Sunday, August 28, 2005

To Bjørn Stærk, About Rapes

Bjørn Stærk is the "grand old man" of Norwegian blogging. He started writing before I had even heard of the word "blog", and is still one of the most widely read bloggers in this country. We strongly disagree when it comes to Islam, but let's leave that aside for a moment, and focus on the specific case of the "missing rape numbers". I have published most of this information both in Norwegian and in English before, but I will be happy to repeat it, as many times as it takes:

The demographics of radical Islam

Bjørn Stærk:

You may want to consult other sources than Fjordman when it comes to daily life in Eurabia. Immigrants are over-represented in crime statistics. But the picture he paints of Europe as a continent under siege by sex-crazed Arabs has as much to do with the Europe I know as I guess the picture Michael Moore paints of the US has to do with the real US. (...) Fjordman's analysis is extremely marginal, and this can only be explained by some official conspiracy to keep the truth hidden if you believe Norway is a socialist dictatorship. Which, contrary to what some would have it, we aren't.

I know perfectly well that my view is a minority view, although that doesn't have to indicate that I'm wrong. I wouldn't say that I am "extremely marginal", as I receive significant support in Internet discussions about this, including from Norwegian women who have personal experience with harassment from immigrants. Regarding "conspiracies" or not, just have a look at these simple facts: In september 2001, statistics from the Oslo Police Departement showed that non-Western immigrants, who constitute a minority of Oslo's population, were involved in two out of three rape charges. This was reported and discussed in at least two of our largest newspapers, Aftenposten and Dagbladet. I have later emailed and corresponded with several journalists from other major media about this case. Several women's groups commented the numbers in 2001, as did Odd Einar Dørum, our Minister of Justice during the past four years, who was appalled by the statistics and demanded that all the numbers should be put on the table. I've been digging into this case for some time, and so far nobody, including the ladies in Human Rights Service, have seen any numbers indicating the percentage of immigrants involved in rapes since 2001, despite the fact that individual cases of brutal rapes and gang rapes involving Norwegian girls and immigrants are reported again and again and again. The total number of rape charges in 2005 reached the highest level ever recorded in Oslo.

So how come neither the media, the women's groups nor our Minister of Justice, who all knew about these statistics, have asked to have them published since 2001? If you know about numbers published later than 2001, I'd love to see them. If not, where are they? The information that is available strongly indicates that our immigration policies have contributed to making Norwegian women more unsafe in their own capital. A lot of Norwegians would find this highly interesting and relevant information, considering the fact that we are two weeks away from important national elections where several of the parties want to increase immigration. So how come we don't get to know? And isn't this rather embarrassing for a nation that likes to portray itself as a champion of "women's rights"?

Maybe I suffer from paranoia, Bjørn, but there's something fishy here. I think this story stinks, and I'd like to know where the smell comes from. Don't you?

Oslo rape statistics shock

05 Sep 2001

Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily. Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year. While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background.

Innvandrere på voldtektstopp

05.09.2001

I hele 65 prosent av de anmeldte voldtektene i Oslo i fjor, var de anmeldte av ikke-vestlig opprinnelse.

Europe: Tolerating Intolerance

I guess rape is just a different form of cultural expression... hoookay. An incredibly revealing article that tells us all we need to know about the multiculturalist fetish in Europe and some parts of North America, not to mention the need for change within Islam. Thanks to Maarten at the Swedish site "Terror Watch" for the pointer. Apparently, the Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet reported that 65 percent of rapes of Norwegian women were performed by "non-Western" immigrants – a category that, in Norway, consists mostly of Muslims. The article quoted a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo (who was described as having "lived for many years in Muslim countries") as saying that "Norwegian women must take their share of responsibility for these rapes" because Muslim men found their manner of dress provocative. One reason for the high number of rapes by Muslims, explained the professor, was that in their native countries "rape is scarcely punished," since Muslims "believe that it is women who are responsible for rape." The professor's conclusion was not that Muslim men living in the West needed to adjust to Western norms, but the exact opposite: "Norwegian women must realize that we live in a multicultural society and adapt themselves to it."

Mener norske jenter frister til sex

06.09.2001

Professor Unni Wikan er ikke overrasket over tallene som viser at 65 prosent av voldtektsanmeldte menn i Oslo i fjor var ikke-vestlige menn. Nå ber hun norske kvinner kle seg mindre dristig. - Jeg vil ikke legge skylden for voldtektene på de norske kvinnene. Men norske kvinner må innse at vi lever i et flerkulturelt samfunn, og innrette seg deretter. Hun peker også på at voldtektsmenn i de fleste muslimske land knapt blir straffet. - De fleste steder mener man at det er kvinnen som har skylden for voldtekten. Og det er rimelig at innvandrere tar med seg slike holdninger når de flytter hit til landet, sier professoren, som selv har levd mange år i muslimske land.

Vil ha innvandrere på sexskole

07.09.2001

Venstres Oslo-topp, Odd Einar Dørum, mener at innvandrere må lære spillereglene i Norge. - ...og ikke bare lovens, men også kulturens spilleregler. - Hennes påstander opprører meg personlig, sier Dørum, som har skrevet forordet til en kommende bok om voldtekt. Han mener Wikans holdninger påfører voldtektsofre nye overgrep. - Få tallene på bordet. En drittsekk er en drittsekk, uansett hudfarge, sier Dørum.

There is every reason to believe that the numbers were real, as Denmark published almost identical statistics at the same time:

Criminologist: immigrants are rape champions

July 6, 2001

If one leading expert is to be believed, the sharp rise in the number of rapes in this over the last 5 years is largely attributable to a group of unemployed and alienated immigrants. 'Over the last 5-10 years there has an increasing tendency to marginalise and alienate immigrants,' says Professor Flemming Balvig, a criminologist at Copenhagen University. 'As a result, many second generation immigrants have reacted against this through various types of criminal activity, including rape.'

Muslim rape concern

September 14, 2001

Alarmed at last week's police statistics, which revealed that in 68% of all rapes committed this year the perpetrator was from an ethnic minority, leading Muslim organisations have now formed an alliance to fight the ever-growing problem of young second and third-generation immigrants involved in rape cases against young Danish girls.

The numbers published in September 2001 were discussed in at least to out of Norway's three largest newspapers: Aftenposten and Dagbladet. A leading member of the Liberal Party (Venstre), Odd Einar Dørum, demanded all the numbers be put on the table: "A scumbag is a scumbag, regardless of skin color". Four years later, Dørum is Minister of Justice, and nobody has seen these statistics since 2001. The number of rape charges in Oslo have continued to rise, reaching record levels:

Rekordmange voldtekter i Oslo

18.01.2005

Aldri før har så mange voldtekter blitt anmeldt i Oslo. Også voldtektsmottaket ved Legevakta og hjelpesenteret Dixi har hatt flere henvendelser enn noen gang tidligere. – Antallet anmeldelser har aldri vært så høyt før, forteller politioverbetjent Anne Rynning Aasen ved sedelighetsavsnittet i Oslo politidistrikt tik Dagsavisen.

51 Comments:

At August 29, 2005 2:33 AM, Blogger Don Miguel said...

Fjordman, I always thought of you more as "ahead of the pack" as opposed to "extremely marginal." And if you are "extremely marginal" then it is just as valid to call Bjørn Stærk "extremely mainstream" -- both descriptions being somewhat insulting.

 
At August 29, 2005 2:45 AM, Blogger the adventuress said...

I have email friendships with European women from all over the continent who have experienced sexual harassment and worse from Muslim immigrants.

I believe them and you, not Bjorn Staerk.

 
At August 29, 2005 7:00 AM, Blogger Bjoern said...

Fjordman, you're missing my point. There's no doubt that the overrepresentation of immigrants on rape statistics is being hushed down. Not in any big orchestrated way, but there are people who could present updated figures who I guess decided not to, because they fear the social and political consequences.

But there's a difference between overrepresentation and the image of a Eurabia under siege that I suspect your readers have in their minds. The comment I replied to, by Irene Adler, mentioned a rape epidemic, a phrase I remember you've used yourself, and she mentioned this in a context of an ongoing Muslim guerilla war against Europe, again an idea you've promoted yourself.

Now what is a "rape epidemic"? What is a "Muslim invasion plot", and a "guerilla war"? All these terms have meanings, and the sum of those meanings is a picture that doesn't fit the reality Norwegians observe. You'd think they'd do, considering how guerilla wars, invasions and epidemics are usually very public phenomena. You can't hush down an invasion. But you can hush down an overrepresentation on crime statistics. Which is all this is.

Then again, I'm used to there being some flexibility in how words are used in this debate. Certain words seem to be used more for their shock value than their relationship with reality. So perhaps you should clarify to your readers that when you say "rape epidemic", you don't mean "gangs of sex-crazed Arabs are roaming the streets of Oslo, molotov cocktails in one hand, the Quran in the other", you mean "immigrants are overrepresented on rape statistics".

As for being marginal, this can be a good thing, if you have a new theory it takes a lot of brainpower to understand. But when your theory has to do with easily observable reality, it's a bad sign when you're the only one who sees it.

- Bjørn Stærk

 
At August 29, 2005 9:32 AM, Blogger Fjordman said...

Bjørn: "Rape epidemic" is a tabloid term, yes. But what do you call it when the number of rape charges in Sweden has tripled in 30 years? And that's the official numbers.

You can't hush down an invasion.

Well, some people make an honest try. As you are well aware of, Mr. Arnfindsen from HonestThinking.org has showed that Statistics Norway have tried to present wrong numbers regarding our immigration, which is significantly larger than they claim. I have heard Lars Østby state repeatedly that we have "little immigration", while native Norwegians are being replaced in large parts of Oslo. We will soon be a minority in our own capital, and our own authorities are lying about it.

