Thursday, November 10, 2005

Is Fjordman a Threat to World Peace?

Is Fjordman, and other "Islamophobes" like me, a threat to peace and stability in Europe? Bjørn Stærk seems to think so. He calls me "dangerous", a term he also uses for the person who killed Theo Van Gogh and the ones who are trying to kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders:

Tonje vs Islamophobes

Bjørn Stærk: Fjordman is dangerous because he invents a desperate situation, the origins of a coming civil war, a situation made inevitable by the Evil of Islam, and which requires unstated desperate measures to avoid. I am very afraid of what those desperate measures will turn it to be, once the Islamophobes get around to thinking about it. Fjordman is dangerous because he does not understand Islam, and works to spread his confusion to others, thus making them less able to understand and come to terms with the culture of many of our immigrants, and less able to understand and fight the Islamist terrorist threat. Fjordman is like a fireman who comes to a burning house, but thinks the whole block is on fire, and by the time he comes around to saving the one house that is really burning, he has no more water left. Fjordman and his followers will hopefully never be in a position to introduce the desperate measures they imply are necessary to fight Islam, but they are in a position to undermine the cause they fight for by making us misunderstand the threat we're facing.

43 Comments:

At November 10, 2005 12:29 AM, Blogger sissyblue said...

Bjorn is an ignorant fool. He needs to become informed by visiting:

http://www.thereligionofpeace.com

and clicking down the page until he reaches the list of victims of Islamic wrath, just for the last 12 months. It's 94 pages long. These are facts. Bjorn is living in a fantasy world.

Bjorn would sit in the house until it burned to the ground simply because in his delusional mind he couldn't accept that it was on fire.

 
At November 10, 2005 12:50 AM, Blogger Chip said...

What could be more dangerous than an intelligent person (Fjordman) grappling with some of the critical political and social issues of the day without cowtowing to the altar of political correctness?

In my world, just about anything.

In Europe.... I have no idea what passes for linear thinking in Europe.

 
At November 10, 2005 1:08 AM, Blogger truepeers said...

Well I'd say Fjordman is a real danger to Bjorn's mental health, a chap who seems to be rather too much in love with his own mind and its formulations.

The fact of the matter is that neither Bjorn nor Fjordman knows what is coming. The only proof will out when the laboratory of history has had its say. The argument is whether we are safer in a world with maximally free speech, or one in which we try to shut down prophets of doom lest they turn out self-fulfilling prophecy.

While prophecy does impose itself on and change the future, in a maximally free world, the people will tend to choose the most believable and reasonable prophecies. BUt Bjorn does not understand how life is a question of combining both reason and faith.

 
At November 10, 2005 1:12 AM, Blogger Don Miguel said...

"Fjordman and his followers ..."

Yes, Fjordman -- we follow your every command!

From Bjorn's rant, I would say he is closed to being a danger to someone; especially those physically close to him.

 
At November 10, 2005 1:13 AM, Blogger Michael said...

Fjordman, I never knew what that guy Bjorn Staerk stood for, until now.

Needless to say, I'm on your side.


Outlaw Mike, Belgium

 
At November 10, 2005 1:22 AM, Blogger sissyblue said...

When you see people saying things like this "Noam Chomsky: Internet is a Hideous Time-Waster" and this "Is Fjordman a Threat to World Peace?" you KNOW you are on the right track!!! We carefully observe our muslim friends, and when they react strongly about a subject being "the wrong thing", we know for certain it is the "right thing". For example the Israeli "wall".

 
At November 10, 2005 6:20 AM, Blogger Mike H. said...

The muslims feel they are on a roll. They feel this way because they check in with Bjorn and his ilk. Hopefully they will keep checking in with Bjorn and not us, that way there will be no impetus for adjustment of their strategy.

 
At November 10, 2005 7:49 AM, Blogger seeker not submitter said...

"Fjordman is dangerous because he does not understand Islam"

...and Bjorn does ?
Bjorn has read the Quran, Hadiths, and the history ?

if he would spend about 10 minutes reading Dr Sina on faithfreedom.org he could see that Fjordman is EXACTLY correct. Dr Sina (and many others on that site) understand Islam intimately.

 
At November 10, 2005 8:10 AM, Blogger ik said...

Maybe Bjorn can ask for proof/evidence that the prophet talked to Allah in that cave.

 
At November 10, 2005 8:57 AM, Blogger Bjoern said...

