Will Muslim Immigration Trigger Wars in Europe?
Bjørn Stærk's presence in the debate about Muslim immigration and rape generated a lot of responses and interest, so I made another thread to continue with some of the issues raised.Bjørn:
Please make yourself clear: Will there be a "war" where Muslims try to take over Europe? Is there a rape "epidemic"?
I'll answer the second question first. My greatest strength as a blogger, which is sometimes also my weakness, is that I always look several decades ahead when I analyze events. Maybe I do extrapolate too much every now and then, but for the most part, it can be quite useful to think this way. Most people rarely do. Bjørn Stærk has himself answered claims from the media that bloggers are "too right-wing". We fill a need that is not met by the traditional media. I write a lot about problems regarding Muslims and immigration in general beacuse I believe these are very important and serious issues that are not dealt with properly by the media. I notice that Bjørn doesn’t really find anything factually wrong in the posts I have made about rapes, he merely objects to my choice of words. The only time I have used the term "rape epidemic" is in the case of Sweden, the very first post I ever made on this blog. I haven't used it since, but that doesn't have to mean that I was wrong in employing it the first time. The official number of rape charges in Sweden has more than tripled in 30 years. Sounds pretty bad to me, and I'm not the only one who reacts to these staggering numbers. Does a tripling of the numbers constitute an "epidemic"? Maybe, maybe not. But this game of semantics hardly matters to the women who are victims of this, while the authorities are unwilling to discuss whether this enormous increase may have something to do with the huge influx of Muslim immigrants Sweden has witnessed during those same 30 years. In the worst areas, people now seem to be so tired of inaction by the authorities that some of them have started taking matters into their own hands. Things have to be pretty bad before people in nanny-state Sweden resort to vigilante justice:
Wrong man snatched in rape revenge
A man who was kidnapped in Malmö early on Monday morning was probably the victim of a revenge attack, police have said. Relatives of the rape victim contacted a woman from Malmö and two men from Gothenburg. The trio then rented a car, armed themselves with knives and sawed-off shotguns and went late Sunday night in search of the rapist. “I’ve never heard of anything like this before. It’s not about hardened criminals but everyday Swedes who chose to be vigilantes” Bo-Anders Jönsson from Malmö police told Skånska Dagbladet.
Regarding your first question: Yes, I’m pretty sure this immigration will trigger wars in Europe. This continent has simply lost control over its own borders, and the native population is being replaced at an astonishing rate in many of its major cities. Europe has a rather violent history, and migrations of this magnitude have usually triggered wars between the original population and the newcomers:
Fjordman:
The Second Fall of Rome?
The population movements we are witnessing now are the largest and fastest in human history. In Europe, they can only be compared to the period often referred to as the Great Migrations, following the disintegration of the Roman Empire. However, during the 4th and 5th centuries, the total human population of the world was in the order of 200 million. Today, it is 30 times larger than that, and still growing fast. We also have communications that can transport people anywhere on earth within hours, and media that show ordinary people how much better life is in other countries. On top of that, the Romans didn't have human rights lawyers advocating that millions of barbarians be let into their lands. Is it a coincidence that the last time we had migrations like this was when large parts of the European continent suffered a complete civilizational breakdown? Is that what we are witnessing now? The second fall of Rome?
The situation becomes even worse when we enter another factor: Islam. The Islamic world is at war with pretty much everybody, everywhere. Both Thailand and the Philippines, countries where the Muslim population is not much larger than it is in some Western European countries, are facing war. Even Norway, a country with no colonial history and a Muslim population of only 2-3 %, has already experienced shootings to intimidate critics, gang fights, terror threats and attempted terror attacks, as well as visits from supporters of bin Laden. It's pretty amazing that such a small population group can create so much instability. And it's not a good omen for the future. As Herr Unswedenizer wrote to Bjørn in the other thread:
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?
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.