This is not the only case. Nrk (Norway's equivalent of the BBC) reported last year that non-Western immigrants receive welfare ten - 10 - times more often than native Norwegians. If that really is true, then this immigration cannot possibly be good for our economy, can it? So how come our political elite, including Integration Minister Erna Solberg, are saying something else? Numbers from Denmark and Sweden indicate that immigration costs tens of billions of kroner every year. And that's just in welfare, we're not even talking about the cost of increased crime rates and insecurity.

We're being lied to, in a major and systematic way. It's the only way I can interpret this information.

when your theory has to do with easily observable reality, it's a bad sign when you're the only one who sees it.

I'm not the only one seeing this. Have a look at Denmark, which is at least 5-6 years ahead of us in this debate.

 
At August 29, 2005 10:15 AM, Blogger CH said...

BS:there are people who could present updated figures who I guess decided not to, because they fear the social and political consequences.

Like having your sister's restaurante sprayed with bullets from an automatic weapon?

BS has grown touchy on the whole subject of Islam, one would think he has gotten death threats..

Islam is not evil, only people are evil, especially the people that think that an ideology can be inherently evil... That was the last message I read before deleting the link to his blog, why waste time on a time waster?

 
At August 29, 2005 12:33 PM, Blogger Bjoern said...

Fjordman: "Mr. Arnfindsen from HonestThinking.org has showed that Statistics Norway have tried to present wrong numbers regarding our immigration, which is significantly larger than they claim."

Yes. Here's your problem: You present evidence for one theory, while claiming that they support another. You present evidence that 1) immigrants are overrepresented in crime statistics, that 2) official demographics have underestimated immigration, 3) that politicians are unwilling to discuss this. Then you claim that this proves that Scandinavia is undergoing a rape epidemic as part of a Muslim invasion that will conquer us in a couple of decades.

See the problem here? Sure your evidence is controversial, but only among the politically correct. I don't have a problem with your evidence. I have a problem with the inaccurate picture you're painting of Scandinavia, a picture that goes way way beyond your evidence.

And the problem your foreign readers have is that they only have your side of this story, they can't compare your picture to their own observations of Scandinavia, as for instance I can, and everyone else in Norway who reads your views and (mostly) disagrees with them. And any contrary viewpoints your readers might hear is easily dismissed as multiculturalist propaganda - so they're left depending on one marginal voice who describes a society almost no Scandinavians would recognize.

Which gets us back to my point about invasions, namely that they're kind of obvious. If there's an invasion happening, there's no way to cover it up. You don't need a secret decoder ring to uncover an invasion, just look out the window. So why don't Norwegians listen to you, Fjordman? Why are you the only person who sees this invasion? You, a few other Norwegians .. and foreigners who take you on your word.

CH: That was the last message I read before deleting the link to his blog, why waste time on a time waster?

Yes, why read a contrary viewpoint when you can rely entirely on one person for your information about the Muslim invasion of Norway? Fjordman is describing a reality that doesn't exist. And by defining everyone who disagrees with him - the vast majority of everyone in Norway - as brainwashed or fearful, you've effectively destroyed your one way of testing his hypothesis.

 
At August 29, 2005 1:08 PM, Blogger Fjordman said...

You present evidence for one theory, while claiming that they support another. You present evidence that 1) immigrants are overrepresented in crime statistics, that 2) official demographics have underestimated immigration, 3) that politicians are unwilling to discuss this. Then you claim that this proves that Scandinavia is undergoing a rape epidemic as part of a Muslim invasion that will conquer us in a couple of decades.

Come on, Bjørn, you are smarter than that. At least I thought you were. These are two separate issues, although they do overlap sometimes. The first one is that our political elites are dominated by the "multicultural" thinking. There are so many pople who have invested their personal careers and prestige in the multicultural project that many will resist any information that will expose it as a failure. The result is that the people are not explained the full ramifications of what's going on. The individuals who have the most information cling on to a failed ideology.

Regarding the second question: Oslo will have a non-Western majority in a few decades, if the current trends continue. There are now several researchers who predict that in Norway, Sweden and Denmark, the native population and their descendants will become a minority in their own country within this century. The only question is when, and how fast. When you replace the original population in such a way it should be labeled "colonization", not immigration.

And the problem your foreign readers have is that they only have your side of this story

I'm not the only Scandinavian blogger writing in English. You, for instance, have an alternative viewpoint. It is also possible to find news and information in English from Scandinavia. And is it my fault if there is a lack of opposition to my views?

Fjordman is describing a reality that doesn't exist.

That's a pretty strong accusation. Are you saying that I am fabricating the stories I report, or merely that I fit the pieces together in a way that you, personally, don't always agree with?

 
At August 29, 2005 1:27 PM, Blogger CH said...

BS:Yes, why read a contrary viewpoint when you can rely entirely on one person for your information about the Muslim invasion of Norway?

I am thouroughly brainwashed by Fjordman and he is my only newssource, I am incapable of thinking for myself and I believe everyone in Norway is brainwashed..

Thank you BS for nailing that last nail in coffin where I'll bury the benefit of the doubt..

The normal BS analysis, and jumping to conclusions.. I get your dribble from any norwegian and or international newspaper/television channel. You're wasting my time presenting the same conclusions with minimal difference. I read blogs to see other thoughts, other conclusions, than what is mainstream, mostly because I am not, and find ideas to be of the utmost importance for the world we live in.

BS, I don't read your blog for I am not interessted in _your_ opinions, I won't debate you anymore, call me chicken, jump off a bridge, do what you wish, I am completly indifferent.

 
At August 29, 2005 2:05 PM, Blogger Kledo said...

Hello Bjoern,

in defense of Fjordman I have to point out that many visitors and students from my country (CZE) confirm his general view of Sweden and Norway (BTW, when using the term "Scandinavia" you are probably talking about Sweden and Norway ). Even some of those of my friends who are rather liberal in their attitude towards the 'multiculturalism' say that the things have gone too far there. But I must admit that they usually speak about Sweden. Norway is not so frequent destination :). And I would omitt the discussions about whose opinion is in majority/minority. Public opinion is like quick sand.

Moreover Fjordman's description of the situation in Malmo is in accordance with my own observation during my stay there - even though my visit was rather short. Well if you can spare some time, I would appreciate your comments on this particular city.

I would bring this article to your attention. Maybe other readers will appreciate that too. Are you sure that the situation in Malmo or in some part of Oslo is different? . I find especially two first paragraps of that BBC article interesting and important. The rest is comprised mainly from usuall multi-culti excuses, explanations and 'white-guilt' mongering.

Lastly, addressing your point concerning 'the lack of visible invasion - my summary of your opinion' please could you name one example of swifter demographical change in Europe during two last millenias?

 
At August 29, 2005 2:37 PM, Blogger Herr Unswedenizer said...

Hi Björn!

Good to see you here. Makes the debate more intelligent.

I don't know about the term "rape epidemic". I wouldn't have used it. But what should it be called?

Regarding warfare we have in present history in short time had to augment our terminology with new concepts for things that at first glance didn't look like war (as we knew it until the 19th century), such as guerilla warfare, cold war, assymetric war, etc. If you do not have a concept for what you see, you will probably not even see it. That is how the human mind works.

Not even AIDS can be properly labelled as an epidemic. But how to describe the explosion in the increase of rapes in Scandinavia?

Someone pointed out several years ago that gang rapes was only know in Europe in the context of a war (for example by German troops when entering Russia, or vice versa). Until a few decades ago. A gang rape is such a horrible act, that a human mind is not able to do it unless twisted by the horrible context of a war. And then came Jihad to Europe... But of course Jihad is warfare.

 
At August 29, 2005 3:11 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

Just thought I'd drop in and give Bjorn an idea of how an American reads and interprets Fjordman's site, having never been to Scandanavia.

I live in California. As you are probably aware we have an "invasion" of sorts going on here as well. The first thing I think when I read Fjordman is, "I believe a lot of what he is saying, but I'll bet immigration is much, much worse here, than it is there."

In California, white people are already minorities. If I am mistaken in that statistic (and I don't think I am) then amend it, and say, in Souther California white people are already the minority. I'm sure that's true.

When I read Fjordman I measure him by what others people have told me about Northern Europe, and by what I have seen in England and France, and by what my relatives in England have told me about their experiences with Asians, and Pakistanis in particular.

A friend of mine studied in Sweden in the 80's. (He is Swedish by heritage). He said there is a Swedish Way of doing things, and Swedes all understand it, and it's been done that way for so long that it's unspoken. He said the Swedish Way is a kind of silent policing which exists in the Swedish society. It is the result of cultural homogeniety. He said that the subways are so clean you could eat off the floor.

Now, on the other hand, I have talked with many Northern Europeans who have moved to California to get away from the rampant immigration in Northern Europe. These people are primarily from Germany, Denmark and Holland.

It's always an interesting thing to note that they fled an area because of immigration and then moved here.

:)

And they are, for the most part, happy here.

What's up with that?

Well, here's what's up with it, as far as I can tell. Mexican and Southern American immigration is a pain in America's ass. It is hard on certain sectors of our job market (construction) and it is hard on our healthcare system. But, the thing is, most Mexicans, and South Americans are very nice people, and their children are interested in assimilating. They become Americans at heart. They hang out with Americans. They study in school. They go to college. We work in white collar jobs with them.

(I, by the way, am married to a first generation immigrant, whose family were so thrilled to have been able to come to America that they are almost like Insta-Americans.)

I'll continue this on a second comment, so my writing doesn't get lost in the blogger netherworld.

 
At August 29, 2005 3:18 PM, Blogger Herr Unswedenizer said...

Björn:All these terms have meanings, and the sum of those meanings is a picture that doesn't fit the reality Norwegians observe.

