In order to protect traditions…

More and more Czech politicians, who are demanding a ban on the construction of mosques, have recently been trying to "protect Western society". A strong anti-Islamist stance is said to be a "protection of freedom." Is that so? And what tradition do anti-Islamists actually protect?


Even more recently, we have been receiving more and more modern calls for ban on mosques, za restrictions on Muslim immigration (mainly Arabs that) and the like. Those who proclaim this commit a demonstration newskpeaku a „doublethinku"Orwell would be happy with them.

They claim that they want to protect "our traditional freedom" by restricting freedom. However, this argument is leaky like a colander.

Freedom and tradition?

Is freedom a tradition of Western society? What will we see if we look to the past?

We'll see the Romans slaves, the then clientelism and absolute monarchy. We will see the medieval feudalism and modern absolutist monarchism along with terrorist governance dictators (Jacobins). We will see modern communist revolutions, fascist coups and governments and American "racism by law." This is our tradition and unfortunately, it is not very close to freedom.

Let us not be conceited and admit that freedom is still something new for us, definitely not a tradition.

If many "Islamophobes" want to ban mosques to "preserve tradition," they are right, they protect tradition. But certainly different from what they think they protect. It does not protect the "tradition of freedom", but "tradition of oppression"," Tradition of dictation ","tradition of totality. "

The "tradition of freedom" can no longer exist by principle. "Freedom" is a kind of natural state of man, of any human being. Not just a "western", a "white" or a "black", or perhaps just a man or a woman, but a man. Any.

So freedom (at least potential) is always there, regardless of place and time. She always has her place, she is always defensible. It is not a tradition, it is a nature and with each new test of the existence of freedom, the arguments for its defense are becoming more and more refined. The goal is simple - to reach the point where freedom will be an indisputable fact that can no longer be attacked. To us it came natural, like breathing.

The current "Islamophobia" is thus another test of our perception of freedom. But I must admit that many "Islamophobes" point to problems that do exist - crime that exists. To the extremism that it really is. Let's answer where it comes from and why it is such a problem for us.

Restriction of liberty to restriction of liberty

Why are many Islamic immigrants - especially in Western countries - actors of crime and extremism? The answer is quite simple - let's look for it in the social system and in our current approach to freedom as a "right to" through the state.

The social system is nourished high taxation. Causes lower salaries, higher unemployment, more expensive products and services and, for example, poorer quality education. However, a smart person can easily learn only draw, which may be advantageous.

imagine of a young Iraqi. Coming from a western ruined country (from his point of view) where there is no work is universal poverty, corruption, dangerous. He will come to the west, for example to France, Great Britain or Swedish for a "better life".

He could live his "American dream" in Europe - first to find a low-paid job, for example, learn a language and some basic skillsthen go for the better and the better workSure, he might end up as a supermarket salesman, but from his point of view it is an incredible improvement in his life situation. He has the means, he can improve, he can have his children educated in the West… This is how "old and good" America grew up!

Unfortunately, everything is different. High taxation of labor and setting a minimum wage for him will not allow you to find a job (very acute problem for example in France). In order not to starve, he reaches for a generous social system (because of which, however, he cannot work), from which he can make a living. In his surroundings, he knows by watching and sees that he is alive poorly, but still better than at home, in Iraq (narrowed unrest). Therefore will not return home, will remain in Europe.

The language is not learned, if it is, so very weakly, because it comes into contact only with other Arabs. Why? Because he has no job, for the same reasons, however, work will not be found in the future either.

The difficult situations of such communities will then be easily used by an extremist group or various (even "indigenous") criminal elements. The extremists have it simple - they will tell our young man: "Look - at home they destroyed it all, bombed it. How many of your acquaintances fell? They want to destroy our religion, our faith and our traditions! You need to protect yourself and destroy them first! Come to us, we will give you money, sustenance as comrades-in-arms… and you will still be able to take revenge! ”

Thanks to the existence of the social system it is lucrative europe. Even though they do not find a job with us, they are moving here and they will move here. And precisely because they can't find a job (precisely due to the existence of a social system) they become extremists and criminals.

Does repression solve anything?

If we want to live with peace and tranquility with Arabs and Muslims, so that we do not interfere with each other's freedom and unnecessarily exacerbate the problems between us, we must get rid of the causes of all problems.

The reasons are obvious - it is state interventionism and the social system. The existence of a social system is, in principle, a restriction on the freedom of both payers and recipients. The restriction of freedom produces only another restriction of freedom - only as a result, freedom expires.