"He calls me "dangerous", a term he also uses for the person who killed Theo Van Gogh and the ones who are trying to kill Ayaan Hirsi Ali and Geert Wilders"

Different kinds of dangerous, though. Europe's islamism is a physical danger to us, Islamophobia is an intellectual danger. Islamists kill us, Islamophobes make it more difficult to fight Islamism.

They're also different in nature. Islamism is a totalitarian movement with death cult leanings. Islamophobia is more of a conspiratorial worldview.

And no, I don't think you're a real danger, but only because you're not in a position of power or influence. To get that, you'd need to come to terms with the reality most Europeans live in. Conspiracy-like worldviews often find that difficult.

It's possible I've gotten the wrong impression though of what Islamophobes would do if they were handed political power. So my question for you (and everyone else here) is: Let's assume you control a majority party in a European country. Which steps would you take to save your country from the Islamic threat?

- Bjørn Stærk

 
At November 10, 2005 9:34 AM, Blogger ThBadMonkey said...

What are the charges against Islamophiles?

1. That you may NOT critizise their religion on penalty of death.

So if you have 200,000 Muslims in your country, you know that 6-15% support radical islam. Thats 12,000-30,000 supporters per ecvery 200,000. Thats alot of people.

You have economic drain, but with Norways oil wealth, you could invite them till kindom come and be alright...

2.Muslims will be more violent more crime, petty crime , drug use, rape, murder, etc...

You need to make the argument that replacing native Scandinavians with Desert dwelling peoples en-mass will eventually destroy the culture. How you cn do that intellectually (see VDARE.COM) beyond Vdare and make it public info is beyond me.

3.ADVERTISING
You could show the REAL news about how muslims etc do NOT integrate into the culture, and that they will not tolerate free speech, etc... again, you need a snappy news media outlet, and you need to make people want to watch it. This can be done for long term effect though. This can be done with some type of podcasting which is relatively cheap.

Podcasting may be the best source if you can make it popular enough (funny?) so that people want to tune in.

Long term? You need to have some understanding of how most scandinavians really feel about mulsims/islam/ etc...

The DANES are getting SICK of them, why isnt everyone else? Not enough Islamic VIOLENCE.

 
At November 10, 2005 11:41 AM, Blogger Snouck said...

The Question is:
how can Islamofobes be a danger? Do these Islamofobes come out of nothing or is there a cause for their fear? The real enemy should be the Left and not Islam. Islam was not a problem, when it was far away in North Africa and beyond. Because of Multiculturalism it has not only come and grown here, but it excesses remain unchecked. And that is why a movement of scared and angry people is gathering. They are looking for insight and direction and Fjordman gives it.

Snouck
http://snouck.blogspot.com

 
At November 10, 2005 11:56 AM, Blogger Thomas Bolding Hansen said...

"Islamophobes make it more difficult to fight Islamism."

"Islamophobia is more of a conspiratorial worldview."

Now would like examples on the first, as for the second eg. "they are breeding to become majority and take power" It´s more complex than that, yet exactly that fact that islamists can say that there is a majority of moslems will make them go violently after the overall power irespectively of anyone would vote on them, they see themselves as the elite and avantgarde much like the bolcheviks, shaping the event of the world towards a higher purpose.

I dont think you really understand or want to understand how dangerous radical islam is, radical being the worst because it´s full flegded hate and the wish to destroy and kill. But mind I add the socalled moderate follow close by still feeling disgust and anger towards the suppossed oppression posed.

 
At November 10, 2005 12:11 PM, Blogger heather said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

 
At November 10, 2005 12:31 PM, Blogger Bjoern said...

We could debate how dangerous (if at all) the various forms of Islam are, but I've been in that discussion often enough, (just search for Islam in my blog), and I doubt anything new would come out of it. Just let me assure you that yes, I've heard all your arguments, and no, I don't agree with the multiculturalist view either, and leave it at that.

What I would find interesting, however, is an answer to my question: Let's assume you control a majority party in a European country. Which steps would you take to save your country from the Islamic threat?

- Bjørn Stærk

 
At November 10, 2005 12:46 PM, Blogger Michael said...

Which steps would you take to save your country from the Islamic threat?

1° Cancel IMMEDIATELY all immigration from non-westerners for 5 years.

2° This includes an immediate stop of family reunions.

3° Expel immediately all "suspected" imams.

4° Brutal and especially violent crackdowns on suspected terrorists.

5° Make detention of suspected terrorists of up to 90 days without charges possible.