Countries such as France, Holland and Sweden could soon reach a point where the Muslim population will create something akin to civil war, as it already has in the above mentioned nations:
Mugged by la Réalité
FR D RIC ENCEL, PROFESSOR OF international relations at the prestigious Ecole Nationale d'Administration in Paris and a man not known for crying wolf, recently stated that France is becoming a new Lebanon. The implication, far-fetched though it may seem, was that civil upheaval might be no more than a few years off, sparked by growing ethnic and religious polarization. In recent weeks, a series of events has underlined this ominous trend. On March 8, tens of thousands of high school students marched through central Paris to protest education reforms announced by the government. Repeatedly, peaceful demonstrators were attacked by bands of black and Arab youths--about 1,000 in all, according to police estimates. The eyewitness accounts of victims, teachers, and most interestingly the attackers themselves gathered by the left-wing daily Le Monde confirm the motivation: racism.
Some of the attackers openly expressed their hatred of "little French people." One 18-year-old named Heikel, a dual citizen of France and Tunisia, was proud of his actions. He explained that he had joined in just to "beat people up," especially "little Frenchmen who look like victims." He added with a satisfied smile that he had "a pleasant memory" of repeatedly kicking a student, already defenseless on the ground. Another attacker explained the violence by saying that "little whites" don't know how to fight and "are afraid because they are cowards." Rachid, an Arab attacker, added that even an Arab can be considered a "little white" if he "has a French mindset." The general sentiment was a desire to "take revenge on whites."
The danger has been demonstrated in the Indian subcontinent:
India and Pakistan: why the mass killings occurred
Once the Muslims got wind of the coming political windfall, they decided to settle scores with those idol-worshippers that Allah hates with such passion. So the Muslims initiated violence in West Punjab which is now in Pakistan (but was merely part of unified Punjab province earlier). Once Hindus and Sikhs on the Indian Hindu majority side got wind of Muslim barbarity, they retaliated. In that sense there is nothing unusual about it except scale. The story is almost always the same. Muslims initiate violence, Hindus and Sikhs retaliate. So once mob fury was unleashed, it got out of hand.
Muslims harass and attack the infidels until non-Muslims retaliate. At some point, it becomes a matter of simple survival, and then all kinds of political correctness and inhibitions will be dropped. The rapes we are seeing in Scandinavia are part of a much wider pattern. Please remember that "Asian" is Brit media newspeak for "Muslim" from Pakistan or Bangladesh:
Documentary pulled over race fear
Channel 4 has pulled a documentary about social workers in Bradford from its schedule after police warned it could increase racial tension. Due to be broadcast on Thursday, Edge of the City followed social workers and clients, including young white girls who had been abused by Asian men. It reported that white girls as young as 11 were being sexually abused by Asian men who encouraged their dependency on drugs over a period of time. In July 2001 Bradford was the scene of some of the worst race riots Britain has seen for 20 years. West Yorkshire Police said 326 officers were injured during the disturbances, leading to two stabbings, 219 arrests and an estimated £27m worth of damage.
Asian Vigilantes
An investigation for Today has found disturbing evidence that Asian youths in parts of Oldham are trying to create no go areas for white people. Last year the police investigated record levels of racist attacks in Oldham.Of the 572 cases, 60% turned out to be white victims. Pakistanis make up the majority on the Glodwick estate just west of the town centre. Some youths speak the language of racial hatred. It's not clear whether this is bravado but their message is blunt... white people keep out. Many openly admit to carrying out what they see as revenge attacks on white people as part of a tit-for-tat campaign. One told us: "There are signs all around saying whites enter at your risk. It's a matter of revenge. It's about giving as good as you can take."
These problems now exist throughout most of Western Europe, albeit to different degrees:
Jihad Watch Vice Director Hugh Fitzgerald:
Europeans are now coming out of a deep dream of peace. There is no peace. They have done something tremendously stupid, and more than stupid, by allowing in people who bear in their mental luggage something inimical to Western ways, who are hostile to Western political and social understandings, and who -- save for a few who will leave Islam altogether -- cannot be integrated. These peopole, now close to 20 million, also reproduce at rates three to four times higher than the indigenous Infidels. The mathematics of this, and the misery of this, and the menace of this, is clear.