This summarizes your main argument against Fjordman. On the same line you also write:

Björn:And the problem your foreign readers have is that they only have your side of this story, they can't compare your picture to their own observations of Scandinavia, as for instance I can, and everyone else in Norway who reads your views and (mostly) disagrees with them. And any contrary viewpoints your readers might hear is easily dismissed as multiculturalist propaganda - so they're left depending on one marginal voice who describes a society almost no Scandinavians would recognize.

Given that the issue had been about foreign troops having entered the streets of Oslo, with this argument, you would have defeated Fjordman by now in this debate.

But know the issue is abuse of women. And that is a very different kind of issue. Oppression and abuse of women as a rule takes place within four walls or some other place not seen by the general public.

The core issue here is when it is applicable as an argument what the average Norwegian observes. Send the average Norwegian to some Muslim country. How much of the abuse and oppression of women will he observe by being there, regardless of how long?

But as a Norwegian in Norway, you would observe more right? Yes, at least among fellow Norwegians. At least in his own neighbourhood. But what does this Norwegian know about what's going on in the muslim dominated suburb? He never goes there, he has no business there, he never even passed by. He knows nobody there. It's an apartheid society. What at all would the Norwegian know about the life there? I'm sorry to say, Björn, but I get more information through my Pakistani Internet contacts than I would get from you, about life in these suburbs of Oslo.

Futhermore, this is not at all about Norway. It is about Dar-al-Harb. To me the observations made by rather gullible and isolated Norwegians do not seem relevant at all for understanding the mechanism of Jihad in Dar-al-Harb. This is a global phenomenon, Björn, not a Norwegian one. The things that Fjordman describes happening in Norway is just a small tip of a very global iceberg. A tip that is so meticulously being push back into the water by Norwegian media and authorities.

So you have used a very good argument, Björn. But it is worth nothing at all, unless you can establish that the premise behind it holds true: that the observations of the average Norwegian would at all be significant here.

As I see it, the perception of the average Norwegian (or Swede for that sake) is part of the problem, more than anything else.

 
At August 29, 2005 3:32 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

Now, as compared to Mexican immigrants, and South American immigrants, it seems that Middle Eastern, Asian, and North African immigrants are not so interested in assimilating.

This has been my experience here in the United States to some extent. I have had friends who are Muslim, but I have also noticed that many Muslims keep to themselves, and do not seem to like or trust Americans. They build a mosque, move into a neighborhood, set up shops, and stay there.

My relatives in England have reported being very unhappy with "Pakistanis." They complain of all the same things I just mentioned about Muslims here. My relatives in England are far more liberal and MultiCulti than I. They hate George Bush and his poodle Tony Blair. They don't much like America, and they think the Iraq War is illegal. They are against racism in the extreme, but they are frustrated beyond belief by the behavior of "Pakistanis." They have reported gang-like thug behavior. They tell me that the Pakistanis have taken over the cab business in their area, through a gang-like coup, and that some of their friends have had very frightening experiences when riding in cabs. One offended a driver, so the driver drove him into a dark area, called his fellow cab drivers in and proceeded to physically intimidate the man. This was a story I heard a few years ago. I'm sorry, I do not remember the outcome.

So, anyway, when I read Fjordman, I measure what he says by these stories and impressions of relatives and friends.

A hair stylist that I used to go to a few years back, moved here from Holland. I stopped going to her because she was always talking about how Holland was being invaded by immigrants. As noted before, she moved here and was perfectly happy. She worked alongside several Mexican immigrants in the shop she was working in. I don't think she thought of them as immigrants.

Anyway, I remember one time this stylist said something to me like, "You and your wife need to have children. Lots of children. We need more white people in this world." (She didn't know that my wife wasn't white.) That was the final straw for me. I never used her as my stylist again.

Now, as I said, that was a few years back. Since then, I have been to France and England, and 9/11 has happened, and my relatives have started complaining in earnest. When I was in Paris I met quite a few Muslims and I don't think I have ever met a more unhappy and frightening lot of people. My impression of Muslims in London was similar, although the atmosphere didn't seem quite as bad.

So, I add my impressions of Paris and London to the stories I have heard from Germans, Hollanders, and Danes, and I add them to the stories I hear from my relatives, and I add them to other stories I read in the international news, and I add them my own experiences with immigrants here in my country, and with Muslim immigrants here in my country. I add all these impressons together and here is what I come up with;

Fjordman seems like an intelligent guy who has seen some very swift changes in the country he lives in. He is probably a rather sensitive guy, who is more attuned to changes, and might be a little more easily alarmed than most. But, the changes he is describing are born out by statistics. And the attitudes he is describing fit with the experiences I have had with Muslims (especially Muslims in Europe). And the things Fjordman describes clearly fit into the news of the international Jihad which is raging in countries around the world.

In other words, I think to myself that Fjordman's impression of his home country might be a little bit on the negative side, but I don't think he is alarmed by nothing. Instead, I believe that the rest of your population is probably too complacent.

Here in America, I observe that it is almost impossible to have a realistic discussion about the negative effects of illegal immigration. In fact, we aren't even supposed to call them "illegal immigrants" anymore. We are supposed to refer to them as "undocumented workers."

More on the next comment.

 
At August 29, 2005 3:41 PM, Blogger Bjoern said...

Fjordman: "The only question is when, and how fast. When you replace the original population in such a way it should be labeled "colonization", not immigration."

I struggle to get a firm idea of what you're actually claiming is happening or will happen. Your earlier post mentioned a "war" that will take place between Muslims and native Europeans in the next few decades. Then there's supposedly a rape "epidemic". Now it seems we're just talking about a high rate of immigration. You're using vague hyperbole where you ought to formulate a specific hypothesis that can be tested against available evidence. You use big words that you don't care to defend, where you ought to make accurate statements you know you can back up.

Please make yourself clear: Will there be a "war" where Muslims try to take over Europe? Is there a rape "epidemic"? If yes, you need to begin backing up those claims. So far you haven't. The numbers in the post we're commenting on shows that immigrants are overrepresented on rape statistics. But that's all they show. If you want to use bigger words, you need bigger evidence. Unless you use words for their shock value and not their truth value.

"And is it my fault if there is a lack of opposition to my views?"

My problem is with the style you and others like you rely on, where you dismiss people who disagree with you as dogmatic multiculturalists, discounting whatever evidence they may have that goes against your theory. Of course there are people like that. But on the chance that they may be onto something, you should still investigate and evaluate their evidence. That doesn't just apply to research, but to the everyday experiences of other Norwegians. If you describe the society we live in, and another Norwegian says "I don't recognize that at all", you need to ask yourself if perhaps there's something you've overlooked. If nearly everyone replies that way, you really need to question your own analysis.

"Are you saying that I am fabricating the stories I report, or merely that I fit the pieces together in a way that you, personally, don't always agree with?"

You're a smart guy, you read and think a lot. Smart people make wondeful maps of the world, but often they fall so in love with their map that they forget the terrain. You've created a map that explains the important issues of our time as aspects of the Islamic threat. It's a well-drawn map, detailed and extensive. It has symmetry and patterns. And to preserve that symmetry, you've been forced to move a little mountain here, straighten out a river there, accentuate features that makes the map look good, ignoring some features that don't. The result is something great and wonderful .. but useless.

Kledo: "I would bring this article to your attention. Maybe other readers will appreciate that too. Are you sure that the situation in Malmo or in some part of Oslo is different?"

Yes. There are no areas of Oslo that are "no go areas for white people". On that, I think even Fjordman will agree.

please could you name one example of swifter demographical change in Europe during two last millenias?

We're not arguing about the pace of demographic change, but about terms like "invasion", "war", "epidemics". They're false and hyperbolic, and should not be used.

- Bjørn Stærk

 
At August 29, 2005 3:49 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

Here in America I have been talking with people about the problem of illegal immigration for over twenty years. I used to live in the downtown area of a city called Santa Ana. I saw what was happening before others started to become aware of it. The whole area was filled with people who had set up an alternative society. They had no need to assimilate.

I was called a "racist" for bringing up the problem. Now, remember I am married to a first generation immigrant. I always dated non-white women. Most of my friends have never dated non-whites. But, I am the racist.

Right. That makes sense. (That's American sarcasm, by the way. We aren't witty like Euros, so we just resort to sarcasm)

:)

So anyway, I relate to Fjordman on that level. I understand what it's like to get to the debate early and have only the critics sitting there, and no one on your side.

If Fjordman uses statistics which show his assertions to be true, then they are true. He might overstate the case, but he isn't talking about something that doesn't exist. For instance, Fjordman says Malmo is being abandoned. Well, I'm guessing there are probably nice parts of Malmo. Am I right about that?

But, here's the thing. Just because there are still nice parts of Malmo doesn't mean that Fjordman is wrong. If there are whole parts of Malmo that the host population don't even want to enter anymore, then you are being colonized.

The phenomenon I see here in the U.S. is that the multiculti's only like to point only to the nice areas, and the success stories. They like to ignore the problems. They won't talk about the areas where illegal immigrants have set up alternative worlds for themselves. They won't talk about the culture of endemic poverty and illiteracy that this creates. They won't talk about the fact that the immigrants won't learn English in such an environment. They won't talk about the fact that in such an environment it is as if the immigrants have not left Mexico, but instead have imported Mexico into the United States.

And, most of all they are afraid to talk about what this means for the future.

And that, Bjorn, is how you seem to me.

Fjordman is not saying that Scandanavia is a complete mess now. He is observing the world and saying that, if things keep going this way, then here's where they are going to end up. And the fact is, they will end up there if Europeans don't start exerting some control over immigration.

It also might be a good idea if Europeans started getting married and having children.

What do you think?

 
At August 29, 2005 3:58 PM, Blogger Herr Unswedenizer said...