6° No regard for muslim "sensitivities" anymore. Done with the dhimmitude.

7° Building stop for mosques.

That's for starters Mr. Staerk. If you think I'm a thug, there's a nice mini Islamic Republic in Brussels I'd like to show to you. Come in disguise, e.g. under a burqa, to get out of it unharmed.

 
At November 10, 2005 1:08 PM, Blogger Eleanor © said...

In his ignorance and stupidity, Bjorn is the danger to world peace. Appeasement and inaction have led to more wars and strife than have mutual deterrence: your enemy won't strike back if believes that you are strong and willing to take decisive action.

Although our enemy sees our strength, our vacillating beahvior and words of appeasers, such as Bjorn, have led to the belief that we won't stand up for ourselves.

 
At November 10, 2005 1:54 PM, Blogger Bjoern said...

Michael, okay, but now that you've closed the borders and kicked out the openly extremist preachers, you're still left with a sizable Muslim minority in your country. Won't this lead to civil war, or at least serious unrest and attempts at Islamification? What will you do to minimize the risk of this?

- Bjørn Stærk

 
At November 10, 2005 1:58 PM, Blogger sissyblue said...

Bjorn,

#1. Any person who breaks the law (ie taxi driver who refuses a blind person and their dog) is expelled from the country, along with their kin for not following Norwegian laws and customs.

#2. The Koran is banned as hate literature (and all other such literature calling people to murder other living humans).

#3. Anyone caught conspiring to commit terrorist acts is expelled.

#4. All family members of #3 are expelled.

I think that would pretty much take care of the problem. Believe it or not, Norway has the right to have it's own culture.

 
At November 10, 2005 2:05 PM, Blogger Fjordman said...

Bjørn: I will answer that question within the next couple of weeks. I will soon leave the blogosphere, and I am preparing quite a few texts before this.

 
At November 10, 2005 2:29 PM, Blogger dewat said...

Is there something wrong with the cultures of Norway,Sweden,Denmark,Germany.France (ok, bad example)Spain or Italy? That quality that made them what there are, do they need to be changed? I see this as matter of killing the Golden Goose , immigrants want the Golden Eggs but in the process they will kill the Goose by bringing the very culture they escaped from. To answer the question, show them the door, give them a map, put them on a boat or they can integrate.

 
At November 10, 2005 2:57 PM, Blogger f147u13nc3 said...

Bjoern's common mistake is that he doesn't differentiate between Islam and Muslims. According to him, Islam is simply what Muslims believe and do, which I guess implies that if most Muslims are good people, then that means that most of Islam is good.

 
At November 10, 2005 4:19 PM, Blogger Bom Garfo said...

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all."

- From Lewis Carroll
**
The political correctness uses often words like "islamophobe" and who opposes its views will be branded a bigot. Any citizen who questions the legitimacy of Islam as a peace religion will be condemned for "hate speech”. Hadiths and women treated under subhuman condition are Witch Tales that people talk about; all false, in the political correctness view.

Of course, Islam needs a reform. Anti-religion is not in stake here; everybody is free to practice their religion, unless the religion cuts anybody’s freedom and dignity. So, let the political correctness continue with its Humpty-Dumpty-ish speech (they are entitled to it, it’s a free society) granted at the expense of the common language, democratic society, freedom and a western social organization to which the majority of the people under Muslim regimes cannot have.

 
At November 10, 2005 4:45 PM, Blogger truth serum said...

Bjorn,
You admit that there is a 'threat'. I assume by that, that you see Islam and by extention, some Muslims as well as threats to European societies. Excuse me, but technically speaking if one is threatened then desperate measures are called for. What is your answer?

I am making an assumption here but I would be willing to bet that your answer has something to do with educating Muslims about their adopted European nation's culture and trying to integrating them more. All of that takes time...time that Europeans do not have, which is why I agree with Michael's steps with few exceptions.

Stop massive immigration forever, unless that immigrant can be a contribution to that society instead of a drain on its taxpayers. It should be stopped especially so if it a 'threat' to that society. What in the world is so hard to understand about that? Seems to me it would be ludicrous and suicidal to do otherwise.

Taking those desperate measures will buy Europeans time to educate and integrate them. If left unchecked as it is now, they will overpower Europe by shear numbers alone.

You worry that those 'desperate measures' might start a civil war. I suppose one cannot rule it out, however, one cannot rule out that educating and integrating over a given period of time is going to stop one either. It would appear that many do not want to integrate...they want to keep there own culture and law.