DP111:
The Sick Man in Europe
What we are seeing in the West is the opening salvoes of the continuation of the Jihad against Christendom, that was brought to a close at Vienna in 1683. The new onset has come about as a direct consequence of allowing Muslim immigration to the West. Muslims are mandated to the Jihad and it is foolish of us to expect that they will refrain from doing so. It is our foolishness that gave them the opportunity to do so from within.
I do not think our societies, geared as they are to free and open thought, can continue with this continuous assault on freedom. If this assault is not brought to a halt soon, then free society will start to perish, and with that the economy. It may not be evident immediately, but perish it will in the fullness of time. If the current trend of increasing conflict continues, then we are irrevocably headed in the direction of a major armed conflict with the Islamic world. This is also going to lead to a civil war within Europe of unimaginable proportions. Europe’s civil wars (WW 1 and 2) have not exactly been powder-puff affairs.
Even though this conflict may start out as civil wars in a handful of countries, it could spiral out of control and spread to much of the continent, dragging in foreign fighters from the Arab world. The Islamic world is now at war with most of the major powers on the planet at the same time, from the USA to India and from Russia to Western Europe. It is a real possibility that we will get a full-blown world war because of these events. If so, I don’t think this will happen 50 years from now, but within the coming generation:
The Clash of Fascisms
Tens of millions of immigrants pour into Europe, changing the face of the continent forever without any real debate about the issue. People feel like strangers in their own cities, but are being silenced as "racists" if they object to this. There is a widespread feeling that Europe is descending into chaos, and that the governments are unwilling or incapable of stopping this. If this situation continues, some people will cry out for a Strong Man to “cleanse Europe of foreigners" and restore its honour and wounded pride. And He will step forward. By then, you won’t have a “Clash of Civilizations” in Europe, but rather a Clash of Fascisms: Euro-Fascism vs. Islamo-Fascism. Ayaan Hirsi Ali fears that if we don't take effective measures, now, ''the Netherlands could be torn between two extreme rights'': an Islamic one and a non-Islamic one.” She’s right. Major cities across the continent are now powder kegs of ethnic and religious tensions, built up after decades of failed immigration policies and an absence of a genuine debate. Common sense says that when you have a powder keg waiting to explode, adding even more powder is not the smartest thing to do.
Ali Sina: The Useful Idiots
Recognizing Islam is accepting your own death warrant. Muhammad said kill the unbelievers. You are an unbeliever. If you recognize Islam, you are agreeing to be killed. Isn't that stupid? Muslims in Europe have gained too much power. The more Muslims become powerful the weaker Europe becomes. Europeans must realize that Islam is not just another religion in their multi cultural religious rainbow but rather is their enemy. Islam aims to destroy their culture, their democracy and take away their freedom. They must realize that Muslims are not going to integrate in their countries but rather want to swallow them. If the Europeans do not wake up soon and do not start deporting the Islamists en masse and denouncing Islam as their enemy, they will be annihilated sooner than they can think. The threat of Islam today, is much greater than the threat of Nazism during the 1930s. Failure to address this threat will result in a war more devastating than the Second World War.
posted by Unknown @ 8:55 PM
48 Comments:
Great post! I would like to call your attention to so many similar debates around the world where people are experiencing the joy of living side by side with Islam.
Please checkout:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/index.asp
and read the articles about Islam and Australia. I recommend "The case for Assimulation" at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/index.asp
and "Stoning the Aussie Mossie?" at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=1926.
There are also many other great comments that reflect exactly what is happening around the world.
Understand that Muslim Immagration is a slow, low level jihad.
The Forum also has a good debate on (surprise) rape by Muslims at
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=3447
Follow the link to read the comments...
