A close cultural cousin to deranged altruism is an impulse that might be labeled “toxic tolerance”. This is the imperative never to offend anyone, no matter how evil, duplicitous, or exploitative they might be. We are brought up to be nice at all costs, so that the impulse to be accommodating and generous to those who do not deserve it — even when it is patently dangerous to do so — is acted upon with almost no conscious deliberation. Muslims, with their long tradition of scripturally-prescribed dishonesty, are especially adept at manipulating and exploiting our toxic tolerance.
A selection of articles collected for tonight’s news feed reminded me of the two faces of toxic tolerance. The first group illustrates the decayed self-confidence and lack of guts displayed by Westerners when faced with the demands of the culture enrichers.
From The Sydney Morning Herald:
Danish MP Meets Muslims Over Cartoons
Denmark’s foreign minister on Wednesday met ambassadors of 17 Muslim countries ahead of the publication of a book on controversial cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed, the ministry said.
The meeting came five years after they were first published in a Danish daily.
Lene Espersen’s meeting with the ambassadors took place in a bid to defuse tensions with Muslim countries, a day before the fifth anniversary of the Jylland[s]-Posten newspaper’s publication of the cartoons that sparked outrage across the Muslim world.
[…]
The meeting was aimed at preventing new protests against Denmark and Danish interests over the publication on Thursday of the book written by Flemming Rose, who was Jyllands-Posten’s cultural editor when it published the 12 cartoons on September 30, 2005.
There’s no discussion of imposing draconian punishments on immigrant malefactors who violate public order, even though this policy would act as a means of prevention. There’s no possibility of consigning the violent punks to a cold concrete cell for decades and forcing them to subsist on weevil-ridden biscuits — not to mention deporting them at the first sign of insolent disorder.
The only available choice requires being nice, which involves — you guessed it! — “dialogue”, the favorite remedy of the terminally nice:
The minister met ambassadors from 17 Muslim countries, including Algeria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia and Iran, Klavs Holm, the Danish ambassador for public diplomacy, said.
“It was a good meeting, a good atmosphere,” he said.
[…]
“The Danish government respects all creeds and religious communities, including Isla[m]… and all peoples’ religious sensibilities,” [Lene Espersen] added.
Or take the following example from England. The Harrow Times reports:
Harrow Council Urges Schools to Consider Non-Halal Meat Option
HARROW Council has urged all headteachers in the borough to consider a non-Halal meat option in schools.
Angry parents and religious leaders have accused schools of ignoring the rights of non-Muslim parents and their children by making Halal the only meat option in secondary schools.
Notice that the Harrow Council can only “urge” — that is, it is reduced to begging for the same consideration to be shown to “persons of English background” that is routinely lavished upon Muslim residents without a second thought.
The council, as the education authority, has soaked up much of the criticism despite saying it has no power over what schools serve at lunch. [emphasis added]
The council — the elected body which theoretically governs local affairs in Harrow — has no power over what food is served in schools.
Yet local Muslims somehow have the power to demand — and receive — what they insist is their right.
Funny about that.
The best the English natives can hope for is “serious consideration”:
“That means giving serious consideration to offering an alternative menu with non-Halal meat, which offers choice to all faith and interest groups.
“This will help schools focus on ensuring that all children across Harrow have access to healthy and nutritious school meals.”
Health and nutrition are the only metrics allowed. No culture, no tradition, no rights for the indigenes. Just utilitarian calculations about bodily well-being.
The Sikhs are spearheading the resistance:
Sikh representative Paramjit Singh Kohli announced the launch of a petition over the policy last week, and said he will try to collect as many as 2m signatures from across the UK.
Schools also provide vegetarian and fish options but those who oppose the scheme say this is not enough.
Mr Kohli told the Harrow Times in September: “Fish and vegetarian dishes are not the alternative, the alternative is non-halal meat. Those dishes are for the people who are vegetarian and vegan.”