And please....Bjorn and other commentators...quit calling yourselves and others "Islamophobes". That is a word created by the Muslims to deflect serious discussion about the truth of their faith. If someone is phobic, they can be dismissed as not having anything rational or valid to say. A phobia is an 'irrational' fear. I don't think anyone here sees the Islamic threat as anything but rational, including Bjorn

 
At November 10, 2005 5:58 PM, Blogger Bjoern said...

bom garfo: Any citizen who questions the legitimacy of Islam as a peace religion will be condemned for "hate speech”.

Yes, the multiculturalists often do that. Which is why I don't use a word like "Islamophobe" lightly. I use for people who meet very specific requirements: They must fail to see any important difference between Islam and Islamism. They must be paranoid about the presence of non-Islamist Muslims in Europe. They must see Islam through their own personal interpretation of the Quran and the traditions, rather than as the sum of Muslims' own interpretations, (thus reducing the difficult task of reading scholarly and theological works to the easy one of just reading the Quran and the traditions.)

thruth serum: You admit that there is a 'threat'.

Admit is hardly the word. I began blogging about the Islamist threat right after September 11. I've criticized European multiculturalists who saw Islamist terror as some kind of third world rebellion against Western imperialism, instead of the totalitarian ideology it clearly is. I supported the war in Afghanistan (and Iraq, btw), and still do. I've covered the whole sad Mullah Krekar story from the beginning, and repeatedly called for him to be sent back to Iraq where he can be treated as he deserves by the people he hurt.

You bet I "admit" there's a threat. I also think the Islamophobic movement in Europe is sad, idiotic, and dangerous to the degree that it succeeds.

I am making an assumption here

Yes, you are. This is what happens when you (and now I'm making an assumption) move into your own little reality, shared by bloggers like Fjordman and writers like Oriana Fallaci, based on an extreme and marginal interpretation of the world we live in. You start seeing everyone else as on the other side, and lose sight of the fact that there is a whole range of opinions of Islam that have nothing in common except that they aren't yours.

I don't see Islam as a whole as a major threat to Europe. Islam is a threat on three levels: Islamism is a major threat, posed by a minority of Muslims. Conservative (mainstream) Islam is a threat to its own people, (primarily the women), and a political threat to the rest of us if it ever gets real political power. All of Islam is a threat in the minor sense that it is a religion, and religions aren't true, so it would be bad if Europeans adopted it.

Three threats, at three scales and with three degrees of seriousness. Islamism should be fought 1) by the police, 2) by mainstream Muslims, and 3) militarily where this is relevant (Afghanistan, Iraq, and similar). Conservative Islam should be fought by 1) limiting import marriages to speed up/begin the integration process, 2) welcoming liberal Islamic interpretations whenever we see them, and 3) bringing attention to negative traditions in general (the ones that aren't grave enough to ban) and make it clear that we disapprove. Islam as a religion should be fought by explaining that it isn't true, ie. with words alone.

You worry that those 'desperate measures' might start a civil war.

No. I have no idea what your "desperate measures" would turn out to be, so I don't know what they would lead to. In the comment to Michael I was referring to the Islamophobic belief that a large Muslim minority necessarily leads to conflict, so it wouldn't be enough to just stop immigration, you'd have to actually do something about the Muslims living among you as well, so I would like to know what that something might be.

quit calling yourselves and others "Islamophobes".

Can't do. The people I'm criticizing have an irrational fear of Islam. It's not difficult to escape from this label, see the beginning of the comment. If you accept that there's a difference between Islam and Islamism, that Muslims in general aren't an urgent threat to us, and that Islam is what Muslims make of it, then you can be as critical of it as you like. That's where the border between the Islamophobic reality and our own reality goes, and most Islam critics are thankfully on the right side of it.

- Bjørn Stærk

 
At November 10, 2005 6:48 PM, Blogger Don Miguel said...

"Europe's islamism is a physical danger to us, Islamophobia is an intellectual danger."

Europe must have a different definition of Islamophobia. In the U.S. it is a myth of hate crimes against Muslims propagated by Muslim organizations (such as the biggest, CAIR) to cower anyone who disagrees with their agenda and to bolster Islamist apologists.