That's all....
John aka Kactuz
yes very good essay Fjordman, Colonization is a social form of Jihad and you are so correct when you point out islam is fighting all over the world... 2/3rds of all religious persicution id by the islamists.
Heikel, is right, the little French whites don't know how to fight. It's been bred out of them., but what about the big Nordic whites? Do they remember how to stand up for themselves. England and Australia have shown the way. They made it clear to all immigrants -- either obey the law of the land or face deportation.
One of our oldest and most beautiful cities has been all but destroyed by the ravages of nature and within hours there are thousands of rescue vehicles already on site helping the victims. The president didn't do a lot of navel gazing and debating options while people were in need . . . and BTW wouldn't it be nice if some of the oil producing countries like Norway, offered to divert some oil to the U.S. to help out until we get our own supplies back on line.
Fjordman:
You have oft stated, that it is the very pace of immigration to Europe, that has created immense problems for host nations. This is particularly so, as a large majority of the immigrants are muslims.These bring a quite specific culture with them, that is actively hostile to other cultures. I wish that it were not so but there it is. Gainsaying it just avoids the truth.
Your contention is now supported in the MSM, ie the Daily Telegraph
This would not have been such a problem had the change not been so, well, wholesale. The demographic balance seemed to change in the blink of an eye, as the traditional Cockneys departed and the council flats of Tower Hamlets soon came to resemble the slums of Dhaka. Soon we were the only white family on our road. Street names were being translated into Bengali and the foundations for the East London Mosque were being built.
and
even worse, if Britain's ghettos are not tackled, they will produce even greater numbers of alienated Muslims, compensating for their alienation in the most fundamental and uncompromising way of all.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2005/08/31/do3102.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/08/31/ixopinion.html
Last sentence is just a coded form for civil strife.
Good debate this is. I hope Björn joins us again.
This is the great debate of our future between the right-wing and the kafir-wing (the left-wing disqualified themselves from any debate since long ago, they are no longer even trying to debate).
The right-wing in this case are represented by Björn Stark, and e.g. the U.S. president George W Bush, or Bill O'Reilly of Fox News (so far only Björn has been seen here). The kafir-wing is represented by Fjordman, but also by sites as Jihadwatch.org or Faithfreedom.org.
Björn is in good company, not only because he's participating here, but since he share his view with corageous and sensible people such as Bush and O'Reilly.
But of course, the reason that I participate here is since I think Björn is wrong (or at least not right enough).
Before I continue discussing, let me just scrap the obsolte right-wing left-wing labels. I hereby rename the right-wing as the traditional wing, and the left-wing as the dhimmi-wing.
The rise of a xenophobic right nation party somewhere in Europe is all but inevitable. The Muslim invasion is slowly but surely waking European rightism from its long slumber. For all their boasting and machismo the Islamists are no match for rising and reconstituted European fascism. It will be a horrible struggle between Bad and Worse.
The BNP grows stronger in the UK. Vlaams Belang grows in Belgium. The Progress Party, the National Front, etc. Some of these parties may achieve power. More likely a new party or a reformed mainstream party will adopt the ideas of turning back the Islamist and muslim immigrant tide.
The losers will ultimately be what's left of European Judaism. Caught between a anti-Semitic nationalisms and Jew-hating Islam the Jews of Europe will have no choice but to flee.
Another loser could be America. Many (even most) Euro-rightists are suspicious of American or simply anti-American. So it goes.
Not to be a pessimist but long dark days are ahead. The struggle between militant European nationalism and Islamic supremism will be violent, personal and intimate. Beirut, Sarajevo, this is the future of many European cities. Sad but true.
Björn,
I guess that you have noticed at what a very high speed our mental landscape is shifting today. George W Bush no longer talks about "a religion of peace", but of "an ideology of hate". (But precisely what is it that is the ideology of hate? He never specifies that. We'll get back to this. This is at the core of our discussion. The definition of the it). Dubya also had a long speech today drawing parallels between today and WWII. VJ day okay, but listen to the speech, and you will agree that the sense of an immanent world war is certainly growing fast in the mainstream among traditionalists.
