6. Democracy itself as the Sacred Value of Society
For the Constituent Assembly, God, king and motherland was still the sacred values, as they had been for the king and the absolutism. The members of the Assembly only felt that the people's representatives would be able to make better decisions for the benefit of the motherland, than the absolute king and his ministers were.
The Danish Constituent Assembly in 1849.
That the Assembly found the motherland very important is made very likely by Denmark's following engagement in the Slesvig wars in 1849 and 1864 and the whole of the nineteenth-century's nationalism.
Today we are a people, who in reality have rejected Christianity and the motherland. Few care about religion, and many find it a bit ridiculous to talk about "the Danish People" or "Fatherland". Conversely, democracy, human rights and tolerance towards other races and religions are supported by the biggest fanaticism. These are the new gods, one can not criticize without being subject to suspicion or even excluded from the good company.
Democracy has evolved into a new state religion. You do not talk about that new Danes must be loyal to Denmark and the Queen and her government; no, they must be loyal to the "Danish democracy"!
People must be educated to democracy, the architect and society critic Poul Henningsen believed. The reason is that democracy is not only a fair and practical way to choose the nation's leaders - with the theologian Hal Koch's words: "It's a way of life that must be practiced in humans' souls."
The retreat from Dannevirke in 1864 - a national symbol.
Democracy is meant to be a fair and practical way to choose exactly the right leaders for the best of the nation and the people. But it has obviously failed, the system does not work for the best of the Danish people's. How else can it be explained that Danes for centuries have fought against Swedes, Englishmen and
Prussians, that they should not take our land, but the modern democratically elected governments have simply turned the gate wide open and allowed the excessive and uncontrolled immigration of Muslims, who want our land and its resources? - Despite their outspoken commitment to democracy, they have done it without asking the people, indeed against the will of the people.
In practice modern democracy works as groups of greedy heirs fighting over an estate of a deceased. Women consider the nation as a conspiracy by evil white men, they go to the polls determined to show them that they should not decide everything! So-called socialist parties are using elections as a tool to take down the rich. Benefit recipients want to maximize their payouts. Well-meaning idealist center parties use the political platform to promote their beautiful view of humanity, kindness and sympathy with the world's poor. Only a minority are thinking about Mother Denmark and her future existence, prosperity and happiness.
Greek demonstration for more
welfare pay-outs and German demonstration for more refugees. Photo: zerohedge.com.
The majority of ordinary people, the voters, are bad decision makers, they are anxious and wish dearly that everything will continue as it always has. They will at all times eagerly support political programs that assure them that the Denmark, they know, will continue and there is absolutely no reason to make dramatic, unpleasant decisions. They want to close their eyes to unpleasant facts and continue as usual. A program that ignores serious threats to the nation and promises that nothing will be changed, can almost always gather a solid majority, no matter how unrealistic it is.
But one should not worship Democracy, simply because we believe it is sacred system that all decent and honest people simply must be in favor of. One can be in favor of a kind of democracy judging that this system is the best tool for selecting exactly the right leaders and take the right decisions in favor of the nation's overall objective, which should be dominated by the goal of happiness and welfare of our own people and our own country.
In modern times, freedom and human rights have achieved very near the same status as the
Ten Commandments had in the past. Confused teen-agers organize demonstrations and street riots in favor of total freedom and the like.
Jeremy Bentham 1748 - 1832.
The Christian God gave us "The Ten Commandments". Who has given us the "Human Rights", and why should these rights be so sacred to us?
Famous philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, Jean Jacques Rousseau and Jeremy Bentham did not recognize the concept of "human rights".
"Right is a child of law," Bentham wrote. "From real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from "laws of nature", come imaginary rights - natural
rights are simply nonsense."
Human rights should not be such ultimate demands, which all governments have a duty to stand up to without questions. But perhaps they can be useful as a kind of international legal standards, which governments can follow, if they consider it right, and if the country and the taxpayers can afford.
Confused teen-agers demand total freedom.
Human rights as legal standards are good. It's a good thing to live in a country, where people can believe what they want and you can say what you think. For example, I can write this article without being persecuted by the authorities.
But basically human rights are empty values. Let us take for example take the human right of "freedom of religion".
OK, now we are free, and we can believe, what we want. What are we to believe, except
Human Rights, Democracy and Total Freedom and similar stuff? Human Rights says nothing about this. Most of those, who today are very committed to Human Rights, seems only to have vague ideas about, what - for example - it is that freedom of religion allows them to do.
Newly converted European Muslims are interviewed on Britisk TV.
For the American settlers freedom of religion was not an empty concept, they had all their Protestant sects, as they would have the freedom to believe as they wished. It was
Lutherans, Presbytanere, Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Shakers, Amisher, Mormons and
several others, and of course Catholics and Russian Orthodox and others.
For the Danish Constituent Assembly members and their generation freedom of religion was not an empty concept. Grundtvig himself was a member of the Assembly, and he had, as we know, very specific ideas about what you should believe. Only a few decades later the country in terms of religion was divided into two warring groups, "The Inner Mission" and "Grundtvigians".
Young Englishmen in their friday prayer.
Thus you can take human rights one by one. We do not really have something to fill in them. We live in a vacuum in terms of positiv value. It is a very dangerous situation for our people and our Fatherland.
The Muslims promote themselves uncompromisingly. They want to fill our value-vacuum. They will use our tolerance and our confusion to promote their own faith and their islamic law, and when this is completed, they will never again talk about tolerance and freedom.