 
At November 10, 2005 6:58 PM, Blogger f147u13nc3 said...

that Islam is what Muslims make of it

Is this your unprecise way of saying that how Islam affects society depends on how Muslims choose to practice their religion? If so, that makes sense. But that doesn't mean that what Muslims do at any given point in time is what Islam is - it is rather a consequence of what Islam is. If all the Muslims in Norway one day find out that they will wage jihad, then that doesn't mean that the Norwegian Muslims have transformed Islam from a benign religion into a malign one - it simply means that they have taken up that particular aspect of Islamic practice.

 
At November 10, 2005 8:29 PM, Blogger truth serum said...

Bjorn,
I certainly recognize that there are lots of peaceful Muslims out there that have not subscribed to the Osama bin Ladens of the world, but I have also recognized that Islamism is a movement. A movement that is gaining momentum around the whole world.

Whether we like it or not the Islamist are trying to bring about a religious war between ourselves (the West) and themselves. They have been quoted literally around the world saying so in some form or another that they want Islam to rule the world and they are willing to go to any extreme to make it a reality, even if they have to kill other Muslims to do so. I can certainly visualize the West having a infitada (spelling?) on their hands just as the Israelis do. Just how many of that minority does it take to blow up a bunch of people? Just one!

Our problems begin by trying to distinquish between the peaceful Muslims and the ones who want to lop off our heads. Nearly every week one reads about how some Islamic terrorist plot has been thankfully diverted somewhere in the world.

I am not advocating that we eliminate or even throw them all out. My brother-in-law is a Muslim! But I think it is entirely feasable to halt immigration and yes even to apply some of the measures you suggested as well as Michael's. I don't see them as Islamophobic at all, especially in light of the recent events in France, Germany, Belgium and Denmark. I see them as 'desperate measures' to try and save what is left of European people and culture.

 
At November 10, 2005 10:46 PM, Blogger heather said...

I had to remove my comment since they pulled the original picture after only a few hours. Chirac was shown dressed as an Iman, clutching the Koran, with the title,
"France negotiates with Muslim rioters"

 
At November 10, 2005 11:24 PM, Blogger ThBadMonkey said...

Hmmmm, this conversation has gone nowhere...it sounds as if you will have to 'deal' with Islam and muslims when enough people percieve them as a threat, as in the Netherlands. Could be years...

 
At November 10, 2005 11:46 PM, Blogger Michael said...

Bjorn: Won't this lead to civil war, or at least serious unrest and attempts at Islamification? What will you do to minimize the risk of this?

The civil war is coming anyway, the Islamification is happening as we speak. Better to deprive the Muslim masses of as much manpower as is legally possible.

The situation has gotten so horribly bad that we're not going to prevent things from getting ugly. I have no readymade solution and I guess there are none, except outlawing Islam or deporting everybody who is islamic.

The best we can do right now is prepare for the fight and expose the lies of the left. The left is the very agent which allows Islamism to flourish. People have to be made aware that Islam is a DEADLY THREAT to civilization, and that the left is in fact speeding up the process.

 
At November 11, 2005 2:28 AM, Blogger ThBadMonkey said...

Yes, if you outlaw islam and muslims, you can survive intact. Let them move to France...! That is the only way... You have 20 years to wait..

 
At November 11, 2005 2:51 AM, Blogger PD111 said...

Bjorn

You may not think much of us who are crying wolf, even though the wolf is in the chicken coop. But surely you will not deny Churchill. I'm sure you have read what Churchill had to say about islam. Churchill was a person who could recognise a fascist ideology a mile of. He also had first hand experience of fighting islamic fanatics hand-to-hand and living in Sudan. He was right about the Nazis, he was right about Stalin, and with his track record, I dare say, he is right about islam.

Then there are people such as Ali Sena, Ibn Warraq, Hirsi Ali, Salman Rushdie, Taslima Hussein, and many others - all with close, nay intimate contact with islam. Surely they cannot be wrong.

You wrote: Fjordman works to spread his confusion to others, thus making them less able to understand and come to terms with the culture of many of our immigrants, and less able to understand and fight the Islamist terrorist threat.

1. I dont think Fjordman is confused at all. He may be wrong, as could I, and so could you. But confused - NO. If he was confused he would be shot down.

2. Do you really think that the onus is on us to understand and come to terms with the culture of muslim immigrants? Would you not think it more appropriate that it should be the other way round. Atleast that is what I would do, if I emigrated to an islamic coountry.

3. You focus on the islamic terrorist threat. That is not the issue that concerns Fjordman and many others. The terrorist threat is best left to the police and the security agencies. It is the long term implications of "coming to terms with islamic culture", as you put, that is gives us some concern.