And the speed of shift is accelerating. Today it is completely normal for an average Brit to defend a policy of "Shot in the head to kill!" at someone suspicious-looking at a public transport. And last month U.S. senator Tom Tancredo played with ideas of threatening to bomb Mecca, and was not treated as some freaky nutcase for saying it. Not as much as Pat Robertson was for advocating "taking out" Hugo Chavez, at least.
So the mental landscape is shifting rapidly, and now on an month to month basis.
Also last month talk radio host Michael Graham said:
"Islam is a terrorist organization."
He got fired for that. He was interviewed at Fox News this week The clip is still available at foxnews.com (but soon gone).
Traditionalist Bill O'Reilly's position in the interview was: i) "I wouldn't have fired you", ii) "98% of the Muslims are good law abiding people... therefore I couldn't possibly say that Islam is a terrorist organisation". I guess that you would have said prety much the same as Bill O'reailly, here, Björn (try and listen to the interview before it goes).
Let me just finish this post with quoting the Fox News tag line of this clip:
"Talk radio host Michael Graham says he was let go for saying bad things about Muslims"
The traditionalits at Fox News are just as sloppy with terminology as you, Björn. Michael Graham never said a single bad word about Muslims.
This is not an academic nitpick issue. It is a matter of life an death to get the terminology right here.
The people who in their minds translate 'Nazism' to 'Germans', every time they here it (or 'SA troops' to 'Germans', etc.), are the ones that will initially be denying the problem:
"The Germans didn't do it. The Germans couldn't possibly have done such a thing. Do not attack our friends the Germans, etc."
It seems as a peacuful attitude, but the problem here is a person with far too few variables in his model of the world. And when the coin flips from appeasment to aggression, it is still about the Germans. Now "the Germans did it!" so "the Germans" are the ones to blame. Now suddenly the same people will be the ones hitting hardest back. Millions of Germans where defiled, raped, violated or killed after the war(add "tyskjäntorna" to this).
By adapting a more precise terminology chances are much higher that we can stop atrocites at an earlier stage, and secondly we won't attach our emotions to the wrong entities when things already have gone bad.
Some information about India and Pakistan @
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/
mla/
and
http://www.bharatvani.org/books/
tcqp/
Other information not related to India and Pakistan is also at our blog.
The West needs to wake up, before it's too late!
Asians Becoming More Isolated as Urban Ghettoes Grow
"Asian enclaves in British cities are growing in both their size and isolation and are likely to expand even more as a result of further immigration ...
By contrast, black communities were far less likely to be ghettoised, because of cultural similarities - for example, speaking English and coming from the largely Christian Caribbean."
Culture is everything in this context. Western Christian culture is incompatible with large numbers of Muslims. To argue otherwise is silliness.
Herr Unswedenizer,
I have extensive coverage of the Michael Graham story at my blog. There are several articles on Graham there, starting on July 29. I invite you to read those articles. Also, Graham was not the only target of CAIR. Also a target was Geoff Metcalf. CAIR intends to colonize America.
GBW is learning (has learned?) that Islam is more a geopolitical ideology than a religion.
I very much agree with your statement: "I hereby rename the right-wing as the traditional wing, and the left-wing as the dhimmi-wing."
And as Thomas the Wraith said, "[L]ong dark days are ahead. The struggle between militant European nationalism and Islamic supremism will be violent, personal and intimate."
This one gives an idea as to what is happening in the United States:
http://alwaysonwatch.blogspot.com/
2005/08/did-you-know.html
Now the definition of the it, Björn
Bush talks about the "ideology of hate". What precisely does he refer to when he says that? A very strong expression, like a pointed stick, but at the same time so very vague.