More on humans perception of their society:

Mind control is a very powerful thing in human societies. A simple combination of components does it:

A. Let's start with a proposition that is true, but needs some intelligence and/or systematic methods to confirm. Different from propositions that can be immediately confirmed by just any human (such as "There's a pig in front of me", or "Someone hit me in the head").
Example: "The Earth is spheric."

B. Let the elite of the society claim the opposite that proposition, "The Earth is flat", and broadcast that message every day through all their channels so that the minds of the public gets permeated by this message.

That takes care of most of it since people are generally to lazy (or to busy with oyther things) to check the facts themselves. But just in order to seal the fortress, we add another powerful component.

C. Rule by fear (as always). People are afraid of death. But more advanced cultures learned that people fear social death enough. So ostracize and stigmatize them! Declare anyone who opposes "The Earth is flat" as a satanist!

Thus works a human society. And they always did. It's very easy indeed. Open violence is not the most effective form of power. Mind control is, and oppression and abuse happening behind closed doors.

The elite will control the minds of the people as to whether they will believe in A or B, and they will be using C for the few people sticking out, e.g. anyone that had a teenage sister being gang raped by Pakistanis and talk tooo much about it, can always be comfortably silenced by the "racist" label. ("fascist" and "nazi" works fine too, depending on the context).

So how is vital informaton of this kind supposed to spread?

 
At August 29, 2005 4:26 PM, Blogger Kledo said...

Bjorn,

Yes. There are no areas of Oslo that are "no go areas for white people". On that, I think even Fjordman will agree.

For now. Some time ago the streets of Oldham were sufficiently safe too. But now, they are 'multiculturally enriched' and 'vibrant' if I can use BBC terms. On the other hand I would use the term 'vibrant' to descript such a city too but in totally different connotation. :)

We're not arguing about the pace of demographic change, but about terms like "invasion", "war", "epidemics". They're false and hyperbolic, and should not be used.

But this a core of this dispute. It is all about the demographic change and its pace. And apparently, our opinions on the use of those terms differ. Yes I do think that Fjordman used them apropriatelly and that they are neither false nor hyperbolic.

 
At August 29, 2005 4:33 PM, Blogger José María said...

Fiordman, as a latin I can say that the lack of response to these rapes in Scandinavia is likely to be in the desintegration of the families there. I can assure you that in the families that I know, in the south, such rapes would be retaliated fiercely.
Anyway may be part of your women secretly despise the scandinavian weak men and eventually will agree to be a part of a poligamy family, with a strong man with no doubts.
Europe as a whole is a shame, but scandinavian countries are the leaders.

 
At August 29, 2005 4:36 PM, Blogger Herr Unswedenizer said...

Pastorius: If Fjordman uses statistics which show his assertions to be true, then they are true. He might overstate the case, but he isn't talking about something that doesn't exist.

Exactly!

Fjordman overstates the situation, while Björn Stark understates it. This is since Fjordman projects current events into the future, while the average Norwegian still projects back into the past.

The good things in Scandinavia today, and there are a lot of them, are mainly echos of the past (a very glorious past that still shines strongly). But what's new that is created is chaos and destruction, but it will still take quite a while for the average Scandinavian to notice this.

It's like weather forcasting. You have to look up in the sky and read the clouds. The ignorant won't do it. The denier will demonstratively look down on the ground saying "it's still sunny, it's still sunny" avoiding looking up at the dark clouds in the sky.

The best way to avoid understanding the future is to not study history. However, sophisticated people today do read history. But they don't understand it. They live under the miscomprehension that the world changed fundamentally after WWII, that there are new rules, and view older history merely as bad fairy tales. This is a lethal mistake. The world has not changed.


For instance, Fjordman says Malmo is being abandoned. Well, I'm guessing there are probably nice parts of Malmo. Am I right about that?

Absolutely. You could live in Malmö, without seeing anything of this. In fact most Malmö citizens would be flabbergasted at Fjordmans description of the situation. They won't use the whole city as the reference, but their own neighbourhood, and that's like black and white. Futhermore, they will project back to the past, while Fjordman is projecting forward into the future. So they will have completely different pictures. But the city stays the same, and the problems.

This is the problem that Fjordman has for his Norwegian audience, that they lack the historical and cultural references to being able to understand the nature of his proposition. You pointed out yourself the line of events back in California in recent decades. It's true that most people will always be unable to understand that our society and way of life could be under sever threat, even attacked, with less than that there were troops marching in to the capital city.

It surely takes time for people to wake up. In my book WWII stared in 1935 when Hitler entered with troops in the Reinland, breaking the Versaille treaty. Already then it was beyond the point of no return. But only a handful of people around the whole world had any idea of the seriousness of the situation.

It took that Americans 7 years to wake up to this threat (1942). This time the Europeans are the slow ones.

 
At August 29, 2005 4:38 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

To Bjorn,
I was just thinking about your objection to Fjordman's use of the word "war." I think I may have figured out why you object to what Fjordman is saying.

Let me ask you, what does the word Jihad mean?

Do you know the words, Dar al-Harb, and Dar al-Islam?

Do you know what Taqiyyah is? Do you know what Shaheed is? Do you know what the word Dhimmi means?

Do you know that you are an infidel, whether you like it or not?

Do you know that Jews are not allowed in Saudi Arabia? Do you know that Muslim state-sponsored TV broadcasts mini-series which are enactments of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion? Do you understand that they believe the Protocols of Zion are true? Did you know that the Protocols are a best seller in Egypt and Turkey, and so is Mein Kampf?

Did you know that they broadcast "Death to Israel - Death the the Infidels" on Muslim TV in many Middle Eastern countries? Did you know that ex-Iranian President Khatami has spoken of nuking Israel? Did you know that Iran parades missiles in public with Death to America and Death to Israel printed on the sides of the missiles for all to see?

Fjordman, I have a feeling Bjorn doesn't know about the worldwide Jihad against people like him.

Do you think I'm right?

 
At August 29, 2005 4:45 PM, Blogger Herr Unswedenizer said...

Björn: Your earlier post mentioned a "war" that will take place between Muslims and native Europeans in the next few decades.

Actually, the burden of proof is on your side. Why should Norway be any different from, let's say Thailand? Everywhere in the world where muslims become 10-20% or more of the population, a war is started. What makes you think that Norway is so very special?

 
At August 29, 2005 5:02 PM, Blogger sissyblue said...

Wow, good posts. I remember Fjordman once saying that Americans tend towards isolationism and Europeans tend toward appeasement. You can really see European "bury the head in the sand" appeasement in some of these posts, but what's even more amazing is the verbage they use to make the whole idea seem intellectual. My favorite was "immigrants are overrepresented on rape statistics". PC at it's best!

There must be some PC class I missed in college. If you can't win the arguement, muddle the conversation to such and extent that everyone gives up rather than face endless migraines!

 
At August 29, 2005 5:50 PM, Blogger Evan said...

Now what is a "rape epidemic"? What is a "Muslim invasion plot", and a "guerilla war"? All these terms have meanings, and the sum of those meanings is a picture that doesn't fit the reality Norwegians observe.

I wonder if you're being unfair. Here is what is agreed upon between you, as far as I can tell:

1. Immigrants are "overrepresented" in rape statistics. Perhaps you'll agree that they are "substantially overrepresented"?

2. The rate of rape is growing dramatically.

Is that an "epidemic"? Of course that is a subjective and emotionally laden word, and so naturally people will take strong views about its use. The Spanish flu killed somewhere between 1-2.5 percent of the world's population, and is routinely described as an "epidemic." Yet roughly 98% of the world's population was not killed by it. (HIV is often called a "pandemic," even though, according to UN data, it affects less than one percent of the world's population.)

Can rape be an "epidemic" if it is growing rapidly, it is committed by immigrants in substantial disproportion, and if it is happening in societies where (I assume) rape was until recently very rare? Or does it only become an epidemic when 1%, or 5%, or 20% of the female population has fallen victim? The rapid growth would, at least, suggest the possibility of a threatened epidemic.

 
At August 29, 2005 6:44 PM, Blogger Herr Unswedenizer said...

Sissyblue:My favorite was "immigrants are overrepresented on rape statistics". PC at it's best!

Far away from it. You'd need to have a look at Sweden to see PC at it's best. PC at it's best is when nobody ever says "immigrants are overrepresented on rape statistics". And whoever says so is labelled as a racist, and treated as pariah in the public debate.

I guess that "PC", just as "epidemic" or "war", are all relative terms in some sense. Since most of my countrymen would consider Björn Stark to be some sort of racist war-mongerer, it's hard for me to view him as PC.

As I have already declared I prefer to project into the future when I assess something. The same for Björn Stark. We might not agree on this particular issue, or even at all about the general picture of the future of Europe. But we share the same culture of debate, and eagerness for exploring how things really are. And this is always more important to me than having he same opinion, in the long run.

Björn ask us to present facts. To him we all talk about "icebergs". For a guy like Björn it would be worthwile to do the effort. I've for example thought since some years ago about creating a website about demographic jihad. Showing figures and projections and how they develop. From one year to another one would be able to show that the projections hold true, which would be a wake up call for people with scientific minds.

Eyvind Vesselbo did this in Denmark. When he started presenting his projections a decade ago people thought he was crazy. But now all can se that he was correct. His contribution has been essential in awakening the awareness about demographic jihad in Denmark.

And it's all simple math really. People today have all the facts, but they do not know how to put it together. A population giving birth to on average 2 kids will stay the same from generation to generation. A population giving birth to 4 kids will double in each generation (this is exponential growth). If each of them also as a rule marry someone from their home country and bring them here, then they will quadruple in each generation. If kids are produced early, a generation is very short, 20-25 years.