So you see Bjorn, in just the one short paragraph of yours, you and I see things in a very different way. I would be hesitant to claim that I have a better view. That is a judgement for others to make.

 
At November 11, 2005 3:16 AM, Blogger PD111 said...

Susan

By the by, I went over to Bjorn's site, though I dont post there. You did a good job.

I dont know if you have come across this site where Shiva posted some material. It is not for the faint hearted.

http://www.fomi.nu/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1627&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&sid=12f0500a4c636925a17abe0374c1a02a

 
At November 11, 2005 7:42 AM, Blogger Ethnocentrist said...

The events of France, Denmark, Belgium and Germany will only increase in frequency and intensity and spread througout Europe. It is inevitable because the Establishment has set this in motion decades ago. Their "plan" is coming to fruition, though I am unsure if they foresaw or wanted violence, though it matters not because they always have the option to instill martial law to "keep the peace". Regardless of the minor nuances, this is a fight for survival of Europe and no one should lose sight of that fact.

Bjorn's argument is absurd. Akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Bjorn, you looking for the "good" Muslims is patently offensive to me. For one, many of the "good" Muslims should have spoken up in France and the other countries to decry the two week long rioting, yet there were only faint yelps from an embarrassingly few. The militants will not tolerate disorder and that is must to remember as well. When chaos comes about, I surely would hope you are not one of the stupid ones who thinks reason and communication will be the saving grace for your country or Europe, are you? I sorry to say this is a war between races, cultures, and religions.

The last thing to remember is this. While Muslims are violent and barbaric, it is not they who have stormed Europe THIS time. They have been invited for ulterior motives. Once they are dealt with, and I truly pray to God that it is done NON-violently. The attention of Europeans should be directed towards the REAL culprits, murderers, treasonists. They are the transnationalists, globalists, Marxists, elite. They have sold three continents down the river for money and power. They deserve the full wrath of Europe more than the Muslims, really.

 
At November 11, 2005 7:51 AM, Blogger Ethnocentrist said...

One other thing, I hope the French have enough sense about them, as well as a long enough memory to understand their only saviour is Le Pen and not any other "actor". The only regret is that the election is 18 months away. Pity that.

The only saviour for Europe is repatriation of all non-Europeans. Not only the "bad" ones. Not only the ones with crooked teeth. Not only the ones with unshaved faces. A-L-L of them.

 
At November 11, 2005 11:30 AM, Blogger truepeers said...

Re Bjorn's point that Islam and religion in general is not true. This is great intellectual folly. Whether you are religious or not, you should recognize that religions are full of anthropological truths, whatever mumbo jumbo they may be wrapped in.

A basic fact of human, as opposed to animal, society is that it depends on and is centered on signs, things and places of sacred significance. We depend on the sacred or its representation as a way of transcending our worldly conflicts. Humanity loves its culture because we are beings who have discovered that we could grow and prosper by substituting a love of the sacred for conflict over the physical or appetitive goods we cannot all simultaneously have.

Accordingly, the transcendent qualities of both our language and religion (and art) allow us to mediate the problems of violence and disorder.

Our relationship to the sacred is both fundamental and in ways irrational (and only fools deny that there is some inescapable amount of irrationality in human being). We are irrational because the emergence of the sacred sign on which we depend is somewhat arbitary or mysterious, i.e it is not simply reducible to worldly realities. THe sign, e.g. "apple", cannot be deduced from the thing it represents.

None of the secular and religious representations that structure any culture are determined in some rational or simply "true" manner. THey are not reflections or projections of the society in which they emerge; rather they are ways of transcending the existing society. Humanity first models itself on (its representation of) the gods, not vice versa.

When Muslims organize themselves in a rather decentralized religious community, a kind of democratic, universal, submission to the word of god, they are making a truth claim about humanity and its relationship to the sacred that Bjoern cannot simply wish away as untrue on some rational or empirical grounds. I have many reasons to reject their truth claim - I don't think Islam is as true as Christianity - but I don't pretend that the Muslims are not making a perfectly game claim to truth. The only real test of such truth claims is the willingness of people to follow them or not and the consequences of their ideas about human society for their ability to defend their ideas and society in a war.

THe market in ideas or religions, i.e. the laboratory of history, decides truth as people weigh questions of freedom, equality and the military success of societies that hold to certain truths.

WHen Bjoern becomes a more serious market player, rather than someone who is still trying to stand above the fray, like some kind old-fashioned nobleman who knows what is true for each and every one of us, then he may find ways to convince those among us who are yet unashamed in their salesmanship for the loyalties and prejudices they hold dear.