Harrow Central Mosque did not back the decision, saying it was grateful for the Halal option but other faith groups should be considered as well.
Ghulam Rabbani said he was concerned people might think the council was doing favours for the Muslim community.
D’you think? Is it really possible that the council has been doing favors for the Muslims?
Nah — there must be some other explanation.
Leaving the niceness of England, we travel on to uniquely nice Sweden, which has refined tolerance to a baroque level unsurpassed by any other Western country. Nobody can be nicer than the Swedes.
According to The Local:
A Swedish man charged with public urination has been acquitted by a Stockholm court, opening the door for thousands of others to avoid fines for heeding the call of nature in public.
[…]
In throwing out the charges against the 45-year-old, the Nacka District Court cited a previous appeals court ruling in which a man was acquitted because he didn’t intend to offend anyone when he unzipped his trousers. [emphasis added]
This story provides some insight into how our societies have become so degraded. Not offending people has become the sum and substance of the law. Offending others — or, in this case, intending to offend others — defines what is right and wrong. No other measurement is allowed. Any absolute definitions of right and wrong are discriminatory, and hence not nice. Only the giving or taking of offense may be considered.
Since everything an infidel says or does offends Muslims, we are wrong, wrong, wrong for doing it. Therefore we must be nice, nice, nice until they are no longer offended.
And what about the other face of tolerance? How nice are Muslims?
According to the Straits Times, not all that nice, and getting less nice all the time.
Rising Intolerance Among Muslims
JAKARTA — INDONESIA’S Muslim majority has become less tolerant over the past decade and the government of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono is turning a blind eye to the problem, researchers said on Wednesday.
A new survey by the Centre for the Study of Islam and Society found ‘a worrying increase’ in religious intolerance among Muslims in 2010 compared to 2001.
Centre chief Jajat Burhanudin said certain ministers in Mr Yudhoyono’s cabinet actively encouraged intolerance, while the police too often failed to protect minority groups.
‘If this continues, the process of democracy in this country will be disrupted as people will justify their acts in the name of Islam,’ he said.
As a concrete example of Indonesian intolerance, we have the reaction of the Islamic Defender Front to a gay film festival in Jakarta. It seems that the opening event had to be cancelled, due to threats of violence. According to Asia News:
Muslim Fundamentalists Against Gay and Lesbian Film Festival in Jakarta
Islamic Defender Front threatens to set fire to one of the venues of the festival. Opening day is cancelled.
Jakarta (AsiaNews) — A gay and lesbian film festival might be cancelled because of threats made by radical Islamic groups. The Q! Film Festival was scheduled to end on 30 September, but its director, John Badalu, called off the festival’s opening day (25 September). At least 100 members of the Islamic Defender Front (FPI) protested against the event, which is at its ninth edition, in front of Germany’s Goethe-Institut, one of the venues.
According to a FPI field coordinator, Habib Salim Alatas, “These places should be protected from any obscenity. I will let these places be burned down (by our members) because they promote obscenity”.
But the police are determined to enforce niceness:
Police is also on alert to ensure that protests by radical Muslims remain “polite”.
The Guardian has more details:
In the past, the Islamic Defenders Front has smashed bars, attacked transvestites and targeted other groups it considers blasphemous with bamboo clubs and stones. Indonesia, a secular country of 237 million people, has more Muslims than any other country in the world. Though most are moderate and oppose violence, a small extremist fringe has become more vocal in recent years. [emphasis added]
“[M]ost are moderate and oppose violence”.
How do we know that’s true?
Who determined this to be a fact?
What metric was used? Where are the details of the statistical survey that demonstrated this “fact”?
The Guardian is not going to tell us. We are required to take it on faith.
The assertion that most Muslims are moderate and peaceful is part of the catechism memorized by the devotees of the socialist Left. It cannot be questioned. It doesn’t have to be proved, it just is.