Let's say a country consists of population group A of 5 population units, and B of 95 population units. The As are 5% of the population. The As get four kids per family, and ever second A finds their other A spouse in another A-country. The Bs gets 2 kids. So As triples, and Bs stay the same. No other immigration occurs.

After one generation: 15 As, 95 Bs. I.e. 14% As.

After two generations (i.e. withinh 40-50 years): 45 As, 95 Bs. I.e. 32% As.

If we have started from 10% As, we would end up at 49% As in two generations (cf. France).

A very simple exercise, and even so I couldn't believe it the first time I saw it. My first reaction was that the person presenting it was a hate-mongerer. Today I can see that this was because it was a social taboo to think in this way for me.

And this is really the major problem in all this. The mental taboos that are blocking us. I have been on both sides of the glass wall as Fjordman and Bjorn. It can be very much as discussing religion. But the open minds will always win in the long run.

The exercise above does not prove what will happen, of course. But is shows to anyone that knows math that it can happen, and that it can happen very easily. And for anyone studying demographic figures he can also see that it is very likely to happening somewhat according to these figures.

In fact the effect will be stronger and sooner, since the muslim population will be concentrated to the cities. So they will reach 10-20% very soon there, and at that there is also the process of Scandinavians leaving, which makes the ratio even higher. And still I haven't accounted for new fresh immigrants (or the illegal ones).

At 10-20% of the population the Jihad enters a new phase. It never failed. Important current examples are Thailand, Phillipines or Nigeria.

But of course, it would just never happen in Norway would it? So we do not even need to study demographics seriously do we? We just know, don't we? And we need not study Islam either do we? It's kind of like Christianity isn't it, just with different style of "churches" and another name for God?

It's funny how it is etno-centrism and ignorance that is considered as tolerance of cultural diversity and enlightment nowadays...

Follow the lemmings.

 
At August 29, 2005 7:05 PM, Blogger Evan said...

And for anyone studying demographic figures he can also see that it is very likely to happening somewhat according to these figures.

Below is a far less alarming, yet seemingly thorough, attempt to project the demographic future of Islam in France. It is the best I have seen so far although, given the rarity of decent tribal demographic data in France, that is not saying much:

France, Its Muslims, and the Future
.

 
At August 29, 2005 7:54 PM, Blogger Herr Unswedenizer said...

Evan: Below is a far less alarming, yet seemingly thorough, attempt to project the demographic future of Islam in France.

Such an utterly stupid article! I guess that you have to be French to use so very many words to say absolutely nothing.

Look at the PDF file instead. Table 1.

http://www.insee.fr/fr/ffc/docs_ffc/IP898.pdf

 
At August 29, 2005 8:01 PM, Blogger Bjoern said...

herr unswedenizer: "But how to describe the explosion in the increase of rapes in Scandinavia?"

I would describe it as the result of placing men from patriarchal and oppressive societies into one where women think for themselves and dress as they like. In other words, it's not part of a Muslim plot to invade, intimidate and convert Europe. And bad as the problem is, it's still nothing more than an increase in the likelihood of becoming a rapist, not something the vast majority of Muslim immigrants are doing, and certainly not with any large scale plan in mind.

Assuming that there still is such an overrepresentation, (as Fjordman points out these figures aren't being released anymore), it's a criminal problem that results from faulty integration. My problem with Fjordman isn't that he's pointing out this problem, but the hyperbolic way he does it.

"But know the issue is abuse of women."

Actually it isn't. Nobody's denying that Muslim women who live in the West are being oppressed, at least not me. Fjordman's theory is more radical, that Europe is being invaded by Muslims who use rape of non-Muslims as a weapon of Jihad. That's .. quite different. Oppression of Muslim women is a real problem, the Muslim invasion of Europe is a fantasy.

Pastorius: Do you know what Taqiyyah is? Do you know what Shaheed is? Do you know what the word Dhimmi means?

Taqiyyah - the right to lie about your faith in the face of persecution, a Shiah custom looked down on by most Sunnis; more popular with anti-Islamic conspiracy theorists, who use it to explain away evidence they don't like.

Shaheed - a martyr in the cause of Jihad. Traditionally applied to military campaigns and anti-Islamic persecution, but through a late 20th century theological invention is now also often applied to perpetrators of suicide terrorism.

Dhimmi - a Christian or Jew living under Muslim rule, with fewer legal rights than Muslim citizens but permission to keep their beliefs. May or may not apply to people of other religions and atheists, depending on interpretation.

Do you know that Jews are not allowed in Saudi Arabia? Do you know that ..

Yes, yes, yes, yes and yes. Hey, I pioneered the post-9/11 blog genre of exposing the evils of Arab and Muslim extremism. I remember when fisking the Arab News was fresh and original. I also remember when it became stale and old. And I remember the day I realized that much Islam criticism on the web had gone from being an expression of honest curiosity to becoming an excuse not to learn, an excuse not to think, an echo chamber of slogans and selective interpretation. The world is full of ironies, to which I add this comment of yours.

evan: "2. The rate of rape is growing dramatically."

I didn't agree to that. In any case, I don't think it makes sense to project crime rates into the future, unless you have a good understanding of the underlying causes. And even then it's speculative.

- Bjørn Stærk

 
At August 29, 2005 8:31 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

Bjoern,
Sorry I spelled your name incorrectly before. In addition, if you have made an effort in the past to get info such as this out to the public, then I tip my hat to you.

I can't understand why you would stop, though. The public needs to know this information. It is evidence of a great sickness in the Muslim world with which we will have to deal. It is not unlike Nazism, is it?

I've got a question. If you already knew the answers to all those questions, then why do you think the word "war" is hyperbolic?

As Herr UnSwedenizer points out, a Jihad begins in every country where Muslims become 10-20% of the population. A Jihad is a war.

An by the way, radical Sunnis have taken up the practice of Taqiyyah. And it seems the Wahabbists have no problem with it either.

 
At August 29, 2005 8:51 PM, Blogger Bjoern said...

Pastorius: "I've got a question. If you already knew the answers to all those questions, then why do you think the word "war" is hyperbolic?"

Because Islam is more than a desire to kill infidels. Most Muslims couldn't care less about bin Laden's caliphate. They just want to worship their religion in peace. The fact that they carry a lot of negative cultural baggage with them when they emigrate to the West, (such as oppression of women, and authoritarianism), doesn't make them Islamists.

Violent Islamists have declared war on the West, as well as on other Muslims and just about everyone else. To ignore that threat is naive. And to manufacture a threat from mainstream Muslims living in Europe is equally foolish.

"And it seems the Wahabbists have no problem with it either."

I've heard the opposite, that they're strongly opposed to taqiyya. But I don't have a source for that. The point is that most Muslims are skeptical to it, and those who support it have strict rules for when it is applicable. It's not a carte blanche for lying to infidels.

- Bjørn Stærk

 
At August 29, 2005 9:56 PM, Blogger Herr Unswedenizer said...

Björn,

So our difference in view is all about the nature of Islam and the nature of Jihad. It is a very big issue, but also the only one were we differ. Everything else is a consequence of that.

It should be a reminder of the critiques of Björn here that he belongs to the sensible wing in politics. He has a strong sense of right and wrong, and is as far away from a moral relativist as one could get (and not at all a PC as someone tried to suggest).

This is not a difference in facts, or moral codes, but a difference in the view of the general pattern. You don't share the view of the nature of Islam that Fjordman has, and why should you? With very few exceptions, the only people that I know that share this view are ex-muslims themselves, or western women that married a muslim. And you are neither. So it would have been unlikely for you to share this view.

What Fjordman writes is permeated by his view of the nature of Islam and the nature of Jihad, and this is precisely what you object to. On the other hand, what you write about Islam is permeated by your cultural frames.

I claim that you have superficial knowledge of Islam, extensive but superficial. You know a lot of facts but you do not know how to tie them together into a general pattern. And then you fill in the blanks by copy-pasting from your own cultural frame, assuming that their culture is like ours whenever you lack the specific knowledge. You copy-paste from Christian religion. You copy-paste from post-elightment view of people as independent individuals. There are so many examples. Everything you write is permeated by this. It's a very nice way to see other people as "they are probably like us", but it is not always functional.

To 6 out of 7 billion people around the world religion is the most important thing. And religions are so different that there's not even a common way to define the concept of religion. Religions such as Hinduism, Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Christianity, etc. are so very different in nature that it is doesn't suffice to read a few books to understand the differences. However if we have a false view of e.g. Hindus, and to much assume that they are like us, and copy-paste too often from our own cultural frame when we try and interpret their culture, it doesn't hurt us. It might even be a good strategy on many occasions. Unfortunately this is not the case with Islam. In the case of Islam, if we do not see the general pattern, and the true nature of this religion, it will hurt us very badly.

 
At August 29, 2005 10:02 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

Bjoern,
Statistics would seem to indicate that support for radical Islam is much higher than you indicate.

In Britain a poll was done which showed that 24% of British Muslims say they have sympathy for the motives of the London Bombers. http://cuanas.blogspot.com/2005/07/muslims-can-expect-increasing-distrust_25.html

In America, Freedom House found that prominent and mainstream Mosques are stocked with Wahabbist hate literature: http://www.danielpipes.org/article/2384

And, although support for Bin Laden is declining, it is still frighteningly high is Muslim countries around the world:

"In Morocco, 26% now say they have a lot or some confidence in Bin Laden and 35% feel the same way in Indonesia. However, in Jordan, confidence rose to 60% from 55%. In Pakistan, it went to 51% from 45%." http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4684989.stm

In a recente poll, 99% of Lebanese say they have an unfavorable opinion of Jews: http://cuanas.blogspot.com/2005/07/100-of-lebanese-say-they-have-very.html

And, since you are not new to this type of info, you know who the Arab world blames for 9/11.