Okay, I already know the answer. Traditionalits as you and Dubya will say that the ideology referred to here is Islamism. So for the sake of the argument I will accept that answer (I still don't know why Bush has to be so vague about it though).
But then you will have to teach me about this ideology and where I can learn about it. An ideology is just not any loose collecton of ideas. An ideology has a history and an origin.
Who's the founder of Islamism?
What are the main written sources of the Islamist ideology?
I claim that "Islamism" is just modern media language. A eufemism we needed in a transition process, since the truth was taboo. I claim that Political Islam and Islam is the same thing. It's time to drop the -ism.
With my interpretation of the it -- Islam itself being the ideology of hate -- I have no problem in informing you of who is the founder of the ideology and what the written sources are; for every single action that the warriors of the "ideology of hate" does I can drown you in quotes from these sources, Björn.
Where are your sources, Björn? Who is the one with no evidence in this debate, Björn?
Always On Watch: I very much agree with your statement: "I hereby rename the right-wing as the traditional wing, and the left-wing as the dhimmi-wing."
Thank you!
If people who adopt it continue to double at this pace, it will soon catch on all over the world.
History of Islam
In Western history the Spanish Reconquista stands as an important landmark. Spain had once belonged to Islam, but with Reconquest the long Islamic intrusion which had begun in 711 was brought to an end, apparently decisively. From a Christian perspective the Reconquista was the gradual expulsion, beginning in the eleventh century and ending in the fifteenth, of Muslim unbelievers from the southwestern corner of Christendom; from a racialist perspective it was a literal culture-war of Europeans against Moors, waged by Spaniards, Frenchmen and Portuguese, the chivalry of White Europe. In simple political terms, comprehensible to anyone regardless of political affiliation, it was the end of foreign domination. Southern Spain had been under Muslim occupation for almost eight hundred years, and with the fall in 1492 of Granada, the last Muslim kingdom in Spain, the Reconquista was complete. Under Ferdinand and Isabella, the most successful chapter in Spain's history was just beginning.
Three centuries later the German-Jewish poet Heinrich Heine (1797-1856) would envision this epochal Reconquista much differently: "On the tower [in Cordova] where the muezzin called to prayer there is now the melancholy tolling of church bells. On the steps where the [Muslim] faithful sang the words of the Prophet, tonsured monks are acting out their lugubrious charades." For Heine Islamic Spain -- here represented by formerly Muslim Cordova, reconquered in 1236 -- had fallen victim to "the dark tricks of history," and the Reconquista, far from being a righteous European triumph over an alien and expansionist adversary, marked a terrible cultural disaster. The Spain that emerged from her national victories was spiritually impoverished and intellectually desolate, filled with the sterile ceremonies of mindless Catholicism. Spain, in short, was better off Islamic. The wrong side had won.
Heine's lines are from his poem "Almansor," which was based on his play of the same title. They are quoted in Martin Kramer's introduction to The Jewish Discovery of Islam, a collection of essays discussing Jewish contributions to the European investigation of the Muslim world. Kramer, the collection's editor, treats Heine's poetic lament for Muslim losses as an example of European Jewry's "heightened empathy and sympathy for Islam," but another motive is also clear. Heine sympathized with the Muslim invaders of Europe because he disliked Europeans. His enemy's enemy was his friend. Empathy for Islam was hostility to Christian Europe. Thus at the end of "Almansor" the poem's Muslim protagonist, though baptized a Christian (a formality that Heine himself would undergo in 1825), feels the growing anger of Cordova's famous cathedral, once a mosque in the happy days of Islamic occupation, and dreams of seeing the desecrated mosque crash vengefully down upon the Spanish congregants below, "while the Christian Gods shriek and wail."
Mike H:
The first sentence of the link you provided me reads:
'Islam' is an Arabic word which means 'peace'...
This is incorrect!
Why should I even consider continue reading such a text? Would you continue reading a text starting with the sentence "Science has proven to us that the Earth is flat"?