But what if it isn’t? What if the vast majority of Muslims who really believe in their religion also support, at least tacitly, the idea of killing homosexuals and stoning adulteresses?
What will we do then?
Niceness isn’t going to cut it. We are going to have to give up our dangerous addiction to being nice.
As I have said before, we are in the process of tolerating ourselves to death.
Hat tips: DF, C. Cantoni, and heroyalwhyness.
30 comments:
You will notice that no one is advocating dialogue with Geert Wilders, The Swedish Democrats, and the EDL.
It must be noted that dialogue only runs in one direction, like tolerance.
Civilisations are not conquered, they commit suicide.
Re: school dinners in England... A sizeable proportion of pupils having school lunches are entitled to free school meals because of low family income... guess which 'religious' grouping is over-represented amongst those pupils *entitled* to free school meals. In fact for many working families school meals are too expensive and their children are forced to take packed lunches to school.
I think you are too broad with your brush. To me it is an element that manipulates and intimidates the larger group.
That said, if it's 20% of all Muslims, that's still 300 million.
No question about the disconnect, however.
Enjoyed the post.
"deranged altruism"
"toxic tolerance"
"dialogue is the favorite remedy of the 'terminally nice'"
Perfect characterizations. I would add one more to this growing list . . .a phrase I caught in a comment recently -
"Overton Window" - the 'Overton Window' (covert manipulation of a 'new normal' of acceptance/acquiescence)
Toxic tolerance indeed. Civilisational suicide. Its pointless talking to the left, they are a done deal to admit at this stage in the game that they were/are wrong would be an admission of the failure of thier entire world view and an acceptance that people of our calling are right. No way hosay. The only right thing to do is to keep plugging away at the millions who are becoming increasingly aware, through personal experience or through blogs like this that we are in deep do-do. I see increasing evidence that such people are becoming more vocal and thinking more deeply about thier future and the future of thier children should the Muslim takeover ever be consummated.
oldschool26 --
I think you are too broad with your brush. To me it is an element that manipulates and intimidates the larger group.
My point is that no one knows. I'm not telling you that what I said above is true, just that it is possible.
The Grauniad, on the other hand, tells uou that it knows its version is true, when it in fact doesn't.
This is the great danger of the modern media: not that they peddle lies per se, but that they repeat speculation as if it were truth. Millions upon millions of people believe that what the media tell them is true is in fact true, because... well, because they're the media, and they couldn't print those things if they weren't true, now, could they? I mean, printing lies is, like, illegal, isn't it?
Hmph.
There is strong evidence -- including a number of opinion polls -- that indicates that far more than a "small minority" of Muslims agrees with the violent jihad crowd, and that a substantial number of those -- more than 10% of Muslims in the West -- actually support the modus operandi of the jihad.
No wonder the media cover up the truth. If they had to face up to these facts, what would they do?
I can only think the Saudis, together with other islamonazi countries, have told the West: accept our people or no more oil!
But this does not make sense either as the Saudis need US to buy their oil!
As I said, I believe that you were overbroad in the text because you lumped ALL Muslims together, rather than those who actually believe in what you said.
There are 1.5 billion people. Obviously no one knows for sure, but one can reasonably assume that substantial numbers feel different than what you indicated.
Also, I agree with the substance of what you said, but think it would be stronger if there was more specificity.
Man, I love the various "don't lump them all together" arguments: the last resort of those who have nothing meaningful to add to a discussion.
Assuming that 'a substantial number feels different' is unsubstantiated wishful thinking, which is supported only by the inability of someone to grasp the revolutionary notion that there are different types of people in the world than himself.
I can't imagine how frustrating it must be for an honest Muslim to continually be referred to as 'nice', despite his best efforts to prove otherwise.
Now that's just discriminating! Quick - somebody call a politician to apologize.
Which Muslims advocate and engage in terror and which do not matters, but is impossible to gauge.
We can know some things concretely.
