Fjordman

22 Comments:

At August 29, 2005 2:33 AM,  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 9:32 AM,  Unknown 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 1:08 PM,  Unknown 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 3:11 PM,  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 3:32 PM,  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 3:49 PM,  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 4:33 PM,  José 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 4:38 PM,  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 5:50 PM,  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 7:05 PM,  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 8:31 PM,  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 10:02 PM,  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,  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 11:16 PM,  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 11:25 PM,  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,  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,  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,  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 12:10 AM,  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 2:50 AM,  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 9:26 PM,  Unknown said...

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

 

At August 30, 2005 9:40 PM,  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

About Me

Name: Unknown

View my complete profile