Perhaps you, my readers, find this idea ridiculous. That will never happen, we think. But have in mind how fragmented and atomized, our modern society is. There are many lonely and anxious people, especially women, who are longing for a solid foundation in their lives. They can be in the ultimately be attracted to Muslims crushing self-confidence because they feel they have no other options.
A sampling of Europeans, who have been converted to Islam, mostly women:
Many ethnic Europeans and Americans have allowed themselves to convert to Islam. especially women seem to be strongly attracted to the Muslim faith. The British journalist Yvonne Ridley did so, when she period was imprisoned by the Taliban in Afghanistan. Fatimah Mohammed from Iowa seemed to have changed religion to get a man. The German Eric Breininger joined the Taliban in Afghanistan as a jihad terrorist.
Right from primary school girls are indoctrinated that they are smarter than men, and
must tilt their own men of the stick as lawyers, judges, engineers, professors, commandos, politicians, deep-sea divers and all other positions in society. They must also be beautiful, slim, charming and intelligent. This causes a huge pressure of expectations, which some can not cope, and therefore they are attracted by the sweetness of subjugation, Islam's simple and easy to understand requirements, womens subordination, five prayers a day and so on.
Helena Benaouda - leading member of the muslim council in Sweden - she was born Swedish but has allowed hereself to convert. Foto Holger Motzkau wikipedia.
It looks as if the Muslim faith is particularly popular in our neighboring England and Sweeden. Many, who are born as Englishmen and Swedes, have converted to islam.
Helena Benaouda has been born as a Swede. She, meanwhile. He estimates that in Sweden alone already around 5,000 natural-born Swedes have converted to islam.
Tolerance is not absolutely a good thing, it depends on what you tolerate; one should not tolerate everything.
Young muslims demonstrating for democracy and human rights. Which is paradoxical,
as their koran states that Allah makes the laws that are sharia, and the people obey.
Today, the concept of tolerance is mostly used to defend the Muslim invasion.
It is a paradox that we do not tolerate simple threats of violence, but we tolerate the muslim koran, as a program declaration, which will impose a religious dictatorship, established and supported by violence.
It is a paradox that we do not tolerate own Danes threats of killing, but we tolerate the koran policy statement of striving for a political system and legislation requiring the faithfuls to murder Jews and other infidels and throw gays from tall buildings.
The concept of tolerance was mainly developed in connection with the Protestant Reformation and the Renaissance.
A more honest muslim demonstrater.
Tolerance is treated in John Locke's "Letter Concerning Toleration" from 1689. Here
he distinguishes between issues, which it is possible to achieve true knowledge about and topics on faith. Different religions and pagans are all equally convinced of the truth of their faith, he wrote. John Locke's and the contemporary attention was first and
all directed towards the many new Protestant sects in England. As one can not obtain
certain knowledge about which religious faith that is true, one has to tolerate them,
However, he did not believe that Catholics and atheists should be tolerated.
The Catholics could not be tolerated because they profess allegiance to a foreign prince that is the Pope. Locke wrote: "That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government."
Atheists could not be tolerated because their promises could not be trusted. "Those are not at all to be tolerated, who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all", Locke wrote. Later, however, he felt doubt about his judgement of atheists. There is a passage added in a later edition of his "Essay Concerning Human Understanding", where he perhaps questions "whether 'atheism' was necessarily inimical to political obedience."
This suggests a rejection of tolerance towards Muslims in John Locke's footsteps.
The Muslim concept of jihad - holy war
It is well known that Muslims are much more loyal to the religious authorities in their
homeland and the ideal of a world-wide caliphate than they are loyal to the Danish queen and her government. It is also common knowledge that the Muslim faith contains the concept "Jihad", which allows them to use any means to fight the infidels, including perjury.
Therefore we can say that Muslims profess allegiance to a foreign prince, and they do not feel bound by "Promises, covenants, and oaths", and consequently we must in John Locke's
footsteps refuse to tolerate muslims.
Karl Popper is probably the one most known to argue that tolerance should not be extended to the intolerant: "Unlimited tolerance must lead to disappearance of tolerance. If we let unlimited tolerance apply even to the intolerant, and if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaughts of the intolerants, then the tolerants will be crushed and with them tolerance." He is precisely mentioned that threats and incitement to persecution of of people of different thinking must be treated in the same way that we consider other threats and calls to murder and violence: "We should therefore in the name of tolerance reserve the right not to tolerate the intolerants. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance place themselves outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder or kidnapping or the restoration of the slave trade as criminal."
The philosopher Karl Popper (1902 - 1994) is known for his theory of science and the work "The Open Society and Its Enemies", which is a defense of democracy and the open society and an ambitious showdown on the philosophers Plato, Hegel and Marx.
What in modern times is presented as tolerance is often simply a kind of intellectual
cowardice. Rather than decide what is true and right, some prefer simply ride the wave or accuse the other party of intolerance. The concept of tolerance has developed into a kind of value-relativity. All values are considered equally true or equally valid.
But notice that the very concept of tolerance requires disagreement. "I think it is
wrong, what you say and do, but I tolerate it."
Sooner or later we have to consider the problem that our country little by little is taken over by foreigners, who have their own plans what to do with it - when they become numerous enough. Should we in impotent devotion to the modern common values, Democracy, Human Rights and Tolerance tolerate this?