1. The content of Islamic faith and culture dictate the use of violence at every level of society.
From the interaction of parent and child to those of man and wife to those of the society/government and the individual, Muslim society is violent.
For Muslims to emigrate to Western societies, which have employed much brutality in the past and now employ only a limited amount, is a dicey deal.
Either they assimilate the non-violent, lawful values of Western civilization, or they keep the violent values of Muslim civilization.
The evidence, in the crime rates and elsewhere, is that most Muslim immigrants have no desire to assimilate to Western culture.
So they should be expelled. There is no room for their sanctioned violence here. None.
oldschool26 --
As I said, I believe that you were overbroad in the text because you lumped ALL Muslims together, rather than those who actually believe in what you said.
Read my words more closely. I always endeavor to be careful and precise in what I say.
I said: "What if the vast majority of Muslims who really believe in their religion also support, at least tacitly, the idea of killing homosexuals and stoning adulteresses?"
The key phrase in the above is "Muslims who really believe in their religion". No one knows how many people are Muslims in name only, and would abandon their religion if doing so were not dangerous and potentially lethal.
This is why I advocate making the world safe for apostasy. If there were more opportunities for Muslims to leave Islam, we might discover that the much-vaunted figure of 1.5 billion rapidly became 1.2 billion, then 1.0 billion, then 800 million...
Erick,
I don't know what you are getting at, but suggesting that we don't overstate IS adding something.
I thought it was important to point it out because it makes the overall point stronger.
If you wish to denigrate that, fine!
Baron,
I read this at the start:
Muslims, with their long tradition of scripturally-prescribed dishonesty, are especially adept at manipulating and exploiting our toxic tolerance.
No big deal either way. However, I, for one, see too many comments that broadly dump on various groups, including those to which I belong, and don't think it helps on ANY level.
I do understand what you said, and once again concur in the gist of your remarks.
I'm here reading the blog because I agree with the issues presented, but in this case I was left with the impression I mentioned.
That's about all I have to say on this matter.
Later.
oldschool,
The Baron has already explained (twice) the error of your statement.
If you continue repeating the non-point of "they're not all bad!" despite these explanations, and the text itself, I will have to conclude that you are entertaining notions of becoming a journalist for the Guardian, or possibly the next Democratic candidate for US presidency.
Whatever, Erick. I thought he and I were having a conversation that did not even involve you, yet YOU chose to interject by say something disparaging.
Why are you acting as his nursemaid, anyway? Have you been designated as such? Is he incapable? Are you here to save us all?
Why you chose to start a fight with insults is beyond me? I said what I thought. Even if you do not agree, what is the point of showing this obnoxious side too characteristic of the blogosphere?
It's bad enough I get this from my extreme Leftist friends. Your comments are no different, just from the other direction, and completely unnecessary in my view.
oldschool26 --
I have no problem with the arguments you've presented here. We disagree on one or two points of emphasis, but that's no big deal.
I think that the collective opinion of Muslims can only be deduced from their collective behavior. A small subset wages jihad, a somewhat larger subset supports that jihad with rhetoric and money. The vast majority of Muslims do not publicly condemn the first two groups.
These are pretty much all the facts that can be determined. The rest is deduction, speculation, and hypothesis.
And no, Erick doesn't act as my keeper. If he gets any more insulting, I'll delete his comments.
People tend to carry over bad behavior from other forums. Since it's allowed there, they mistakenly think it's allowed here.
oldschool:
The first time I've commented here, Zenster had chewed my alive. It taught me to think because I post.
But rather than defend your argument, or trying to understand what you've done wrong, you resorted to throwing insults around like a child.
In case you haven't noticed, you sound just like those 'leftist friends', and the level of animosity that has surfaced in your last comment doesn't do much to alleviate that impression.
Cool. I did not think you had a problem and appreciate the remarks.
Cool. I did not think you had a problem and appreciate the remarks.
Baron,
I understand that oldschool was insulted by my comments, but I don't think that automatically tags them as 'insulting'.
