent Muslims choosing to live in Germany. Over half of those who took part, 56 percent, agreed with the statement, "If some Muslim countries forbid building churches, then it should be forbidden to build mosques here."
Western nations hold many values and beliefs in common. It's too bad we are not more unified in dealing with threats to those values and beliefs. US leaders tenaciously believe that a salient presentation of these values will make heathens reject their own beliefs and accept ours. Many European leaders claim to want mutual understanding, a real life application of tolerance suggesting intolerance be more tolerant (and really these two approaches are two sides of the same coin). In the Netherlands they even want desuetude of those most loudly sounding the tocsin:
Dutch politician Ayaan Hirsi Ali has been threatened repeatedly with "execution" by Islamist extremists. She lives in an apartment with bulletproof windows, and is driven to work at the Dutch Parliament by armed guards, who vary the route to outfox would-be hit men.

But an unexpected menace emerged closer to home: her own neighbors. They have fought to evict her, complaining that the presence of a well-known terrorist target in their luxury apartment tower in this Dutch city has upset their family lives and reduced the value of their property.

"Once this lady leaves, the problem is no longer there," says Ger Verhagen, a retired executive who owns a place two floors above the hunted politician.

Verhagen believes that killing the messenger will make the message irrelevant. His attitude deserves the rhetorical comparison to the appeasement of the thirties so often spuriosly hurled at the critics of the Iraq and Iran hawks. He's like the ignorant open border Republican drones that attack analysts like Steve Sailer for pointing out that current immigration trends are disastrous for the future of the GOP. If the naysayers would just shut up, the things they are worried about would go away. Ed Gillespie even thinks these things would be good if we'd just ignore all the evidence showing how bad they are.

Verhagen's ilk should heed a few words of wisdom from Hirsi and Flemming Rose, the Jyllands-Posten editor responsible for the publishing of the Danish Muhammad cartoons:
"They're just sticking their heads in the sand," responds Ms. Hirsi Ali, who dismisses the report as a "political pamphlet to suit the dreams of people who want to believe there is not a problem." ...

"I think it is very dangerous to give in to intimidation, because it sends a signal: If you threaten enough, we will do as you please," says Mr. Rose.

I'm reminded of The Simpsons episode where Bart buys a delapidated factory. He and Milhouse are rocking back and forth on an elevated platform that is covered in signs warning of the platform's instability. When Milhouse shows unease, Bart pulls down the signs, flings them away, and the two gleefully rock back and forth on the unstable platform.

But I'm encouraged by the thought that if Bart was German, he might not have elected to buy the run-down liability in the first place.

(International)

4 comments:

JSBolton said...

Tolerance as an oject of value, where more tolerance is said to be systematically better than less, is clearly self-annihilating. Tolerance of invasion by hostile and intolerant foreign armies would then be better than intolerance of them. Since we don't have any important scholars incapable of realizing this, it follows that the setting-up of such tolerance as an ideal for nations, is deception; it is malicious fraud. The result is the destruction of civilization, and this is thereby known to be the objective of government schools, which teach such tolerance, but with money taken by aggression; by subhuman aggression. What damnation is upon them...

crush41 said...

Anyone interested in a philosophical expounding upon of the precepts John Bolton puts forward should check out the weighty but worthwhile content here.

Ted Gage said...

It's interesting that Germany has recently shifted its immigration policy radically away from Turkish and Arab immigration, and toward the East. All that cheap labor that Germany used to get from Istanbul and Ankara, is now coming from places like Warsaw, Moscow, Vilnius, Budapest, Krakow and Prague.

In fact, Germany's even set up a tough points system to discourage further Muslim immigration while inviting Eastern Europeans (especially those with German blood from the old Austro-Hungarian days-- perhaps 30 million or so people) to come and settle in Germany. It's interesting b/c the UK and France are doing the opposite.

Even with 6.5 million angry North African Muslim Arabs in France, they continue to invite in about 250,000 more Arabs every year, while Britain is similarly flooded with Pakistanis and Somalis. So France and the UK will be outposts of Eurabia in 25 years, while Germany will continue as a Christian nation. Interesting.

A bit off-topic, crush, but I hope you and any other readers here are making phone calls to your reps in Congress, to make it clear that they'll suffer political catastrophe if they support this lunatic immigration bill. It must be defeated, and we have to apply strong pressure to make sure that it is. The House is our best bet for it, and we should be doing everything possible to encourage members of the House to defeat the bill, period. No modified version, no little compromises-- only a full-fledged defeat of the bill can finally send the right message. Better to start from scratch.

crush41 said...

Ted,

Germany's had to deal with the Islamic underclass for a long time now. There's hope that we'll collectively start to wake up.

I've called and written Senator Brownback on numerous occasions. His immigration record is atrocious (big agro-business is powerful in the center and west of Kansas), although he did vote against Hagel/Martinez and for Sessions amendment to S2611. I will not be casting another vote for him, and I've vociferously urged those I know to do the same.

Senator Roberts is okay. I've written a couple of times.