 
At November 11, 2005 6:50 PM, Blogger PD111 said...

ethnocentrist: the only saviour for Europe is repatriation of all non-Europeans. Not only the "bad" ones. Not only the ones with crooked teeth. Not only the ones with unshaved faces. A-L-L of them.

I cannot agree with that. We have had this argument before but I will re-state my opposition to such views. There are several reasons, which I need to enumerate

1. You convert a fight with an ideology that is islam, that is inimical to civilisation, into a racial one. Your proposal makes us the image of islam. This is not just morally unacceptable but is bad policy on strategic grounds

2. Once such a principle is accepted then all other nations will implement it as well.

3. Your post gives ammunition to those who wish to denigrate Fjordman's site using any available tool.

4. What of those who quite literally have placed there lives on the firing line, such as Ali Sena, Ibn Warraq et al? What of Rev Patrick Sookhdeo and his courageous efforts? Are they all to be "shipped" back? What of Hindus, Buddhists, Chinese and others, who make no trouble whatever, are politically docile, work hard, integrate and contribute to society. Are they to be shipped back?

My conflict is not with humans but with the ideology of islam. Muslims were and still are, the main victims of islam. Even though we suffer from the callous suicide bomber, muslims are trapped in the prison of islam, who see no exit except through deliverance by us. We have, if we choose to accept, a higher cause then just self-defence.

You may think that this is mere rhetoric. Not so. Every individual needs a higher cause, a righteous cause - higher then just defence of the state, to fight and die for. An example from WWII illustrates this. We did not rest on the principle that defence of Britain was all that motivated us. No, we extended it to the defence and extension of the boundaries of Freedom, and the extinction of an ideology based on the hatred of Jews, Slavs and other non-Aryan people.

We cannot, in the fight with Islam the ideology, do irreparable harm to the legacy of those who fought and died in WW1 and WW2.

DP111

 
At November 11, 2005 6:54 PM, Blogger PD111 said...

re: my last post

Strangely enough, it is 11th November - Remembrance day.

 
At November 11, 2005 7:15 PM, Blogger PD111 said...

I mentioned Rev Patrick Sookhdeo. Timely.

Will London burn too - Patrick Sookhdeo.

http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?table=§ion=&issue=2005-11-12&id=6900

Via Dhimmi Watch.
DP111

 
At November 11, 2005 7:34 PM, Blogger PD111 said...

Patrick Sookhdeo runs the Barnabus Fund.

The Barnabus Fund helps the most marginalised, victimised and persecuted people on Earth - Christians in Muslim nations. Even a small donation to Barnabus Fund, like the proverbial widow's mite, has great impact.

http://www.barnabasfund.org/

 
At November 11, 2005 10:51 PM, Blogger Fjordman said...

Ethnocentrist: I try to allow different views here, although I do enforce some mild censorship. But calling for expelling all non-Europeans is not just nonsense, but not very helpful for this blog. Please take it somewhere else.

 
At November 12, 2005 1:53 PM, Blogger Ethnocentrist said...

To Fjordman and DP111,

Gentlemen, I respect both of you and your willingness to enlighten the masses to what is happening in Europe at the hands of Islam. Both of you should be proud and commended for that and I wholeheartedly give both of you the utmost of praise. However, I view both of you as nearsighted and attempting to micro manage a huge problem that faces us all. You have decided to focus on the Muslim horde due to their proximity to both of you and to their abject intolerance of what we hold so dear, freedom and individualism. It is easy to fight against an ideology that is so easily vilified and eagerly shows its not so hidden agenda.

DP111, you state in your points 1-4 that I attempt to divert the focus of the fight from the true adversary, Islam, to one of race. Also that others may follow this lead and that it tarnishes this blog as it gives the anti-racist, Marxist credence that we are right wing nutjobs, then finish with a small list of non-European advocates against Islam as well as the "model immigrants". Let me state clearly that this IS a matter of race of which Islam is only a portion of the fight. The fight is to preserve Europe at all costs. The fight is for the preservation of ancient homelands of a race of people that have given so much to humanity. The fight is not for us but for our progeny. So they will be able to bask in the history and take pride in their ancestral heritage. THAT is what this fight is for and the Muslims are only a fraction of the puzzle.