Therefore, let us not ban mosques and minarets - it does not solve anything, it only increases the problem (it gives further arguments to extremists on both sides). Let's get rid of the social system, let's get rid of state interventionism, let's reduce the price of work, let's make people's lives easier. People, everyone, not just selected groups.

At the same time, us may not be interestedif we can build churches in Saudi Arabia. We are deciding whether we here we want a free society. When there is a truly free society, those who already interpret Islam in its extreme form will simply have no reason to move here.

On the contrary, those Muslims who interpret some of the liberal forms of Islam will move to us without a problem and will live with us without a problem simply because there will be freedomwhich they will probably miss in their world.


  1. I admire the author's enthusiastic liberalism, but the remark about the time of building churches in Muslim countries is important. This is not just an economic issue, resp. social… We probably agree that the social system is too generous. However, I am and will be happy to live in a region where this "gain" works and in a reasonable way I hope it will work.

  2. MTD: Maybe find out something about Nolan's diagram before you start writing complete bullshit. On the Nolan Chart, there are libertarians (economic and personal) for the greatest freedom. Conservatives are only for great economic freedom and the liberal left is only for great personal freedom…

    Conservatives, therefore, are no natural resistance to totalitarianism. Just look at how many of them directly love Pinochet, who promoted economic freedom, but he was a totalitarian dictator…

    Likewise, cans would like to command which people should adopt children, who could serve in the military, or tell people which drugs to take and which not. This has nothing to do with freedom…

    A libertarian who is faithful to libertarianism must then agree with this article, because this is an almost exact definition of libertarian views - I can build what I want on my private land (such as a statue of Hitler) and neither the state nor anyone else has the right to talk to me, because it's my land…

    The real right has a great respect for private property, so if you do not agree with this and want to determine for people what to build on their private land, then you are at least totalitarian leftists on this issue, not the author of the article…

    PS: You should first find out the main facts and then write something…

  3. Nice article, I'm glad that there is also someone who will write something unposted. Sometimes it is true that you would like a little more information and focus on it more professionally, but you need to write at least something. Personally, I am quite frightened by this widespread xenophobia, which surprisingly took root in a country where 90% of people have never seen a Muslim in their lives. People who have never left their Upper Lower are sizzling angrily and cursing at "evil" Islam and shouting phrases about "twisting their necks" to save our children. Such a mood was there before the war and it is sad that it is repeated. Btw. In many Islamic countries, there are enough churches, and Islam and Muslims are much more tolerant of Christians than Christians. These intellectual neo-Nazis, with the teacher and the information gathered from the textbooks from elementary school and still badly, can scare me mainly because of the future of our society, which could start marching and burning prayer houses in a few years. If someone like that wants to start swearing at me with the fact that I don't know anything about what I'm writing, I'd like to say that I've been living in Egypt for a while, I know very well what the relationship is between Muslims and Christians in an Islamic country.

  4. re: Viikate

    you do not understand the cause and effect and you do not run out of consequences

    Muslims are coming here for the better, and our governments allow a certain minimum living even without work, this problem cannot be solved by banning the gathering of Muslims !!! (this will only make it worse)

    after all, if there is no work and benefits for them, they will go elsewhere (but Europeans have become so accustomed to the fact that "inferior" work is done by immigrants that it is often they who need immigrants and not the other way around)

  5. you speak to me from the soul…

    I would add that the rise of Islam (many "natives" convert to Islam) in Europe is also related to the problem of the spiritual "vacuum" after the weakening of Christianity in the second half of the 20th century. which spontaneously fills with various previously exotic beliefs
    this can cause problems because it is not true that all cultures are equally compatible with democracy - Islam or even Orthodoxy has a relatively interesting relationship between religious and political authority (understand - they intertwine and often more than ever in the European Middle Ages - this is our tradition is more valuable, but I do not claim that universally)

    PS: the ban on mosques is really nonsense (perhaps only as part of the care of historic buildings, but it would have to start a debate about special minarets and prayer houses, etc.)

    PPS: communism fails to know man, but no real communism has ever been and never has been - for this reason, among other things

  6. I completely agree with the author. The classic (though inverted) Bastiat's "What is seen and what is not seen". What is most visible are the negative consequences. What is not visible is the cause of the problems.

  7. The article is written in the spirit of "Long live multiculturalism!". "Let's allow meSHITs and minarets," so I was really amused.