Now, is this not a sign that we have a problem with a large percentage of the Muslim world?

 
At August 29, 2005 10:22 PM, Blogger erp said...

Fjordman's blog is a model of information not encumbered by propaganda. He posts astonishing articles we don't see elsewhere and writes a little blurb, but in the main, he lets readers form their own opinions.

The left doesn't like this exposure of raw facts because until the blogosphere, they had the world wrapped up in their own fantasy and by controlling information dispersal and using semantics to set the tone of the discussion, they were able to turn facts on their heads and so political correctness was born.

When there is a phenomenon in society of anti-social acts and crimes and felonies committed by a favored and protected minority, then the leftwing moonbats come out and say things like, that minority is over-represented in prisons.

Again, using political correctness to frame the discussion in such a way that the fault lies with society, not the criminals who committed the crimes for which they were imprisoned.

It's fortunate that information is freely flowing around the world and everyone who wants to know the truth can find it with a click of their finger.

 
At August 29, 2005 10:38 PM, Blogger Herr Unswedenizer said...

Björn,

Some examples of how you copy-paste from your own cultural frames when talking of Islam:

From http://blog.bearstrong.net/001631.html

What they should do is not say "the Quran says to kill infidels, which makes Islam evil", but "if you interpret the Quran as telling you to kill infidels, that's evil". Anyone who goes around saying the first is a useful idiot for extremists, no matter how smart they are.

What gave you the idea that there is any room for interpretation of the Quran, if not your Christian cultural frames? In the Bible there is lots of room for interpretation yes. It is a weakness of the Bible, if you want, due to the fact that the scriptures came from so many different sources.

By Islamophobic I mean that many Islam critics have an irrational fear of everything Islamic, leading them to believe wild tales about the Evil nature of a religion with 1 billion followers.

Everytime I hear the term Islamophobic I think of the Iranian dissident who had been tortured severely and very cruelly by the theocratic regime of Iran. Everytime he passed by a Mosque he felt physically ill, his body went through convulsions since it brouht back his memories of the torture, sometimes he had to vomit.

I guess this can be called an irrational fear. He should go in therapy for it.

I don't object to Nazis who are tolerant, peaceful, non-antisemitic, and democratic. The fewer bad qualities a Nazi has, the better a person they are. Is such a person still a Nazi? If they prefer to call themselves that, and if there are about a billion of them, yes.

What you describe here is a piece of alternative history, i.e. what would have happened if Nazi-Germany had won WWII (and it was not so far away).

Then we would have had all these nice Nazis. This since Nazi would be the common thing to be in Europe, and since people naturally tend to be nice. The US would have traded with Nazi-Europe. Nazi-Europe would have seats in the UN (or whatever it would be called). And the general view of the world would be that we should accept Nazi culture. The Nazi ideology would have matured and gone into a new phase, and most Nazi people would not have been needed as a cadre of combatants for the moment, so they would be freer to think up their own ideas of what Nazism means, which would be much nicer than the doctrines of the elite. People would just generally be very nice and kind, and try to have fun. Except when needed to deal with transgressors, or abuse the Jews.

As it happens, there are no nice tolerant Nazi's. But there are nice tolerant Muslims

Mohammad won his war. Hitler didn't.

 
At August 29, 2005 10:47 PM, Blogger Bjoern said...

Herr Unswedenizer: "I claim that you have superficial knowledge of Islam, extensive but superficial."

And you're right. I'm the first to admit that I'm ignorant about Islam. It's a huge subject, and I've barely scratched the surface. I know little about Islamic history, I know little about Islamic theology, I know little of the views of Islam's major thinkers, I know little about what sets the schools and branches of Islam apart from each other, I know little about the traditions and how to understand them, I know little about daily life in the world's many Muslim societies, I know little about what kind of Islamic thinking currently exists beneath the media radar.

The more I read, the more I realize how difficult it is to understand Islam. How much there is to know. If it had been all unity, a simple matter of understanding the text of the Quran and Sunnah, it would have been easy. But it's not. For every opinion there's a contrary one, for every seemingly simple issue there are complex nuances beneath. There are contradictions, there are holes, there are conditions and exceptions.

But the one thing I find confirmed, again and again, is that view of Islam as an evil religion that will rape us, convert us, and kill us all, (and not necessarily in that order), does not fit with reality. Nor does the view of Islam as a tolerant and liberal religion that wouldn't ever be mean to anyone. I don't know what Islam is, but I know it isn't that. And I know the answer isn't simple. I know it doesn't involve me scrutinizing the Quran for hidden insights into the true intentions of Islam - if only it were that easy.

What gave you the idea that there is any room for interpretation of the Quran, if not your Christian cultural frames?

The existence of vast amounts of religious interpretation of the Quran and the Sunnah gave me that idea. That's what Islamic theology is all about: interpreting the true will of God. If not, why is there disagreement within Islam?

Pastorius: Now, is this not a sign that we have a problem with a large percentage of the Muslim world?

Yes it is. And that's all it's a sign of. It's not a sign that a large percentage of the Muslim world intends to invade and kill us. It's not a sign that bin Laden's theology is as popular as his choice of enemies. It's not a sign that there is no solution to the Islamist problem within Islam itself. It's not a sign that every single crime committed by a Muslim in Europe is part of a vast invasion plot.

- Bjørn Stærk

 
At August 29, 2005 11:16 PM, Blogger truepeers said...

I would describe it as the result of placing men from patriarchal and oppressive societies into one where women think for themselves and dress as they like.

-it really grates on me when guys start spouting off about the evils of patriarchal society, as if they knew what these were. In the contrast of Islam and Norway, the former is relatively more matriarchal and the latter, thankfully, more patriarachal. If the choice were put in stark terms, between patriarchal and matriarchal, well then anyone, inluding any woman who wants to be free, would generally be correct to choose the patriarchal, which is not to say that all patriarchal societies are as virtuous as those which brought historically unprecedented freedoms to the west.

Salman Rusdie is on to something when he writes:

It should be a matter of intense interest to all Muslims that Islam is the only religion whose origins were recorded historically and thus are grounded not in legend but in fact. The Koran was revealed at a time of great change in the Arab world, the seventh-century shift from a matriarchal nomadic culture to an urban patriarchal system. Muhammad, as an orphan, personally suffered the difficulties of this transformation, and it is possible to read the Koran as a plea for the old matriarchal values in the new patriarchal world, a conservative plea that became revolutionary because of its appeal to all those whom the new system disenfranchised, the poor, the powerless and, yes, the orphans.
Rushdie

-it seems Rushdie sees the link between matriarchalism and the irrational sacrificial cult that pervades Islam. Islam is not patriarchal like Judaism or Christianity. Islam, in putting its emphasis less on the man-god relationship, and more on simple submission to the word and on following Mohammed the worldly warrior and traveller in the quest to overcome the infidel patriarchs, has a relationship to the sacred that indeed looks as much matriarchal as patriarchal to me. But then I'm just a momma's boy.

 
At August 29, 2005 11:22 PM, Blogger Herr Unswedenizer said...

Björn,

Thank you for a very honest and intelligent discussion.

I'm not a scholar of Islam. But I have spent a lot of time trying to understand its nature, while at the same time ridding myself of my cultural prejudices.

We need some strategy, somewhere to start. For me the best entry point to a alien culture is to find the ones that are as yourself in that culture. With the blessing of Internet, today that is possible. Being a secular humanist, the social revolution in our European countries serves very much as a model for my values. A hundred years ago people were still fighting against the oppression of the Church. Had we been among the less developed countries in the world at that point, who would we have wanted the powerful nations to listen to: the priests or the dissidents? Today the powerful nations have decided to listen to and trade with the priests. Not even George W Bush acknowledge the ex-muslim dissidents. They only have a voice on the Internet. But some of us are listening.

My view of Islam is shaped by such people. In all the media noice I have found these to be the people to trust as a means to understand the nature of Islam. They have been living it, and they can tell. Actually they are still living it. They would risk their life if they would tell anyone that they'd left Islam.

What affected me the most, and forever, was a few years ago when I read the testimonials of people who'd left Islam at www.secularislam.org. These are very plain unvarnished life stories that goes right into the heart. It gave me insight into everyday muslim life imposible to get elsewhere. These stories are really heart-rending, and you can really feel the pain and horrors that these people have experienced. It's the kind of direct human-to-human experience that could not be experienced in the old televised mass-media society (that still many people live in).

Through Internet contacts I also learned things about other religions that I cannot see how I would have learned otherwise.

I also spent about two years of plowing through holy scriptures of different religions, but I'm really tired of that now.

 
At August 29, 2005 11:25 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

Good answer Bjoern,
To me it sounds like a Siren's Song. Didn't that myth come from your country?

:)

Anyway, listen, I just noticed that one word you didn't define was Jihad. My understanding of the definition of the word Jihad, (other than it's mystical meaning as an inner spiritual struggle which i respect) is to spread Islam through violence. You say you don't know a whole lot of the history of Islam, but surely you know enough to know that Islam has been spread by violence through Islamic history. There are periods of quiet, and periods of violence.

Another thing I'm sure you understand is we don't want their society here. Right?

Does it seem to you that Muslims are integrating in your country? Judging by the fact that mainstream Mosques contain Wahabbist hate literature I would say that Muslims are not really integrating in my country.

If I saw such literature in my church, I would throw it in the trash. And then, I would let the Pastor know what I thought of it. I might even seize the podium and have a little talk with my fellow parishioners. Yes, that's the kind of guy I am. And that's what Muslim Americans ought to do, but they don't.

Polls have indicated they have no interest in helping law enforcement track down the Jihadis in their midst. There have been two big Muslim Marches for Peace organized in our country in recent months. One was called off and the other only drew about 30-40 people.