I flatly reject the notion that we must temper our tone in order to appease the Marxist left. Were it not for the barbarian horde that has all too rabidly shown its face time after time, there would be NO dialogue of this matter. Blogs like this would have been shut down and the owner probably brought up on charges of incitement of racial hatred. Were it not for the violence, raping, rioting, and burning, which even the most self-hating Marxist cannot ignore, Europe would be hurriedly marching towards its demise as has been the case the last decade or so. The people would be rejoicing in "diversity" with nary a wimper of objection. For this, we are forever indebted to the Muslim.

As to the few non-European combatants of Islam and the "model immigrants", again this is merely a plea towards our humanitarian guilt and the 6 decade long indoctrination that we, as a people, have to somehow destroy ourselves in order to show the world that we are not "evil". Again, this is rejected by me. While I admire and respect the non-European combatants, the only reason they are here fighting against Islam is because we have been foolish enough to allow genetically and culturally distant people in our homelands to begin with due to our leftist "tolerance" and "enlightenment". If that were never allowed to begin with, we would never have needed these "saviours". The good immigrant is another misnomer that will always end up looking for their ethnic genetic interest. We see it all over the western world with favouritism, nepotism, cultural isolationism, culturo-political agendas, outright aggression towards the host nation or a passive aggressive nature that is in place to subvert the true desires of the majority. I was planning on providing at least a dozen or two links to this effect, though I will not bother for now because we all know these examples of minority hostility towards the majority exist in many different facets mentioned above. If you both truly want to see, let me know and I will gladly oblige. It is also well known that once these "good immigrants" become the majority, which they surely will given their propensity towards high birthrates and our declining birthrates due to a multitude of reasons, of which one IS immigration, then we no longer control our nations, our destiny, our homelands, our culture, and ourselves. This is inevitable and has been reproduced throughout history. I know many, many non-white immigrants where I live and am immersed amongst them. Granted, as individuals, most are decent people, though I am not talking individuals nor should we attempt to muzzle our instinctive nature of self-preservation for this faux morality that has engulfed the west. I am 100% confident that if the roles were reversed, though they never will be, sympathy and morality would not be the first thing on many non-whites minds. I speak this way because I have taken the time, effort, and diligence to actually speak, eat, laugh, and live with our non-white friends. I haven't learned this from a website. I have spent years doing "research" and the results are not very promising. We are being ignorant and naive in thinking that if we just play nice, then they will as well WHEN they become a majority. Sorry, that is the furthest thing from the truth and most everyone knows this, though the level of comfort regurgitating this fact varies amongst us.

You two have managed to maintain the guilt under the guise that it is "Islam" that is the one and only problem. Yet, the remaining western world does not have as huge a Muslim problem as Europe does and it still has racial strife. The US with its blacks and Hispanics who hold visions of reconquest of not only the southwest US, but ALL of the US. Canada with its black and east and south Asian massive immigration problems that are causing violence in places outside of the major metropolises like Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver. Place like Winnipeg have been named the murder capital due to its influx of Africans. Australia and its Asian immigration that with dreams of becoming the future managerial class and maintaining its hold while native Australians become the underclass, according to Professor Andrew Fraser. You see, Islam is a proximate issue and you are only dealing with a proximate problem. The ultimate problem is our stupidity and guilt that has led us down the path towards annihilation.

DP111 you mention the legacy of the fighters of WWI and WWII. Let me just say that I am confident if there was a way to bring back all those brave men and show them what their fighting has gotten western man, they would drop in disbelief and sorrow. THIS is NOT what they fought for. They fought for our people and our freedom. NOT for stir fried rice, or jerk chicken, or curried lamb, or enchiladas, or any other gustatory delight that we have decided to sell our souls for. The legacy of the world wars is for European man and not the rest of the world. The rest of the world couldn't give two shits for us were it not for our money and that is the bare boned fact. We delude ourselves in thinking that we are morally superior with the charity, yet it is simply disgusting that we have wrecked what our ancestors gave us. For if we fill all of Europe with distant peoples, the memories of Mozart, Beethoven, Bernoulli, Currie, Aristotle, Plato, Newton, will not be a distant memory, but a memory no more. We see the revisionism in the US with "dead old white men" such as Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin. That is the respect they are given for creating a country that has allowed this "racaille" to step foot in it.

Finally, I will never silence myself in order to appease anyone. I have come too far to tiptoe around sensitive issues. I fight for my beloved homeland and my ethny and for you two as well. I will continue to fight long after you two stop due to fatigue or fear. This is a battle of survival and we must survive. There will be no second chance.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home