  8. You see, according to your interpretation, I am neither a multiculturalist nor a neo-Marxist, because in my opinion the law should not differentiate - neither in a positive nor in a negative direction. I am definitely against special rights for certain groups, but logically also against the opposite.

    Otherwise, I do not consider the views of conservatives or libertarians to be a totalitarian right. On the contrary - many libertarians I know agree with me ("let everyone build where they want"), I know of conservatives that they don't. To the libertarians who oppose what I have written here, I simply say that they are behaving like typical socialists. In a way, I consider many conservatives to be socialists when I hear them…

    Communism as an ideology must not be confused with Marxism-Leninism, which arose from a demagogic interpretation of Karl Marx's ideas. He created the theory of a perfectly free arrangement, where state intervention is not necessary, because in this arrangement one is mentally at such a level that rules are not needed.

    I emphasize again that this arrangement was to be free!

    The basic pillar of communism is the common ownership of not only property but also freedom.

    What we have seen as "communist" and what we see today is a caricature of theoretical communism. However, this is not the discussion, and I am not saying that I agree with Marx.

  9. and I still remembered such a trifle: under Marx, as far as I know, there were no communist regimes. you may be confused with the German Social Democracy (SPD), whose program he criticized.

  10. Lukáš Kubec: The goal of Marxism is the dominance of the working class and no human rights for anyone who disagrees. Of course, it hides in the concept of "classless society." In neo-Marxism, as far as I can understand, it is about the dominance of the minority over most. This is also the essence of multiculturalism. Your interpretation is very naive.

    Otherwise, in addition to the fact that "the goal of Marxism is freedom", I remembered a quote from Orwell: "freedom is slavery." It also fits nicely when you consider the views of the Conservative and the Libertarian - who by their very nature are the natural opposition to totalitarianism - to be seen in Nolan's diagram as a totalitarian tradition.

  11. Mtd, I'm not saying I'm a Marxist, on the contrary, I'm more in favor of the legacy of people like FA Hayek or L. von Mises… but you probably don't know Marx or neo-Marxism. The goal of Marxism is freedom. "Society-wide" must be voluntary. Marx harshly criticized the first communist regimes (the same as in the Eastern bloc).

  12. Author, the primary problem with Islam arose due to multiculturalism (which, by the way, is a neo-Marxist current, ie a direction directed in principle against freedoms in any form). Multi-cultists are strongly opposed to the integration of immigrants into society and cause the education of anti-social descendants of immigrants.

    Try to make sure you need this:

  13. Boy, do you write such crap for money, because such an ox nowadays can hardly even be met..These pinds could take about 20 years ago, but not today, when we can be convinced every day that for similar truth-making demagoguery people jumped in the west and today foreigners in their own country are being oppressed.
    I live in it, and such a fool erased by multicultural demagoguery can definitely not tell me where the problem is. The problem is called Islam, and if you want freedom, you have to twist its neck before it's too late. Freedom is the main enemy of Islam.
    It's just disgusting ..

  14. Classic multicultural and demagogic peat. The author has no idea what he writes about and makes a fool of himself. Other fools just nod ..
    I recommend to read the Koran hadis, sury, discuss and especially to think. It is not a bit of history to learn and compare with today. That Islam has not changed at all and can not change. We can not.
    Then maybe try to come out with a public opinion.

  15. Milan, sure - look for them with you. I've never had a problem with a gypsy, a Muslim, an African, anyone in my life. And I move between them very often.

    Many, whether building churches in the Arab world is completely irrelevant. We are not talking about the Arab world, but about whether we will have a free society here.

  16. when churches are built in the Arab world, I will have nothing against mosques in our country

  17. imagine such a Vietnamese, Indian, Chinese, Moldovan, Ukrainian, etc. And why we don't have problems with them, we don't even talk about them, but when it comes to the so-called minorities, it's just about gypsies and Muslims, it's not a bit (file vice) blame on them? But have the same problems with people, look for them with you.

  18. I partially agree on the economic side, but on the tolerance of mosques, etc., I am strongly against and take the blog as a propaganda of something that is disgusting to me.

  19. Jane, I'm not a registered supporter or party member, but I have a few acquaintances there. Even so, I don't know if it would belong there…

    By the way, I am now writing a second article on this topic.

    And "which" fixed, thanks 🙂

  20. Nice article. How about fixing the "who" on "already" 😉 and try to push it to the front page It would need to break the stereotype there a bit

Comments are off.