What do you think of that?

 
At August 29, 2005 11:33 PM, Blogger Don Miguel said...

"It took that Americans 7 years to wake up to this threat (1942). This time the Europeans are the slow ones."

Herr Unswedenizer:

Actually, it was 1941 if you take into account the declaration of war and the Lend-Lease Act. If you want to account for "projecting current events into the future" then 1939 would be just as accurate.

But your point still stands.

 
At August 29, 2005 11:38 PM, Blogger Pastorius said...

By the way, Bjoern, I want to chime in with Herr UnSwedenizer and thank you for the debate. This is one of the better debates I've been involved in on the net, because no one is cursing, calling names, or even really mischaracterizing each others opinions.

You are being fair. I hope I am.

 
At August 29, 2005 11:44 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

There are many points being discussed here, but I'll touch on just a few.

Before the rise of Wahhabism, Muslims (Some were Turks) saw it as their duty to Allah to impregnate infidel women. Considering the low regard which the Koran has toward women, rape by the sons of Allah should not be a surprise. One can check the history of Spain and the history of Transylvania to confirm that history. More recently, Oriana Fallaci has written on the topic of sexual harassment by Muslims. There is also a book entitled Princess, written by a young woman from Saudi; this book speaks of how women are treated in Islam. And I'm speaking of Islam before the rise of Islamism, which is certainly the most aggressive form today.

Back in 1972, I personally had somewhat of a close call with a high-ranking Iranian who was determined to make me a member of his harem. With his bodyguard close by, he followed me all over campus. I finally discouraged the fellow by telling him, falsely, that I had married over the weekend. He got so angry that I thought he was going to strike me; additionally, he never returned to class. At the time, I didn't think I was in any danger, though the Iranian's following me around was so unnerving that I took to having someone pick me up or drop me off at the campus (a commuter school). But I found out many years later from my neighbor, who hailed from the aristocracy of the UAE, that the Iranian who harassed me was a prince and was known for forcing redheads into his harem.

Based on what I know of the lack of women's rights within Islam and based on my personal experience, I can well believe that there is a significant problem with rape and with sexual harassment on the part of Muslim men. An epidemic? I suppose that depends on the statistics.

The larger question, as far as I'm concerned, is this: If the statistics bear out what Fjorman has said, why is the information kept quiet? By keeping silence, more women may be put in danger.

I hate to do this, but let me speak as a woman. Rape is devastating to a woman--a violation which a man may not be fully able to comprehend. I've known several women who were raped, and they were never the same carefree and fun friends whom I had known before. The statistics should be made public. To suppress the facts is wrong.

As to what Pastorius said about crime in CA, over 60% of all violent crimes committed there are committed by immigrants. I don't have the link, so I don't know if those immigrant criminals are legal or illegal.

As to the matter of the Caliphate, many Muslims other than Wahhabists look back on the "good old days" of the ancient Caliphate and wish to see it re-established. Wahhabists are attempting to accomplish that goal through violence; others are attampting to accomplish that goal through legal means. You might look at these:

http://thetruthproject.blogspot.
com/2005/08/quotations.html

and

http://www.faithfreedom.org

 
At August 30, 2005 12:00 AM, Blogger Herr Unswedenizer said...

Björn:It's not a sign that every single crime committed by a Muslim in Europe is part of a vast invasion plot.

I don't think, and don't hope, anyone suggested so.

Björn, I see you using the argument "most muslims..." all the time. I see this as an example of the etno-centric fallacy I talked about before. Since the enlightment we view people as independent individuals in the West. But you have to remember that Muslims are still stuck in a medieval mindset. And if they are not stuck with their head, they are virtually chained by their feet (including the ex-muslims I mentioned before). The Ex-Muslims are of course not Muslims at all.

Naturally most Muslims are not Islamists (or rapists for that sake). I even know that a substantial minority of them are not even Muslims (the ex-muslims, my soul-mates). But anyway together they form the Ummah. And the Ummah means strength by numbers. For example the Jihad goes into a new phase when the muslim population (including clandestine ex-muslims) exceed 10% in that part of the world. This is based upon the Quran.

In old conservative ideology a society is not described as a collective of individuals but as a body with different organs with different functions. The democratic ideal of the society being a collective of individuals is very culture specific to us. Not even for Japan this is valid. So when view a muslim community we should apply the old conservative view to get a more true picture.

You misinterpret what we say since you listen to us through a filter of modern democratic liberalism. No we don't suggest that all muslims are intentionally part of a world wide plot against us. Nobody ever suggsted so. On the contrary I see how the vast majority of the muslims are caught in this mental prison.

People are not seen as individuals in Islam. You know just as me that women are seen as cattle. A cow is valuable for the meat, a woman for her virginity. If the value is gone for some reason, the possession might as well be wasted. So when your son has raped your daughter you had better kill your daughter to save the family honour.

But not even men's lives are of value in itself. Their main value is as a warrior. And the honourable thing for a muslim man is to die in battle.

So the view of "most muslims" has very little effect on the line of events, and how the Jihad will proceed, I'd say. They are just the feet of the body. It is the ideology of the brain that makes a difference.

 
At August 30, 2005 12:10 AM, Blogger Baron Bodissey said...

"Islam has bloody borders."

As Scandinavia moves closer to the border, I would expect it to become more bloody. A rape epidemic would certainly be one aspect of the process, given the regard Islam holds for women.

When I was a teenager I travelled through Denmark, Sweden, and Norway. This was in the 1960s; I stayed in the capitals of Denmark and Norway, and don't recall noticing a single "immigrant". Presumably times have changed.

Bjoern: if Fjordman is right, then there must be plenty of women who could attest to the violence and degradation inflicted on them by Muslims. Where are their voices? I would like to see a blog by such women; the collective testimony of "Sharia Survivors" would be compelling.

Just a thought...

 
At August 30, 2005 12:30 AM, Blogger Herr Unswedenizer said...

Don Miguel: If you want to account for "projecting current events into the future" then 1939 would be just as accurate

If one would take "projecting current events into the future" in account, one would be able to claim just about anything...

:-)

 
At August 30, 2005 2:50 AM, Blogger truepeers said...

The problem with Bjorn's original argument is that he talks as if things like invasion, epidemic, war, were strictly phenomena of nature that could be objectively measured. But of course these terms refer above all to states of mind that depend, in large part, on people being ready and willing to use the language appropriate to said phenomena.

This is not to suggest that you can entirely construct an invasion, epidemic, or war, holus-bolus, by propagandizing people into believing they are involved in such; rather, the words will have to be invoked in relation to real contexts, and revelations regarding them, in which they are seen to be appropriate. The propagandist cannot rule absolutely since eventually there will always come an emperor has no clothes moment, even in the most controlling of regimes, as even Orwell recognized.

This is because humanity is inherently a creature of exchange, and real communications must always involve two-way traffic. Ultimately, the arbiter of appropriateness is the marketplace in ideas.

If people can be convinced of external enemies, it is not simply because they indeed exist, but because they are familiar with the nature of human exchange, and intuitively they know that the kind of propaganda their war mongers promote, can be and surely is being promoted by someone in the external camp. For every Fjordman there is surely at least one Desertman.

Is this reason for despair? Not at all. Engaging the warriors in debate is a way not simply of denying or acknowledging a conflict, but more importantly of deferring it, by opening not closing discussion, e.g. by allowing voices to come forward (when the stakes are not yet as high as during open war) who say, no, I'm not in that camp as you all think, but am actually on this side, e.g. the side of freedom. What I'm suggesting is that Bjorn's arguments, while promoting the vision that the mass of Moslems are moderates, may not actually be the discourse best suited to proving this claim. Fjordman's hyperbolic approach is a hypothesis that there is a problem, to which people are then encouraged to respond, instead of waiting patiently under the pc cloud in which resentments are not given free verbal articulation (and hence deferred through debate) but simply taken out on some poor soul and recorded in the crime statistics or the latest terrorist act or creation of a no-go area in an immigrant ghetto or a pc university discussion.

In a free society inappropriate hyperbole will be laughed at (and note, Bjorn is not simply laughing); what causes violent explosions is much more the lack of open debate (freezing and thus radicalizing the relationship between authority and silenced), rather than violent hyperbole which may be marginally better than the real violence all debate defers.

Right now, Bjorn is probably right to conclude that most Norwegians do not see themselves at war, etc. So why then should he object to Fjordman's marginality or "hyperbolic" language as somehow beyond the rules of the human game? Surely if Fjordman is to convince his countrymen that they or their culture are under threat, then a mix of careful analysis and hyperbole would be appropriate to Fjordman's aims as he conceives them. To accuse him of hyperbole is almost to say he does not have the right to try and convince his countrymen that they are threatened. They may not listen, being wiser than Fjordman (or maybe not), but isn't the tactic that Bjorn is using inherently that of Dhimmitude: you should not fight against the real god-given truth?

But surely as all who pray know, god does not simply give us the truth in the holy book; he demands we find the truth in relationship or communication with him.

Nonetheless, there remain certain minds more prone to look for objective truths in holy books, in the stats, or in public consensus, and then there are some who know what language and its uses are really all about. One truth that is well proven historically is that new insights always come from the margins. (In contrast, madness may tend to the margins but it is also common near the center.) To appeal to authority or mainstream consensus as a guide to what is happening now is something of a conceptual fallacy. When the market is sure and settled on a price, the game is over and a new one has already begun.

Paradoxically, we save the old liberal order by continuing to debate and undermine its terms, not by declaring the debate closed, or believing it has nothing new to tell us.

 
At August 30, 2005 6:33 AM, Blogger the adventuress said...

Many European women will not talk about their experiences at the hands of Muslim men because they don't what to be accused of being "racist." But believe me, I hear a lot when they are talking privately to their own kind - sympathetic non-Muslim women.