Surely, if my initial sarcastic pokes are considered insulting, then calling me obnoxious, a nursemaid, and 'here to save us all' is at least equally insulting.
Would you please clarify what makes one alright, and the other not? Because it appears rather discriminating to me.
First, apologies to all for the double post.
Erick, I beg to differ on all counts. I suggest you follow your own advice to think before posting. Adults can converse without denigrating others. It's not really so hard.
I will leave it there, as going any further serves no purpose.
Erick --
You haven't descended to full-fledged name-calling so far, but have shown tendencies in that direction. Examples:
"...those who have nothing meaningful to add to a discussion..."
"...you are entertaining notions of becoming a journalist for the Guardian..."
Just back off the ad-hominems, argue the issues themselves, and we are cool.
Baron:
I admit that my first comment was rather blunt, but the second one was written in humor. The reply I got, on the other hand, was dead serious, and much more offensive.
The fact that you seemingly 'picked sides' afterwards, and only threatened to delete my comments, seems a tad perplexing.
In other words, am I being singled out for some reason, or was oldschool subjected to a similar treatment, had he continued with his line of thought?
Quote:
I think that the collective opinion of Muslims can only be deduced from their collective behavior. A small subset wages jihad, a somewhat larger subset supports that jihad with rhetoric and money. The vast majority of Muslims do not publicly condemn the first two groups.
end quote.
This triadic statement describes the nature of the threat Islam poses to Western civilization.
The Muslim consensus favors violence and the submission of the West to Islam.
When I have meaningful evidence otherwise, I'll change my mind.
Muslims are not Westerners. Even the Western converts to this religion have repudiated the philosophy and tradition to which they were born.
Erick --
As I said, if you don't slide any further towards ad-hominem, we are fine.
I'm not "taking sides", I'm pointing out that I prefer engaging the issues to assigning motives or character traits to other commenters. It's more interesting and fruitful that way, not to mention more pleasant to read.
Ah, but by not applying the warning to both participants in the argument, you were practically taking sides.
Actually, the use of third form, and the assumption that I'm some sort of trash that came from 'other forums', send a much clearer message than the attempt to portray this as adherence to rules of civility (which are not applied equally).
It's your blog, after all, so you can silence and judge whoever you want, but I don't take kindly to being disrespected, or threatened, so a good day to you, and best of luck with everything.
Erick --
There was no need to warn oldschool26, who was carefully following the rules. He/she only reacted when you introduced a personal dismissive tone in your comment. The disagreement with me was well withing the range of civility, which is the way I like it.
As things stand now, I'd say just let the matter drop. I'm not taking anybody's side, just trying to keep this thread from degenerating into yet another food fight.
"The minister met ambassadors from 17 Muslim countries'
I have some sad news for the minister. There is no muslim leader, there are not 17 muslim leaders, there is no muslim Pope, there is not one but Mo, and he's dead. You want to reason with Islam?, reason with the wind. It's just as effective.
This is one of the best commantaries I have read on the concept of “silent majorities”
WHY THE PEACEFUL MAJORITY IS IRRELEVANT
By Paul E. Marek
“We are told again and again by "experts" and "talking heads" that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace.
Although this unquantified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam. The fact is, that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history […] The hard quantifiable fact is, that the "peaceful majority" is the "silent majority" and it is cowed and extraneous.
[ …]
History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by the fanatics. Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because […] they will awake one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun. Peace-loving Germans […] and many others, have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late. As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts; the fanatics who threaten our way of life.”
http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5401
Post a Comment
All comments are subject to pre-approval by blog admins.
Gates of Vienna's rules about comments require that they be civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum. For more information, click here.
Users are asked to limit each comment to about 500 words. If you need to say more, leave a link to your own blog.
Also: long or off-topic comments may be posted on news feed threads.
To add a link in a comment, use this format:
<a href="http://mywebsite.com">My Title</a>
Please do not paste long URLs!
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.