Multiculturalism is definitely a women's issue. It's daft to expect that importing vast numbers of people from various misogynist cultures into the West will not affect the native born Western women in any negative way. It has, and it will continue to do so.

This is the tragedy that the multi-cultis refuse to face.

 
At August 30, 2005 10:49 AM, Blogger Bjoern said...

truepeers: "while promoting the vision that the mass of Moslems are moderates"

I haven't said that. Moderate vs Islamist is a false dichotomy, most Muslims are neither. Islamist groups are the ones we should worry about today, they're the ones who want to kill us. Traditionalists are mostly a threat to themselves, for instance through oppression of their own women, and their puritanism will be a threat to the rest of us if they become a major political force in Europe. Islamists are a security problem, traditionalists an integration problem.

What we should encourage are Muslims who feel no need to legislate their beliefs, (or at least no more than our Christians), and who are able to deal with cultural and religious alternatives in a relaxed way. These Muslims will still want to convert us, and they may still be puritans by our standards, but they'll be well-intended, peaceful, educated members of society, Europeans who have found a balance between their Western and Islamic background.

Impossible? Considering human flexibility, I find that difficult to believe. If the Islamists can get away with reinventing their faith, so can Western Muslims. And don't forget that they're up against a powerful memeplex here: Secular Western society, a culture that has conquered the world as fast Muslims conquered the Middle East and Northern Africa .. twice (first militarily, then culturally). We're not going away, and we can't be ignored. Fighting us is impossible, adaptation is the only long-term solution.

To accuse him of hyperbole is almost to say he does not have the right to try and convince his countrymen that they are threatened.

Nah, I just want him to be accurate. I hate hyperbole. I hate intentional inaccuracy, and lying in the name of a "good cause". Say what you mean, and mean what you say.

but isn't the tactic that Bjorn is using inherently that of Dhimmitude: you should not fight against the real god-given truth?

We should fight Islam like we fight all other religious lies, by arguing that they're false. I don't want Norway to convert to Islam, for the same reason I don't want it to convert back to Christianity, because these religions live in their own fantasy world, separate from reality. But that doesn't mean Islam is incompatible with our society. Threats to our society should be fought, but fighting phantoms is a waste of resources and both dangerous and wrong on its own.

One truth that is well proven historically is that new insights always come from the margins. .. To appeal to authority or mainstream consensus as a guide to what is happening now is something of a conceptual fallacy.

Insights are created in the margins, but good insights are gradually adopted by the mainstream, especially when they relate to obvious truths, like "Look, the emperor has no clothes", or "Wow, we've just been invaded by Muslims as part of their Jihad". And anyway, to separate good insights from bad we need skepticism. That's why I'm here. I'm that annoying guy who looks at your beautiful theory and asks only "where's the evidence?" I've been asking that question for a while, and I rarely get anything other than crime statistics and questionable Quran interpretations. And that's not enough.

- Bjørn Stærk

 
At August 30, 2005 2:55 PM, Blogger Herr Unswedenizer said...

Björn: "where's the evidence?"

Okay Björn, I'll make you a deal. I'll take on this task, if you help me with another one:

Present the evidence for that there was ever a communist threat in the 20th century.

It's not I that need to be convinced, but you see most people around me here in Sweden still believe that there was never a communist threat. How am I supposed to convince them about that, by presenting evidence to them? Would you take upon that task for me? It's much easier than the task that I'll give you in return, because yours is all post-factum.

I'm sure that you will be able to present these evidence in a very eloquent way. And that will surely be needed, because these people are like stone walls. Where should I start? When I talk about communist infiltration they merely consider it as paranoia. And the same moment as they see me as a paranoic they stop listening to me. How can I get around this? And even the more sensible ones who do not immediately denounce me as a paranoic,instead denounce my words as crazy conspiracy theories. How am I gonna make them absorb even one single piece of evidence as long as they consider me being crazy?

 
At August 30, 2005 3:19 PM, Blogger Herr Unswedenizer said...

So where's the evidence?

Well, Björn, I'm going to try and start with my part of the deal. And I hope you find this idea of a deal a good one.

In order to being able to finding evidence for hypothesis, one has first to fully understand the nature of the hypothesis. Scientific hypothesises generally canot be expressed accurately in everyday language. As a rule a correct terminology first has to be adapted. Without the proper language, the hypothesis cannot even be understood, and it is merely wast of time trying to find evidence for the hypothesis.

There are some illuminating examples in the history of science. For example the concept of 'element' changed. In the 17th century the fire element ended up having negative weight. Today, of course, fire is no longer considered as being an element. With Newton our theories about force and movement of bodies was revolutionized. But the important insight is that Newton wasn't merely saying that Aristotle was wrong when he talked about forces; they are not even talking about the same thing when they say 'force'.

Language and accurate terminology is everyhting a scientific approach. Scientific development does not happen through cumulative collection of evidence. Science goes through revolutions where the paradigm is shifted. And with the new paradigm, you see the world in a completely new way. People belonging to two different paradigms will have as much difficulty to understand each other as and atheist vs. a theist. A person with an Aristotelic concept of 'force' won't even being able to understand the theories of Newton. And even less being able to find evidence for it or disprove it. He will merely be able to say that the theories of Newton are absurd, and therefore not worth considering.

 
At August 30, 2005 4:06 PM, Blogger Herr Unswedenizer said...

So let's start with terminology.

Let's start with the term Muslim. The term Muslim is can be used in a whole number of different and mutually exclusive ways. The term will generally be used differently depending on your background and your relation to Islam.

For example in Western media Ayaan Hirsi Ali is often referred to as a Muslim, while she really the opposite of being a Muslim.

Depending on what we are talking about we have a tuple of concepts that we will have to deal with properly, or we will completely miss the point.

Islam, Islamists, Muslims, Ummah, Caliphate

Communism, Stalinist, Socialists, Working Class, Soviet Union, Classless society/proletariate dictatorship

Nazism, Nazis, Germans, The Master Race, The Third Reich

Judaism, Jews, Israelis, The Worldwide Judeo-Capitalist Conspiracy, Israel

Sweden, Swedes, Social Democracy, Dhimmitude, European Union, United Nations

(I'm with the Worldwide Judeo-Capitalist Conspiracy)


Anyway, Björn. You do not distinguish between the follwing two:

1. The (majority of the) Muslims plot to invade and take over Europe

2. Islam plot to invade and take over Europe

The first one is wrong, quite as you have repeated many times (without anyone objecting). However, the second one is true. And is true by definition. Islam is by definition a plot to take over the world and subdue it to Islam. In a community as the Ummah there is no need at all for the average Muslim to be aware of this plot. It works perfectly fine anyway, and has done so for 1400 years.

Okay, Björn. I guess at this point, instead you will object to the idea of Islam being a plot to take over Europe/The World, right? Does that also mean that you objected to that Nazism was a plot to take over Europe/The World, or Soviet Communism as a plot to take over Europe/The World?

 
At August 30, 2005 9:26 PM, Blogger Fjordman said...

Bjørn: I will post another thread to answer your question about rapes and war, probably tomorrow.

 
At August 30, 2005 9:40 PM, Blogger truepeers said...

Bjorn writes:
Nah, I just want him to be accurate. I hate hyperbole. I hate intentional inaccuracy, and lying in the name of a "good cause". Say what you mean, and mean what you say.


-i think you need reflect a little more on the conditions of meaning. New insights are always revelatory and do not immediately have calm and well wrought language suited to express their meaning. It takes time to figure that out. A degree of hyperbole is inevitable to our communicating the apparent meaning of any new scene.

We should fight Islam like we fight all other religious lies, by arguing that they're false. I don't want Norway to convert to Islam, for the same reason I don't want it to convert back to Christianity, because these religions live in their own fantasy world, separate from reality.

-in my experience, religious people accustomed to ideas of human sin and waiting for the Messiah are often better suited to distinguishing fantasy and reality in this world than are those secular forces who cannot appeal to anything transcendent and are actually immersed in Gnosticism and abstractly judeo-christian ideas that they don't recognize as such and so cannot understand themselves accordingly.

The whole history of the twentieth century with its anti-religious totalitarian fantasies should give you pause before pronouncing on who are those who live by the fantastical "ought" and those who live by the realistic "is". The whole phenomenon of Political Correctness depends on a number of denials of reality. Gnosticism is pervasive among the secular elites who seek salvation in the welfare state and liberalism. You should read a litle Eric Voegelin on all this.

The idea of God is inherent to humanity, as is the reality that all language evokes a transcendent source of significance. This is anthropologically true whether you are religious or not. When you can well explain this, I will be impressed. In the meantime let me note that some people have pretty good explanations, whatever the unnecessary religious mumbo jumbo that they package them in. There is much anthropological truth in Judeo-Christian religion, truth to which I can see you are blind when you make flip statements about "patriarchal" cultures. You should read a little Rene Girard.

I rarely get anything other than crime statistics and questionable Quran interpretations. And that's not enough.

-well Bjorn, don't make the mistake of assuming there is a correct Koran interpretation. It is what its readers make it to be. And I have no doubt that you have been exposed to many Muslim propagandists, so why not take them at their word when they talk about Dar al harb, Jihad, the worldwide Ummah, bombing Israel and the other infidels, etc.? Well, you say, those are just the Islamists. And most Muslims aren't. They're just resentful traditionalists who are mostly a harm to themselves. Well that strikes me as a somewhat unrealistic, even fantastical, idea about the nature of human interaction in society, a denial of the inevitability of conflict, and a lack of ideas about how this is to be deferred. But, in any case, it seems clear to me that you don't have much idea what ideas are being promoted at your local Mosque or among the westernized sons and daughters of your traditionalists. Hope it all works out.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home