Spain, in short, was better off Islamic. The wrong side had won.
Yeah, right. The real tragedy of the Reconquista was the expulsion of the Jews from the Iberian Peninsula, something that no doubt contributed to the economic decline of Spain.
Islam means "submission", which is very different from "peace", almost the opposite. You can only have peace if you sumbit to Islam or Islamic rule, that's the thinking. And it's not even correct, since Muslims would continue fighting over who is a "good" Muslim or a "bad" Muslim.
"But this game of semantics hardly matters to the women who are victims of this, while the authorities are unwilling to discuss whether this enormous increase may have something to do with the huge influx of Muslim immigrants Sweden has witnessed during those same 30 years"
Neat trick, though an old one.
- Tens of thousands of people have been killed by the war in Iraq. Bush is guilty of genocide!
- That's hyperbole.
- No it's not! Everybody agrees that at least tens of thousands people have died in Iraq.
- Yes, they do. But that doesn't make it a genocide.
- I can prove it. Look, this report says that tens of thousands of people have died! And here's an article about the death of an Iraqi civilian at American hands.
- Like I said, that's not the issue. Unintentional civilian casualties is not a genocide.
- Hey, we can argue semantics all day, but that hardly matters to the victims and the families they leave behind, as Bush pursues his goal of controlling Middle Eastern oil.
You're right that it doesn't matter to the victims whether you say their rape was part of an epidemic/invasion or not. But that argument goes both ways. You need there to be a Muslim invasion to justify your anti-Islamic agenda. So you turn up the rhetoric, turning rape victims into pieces on a political chess board.
Accuracy is the only honest, intelligent and honorable option. Without accuracy you trick not only your audience but also yourself. You've fallen into the same trap as the left did.
"Yes, I’m pretty sure this immigration will trigger wars in Europe."
Where's the evidence?
"Europe has a rather violent history, and migrations of this magnitude have usually triggered wars between the original population and the newcomers"
Today's migration is different not only in magnitude, as you point out, but also in nature. Traditional migration was essentially land-grabbing. A country wanted to rule another country. People wanted to live on some other people's land. Of course this would lead to conflict. But land is not the issue today. We're not playing a zero-sum game, where every immigrant steals resources from the rest of us. At least I haven't heard any arguments from you about how the Muslims are stealing land we need to grow food on.
Your argument is only cultural. So the lessons of earlier land-grabs don't apply.
In fact, very few lessons of the past apply today exactly as they did in the past. All the factors are there, but their relative importance has changed. Social forces that a thousand years ago might tear a country apart, today might have no effect at all, and the other way around.
What you need to show is that irrevocable cultural differences between Muslims and native Europeans will lead to unrest and civil war. Not by some vague argument to the past, but by pointing out the forces that operate in our society, and how they might force us down this path.
It's not enough to show that Islam has dangerous forces within it. It's not enough to show that Muslim immigrants commit more crime than natives. The difference between crime and civil war is an order of magnitude. And when you top it all off by being inaccurate and hyperbolic, in the name of a "good cause" like some run-of-the-mill lefist activist, there is no way I can take your "predictions" about the future seriously.
Prophets of doom are a dime a dozen. Try to be original by at least being careful and accurate.
- Bjørn Stærk
What you need to show is that irrevocable cultural differences between Muslims and native Europeans will lead to unrest and civil war. Not by some vague argument to the past, but by pointing out the forces that operate in our society, and how they might force us down this path.
Irrevocable cultural differences will lead to war between Muslims and anybody else, Europeans or not. Which is in fact what is happening, from Thailand to Nigeria and from India to the Philippines. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Islam can in fact coexist with non-Muslims in peace over a prolonged period of time.
Many of my returning readers have a great deal of knowledge about Islam, from DP111 in the UK to Ik in India, Irene Adler in the USA and Herr Unswedenizer in Sweden. These people would not come back to my blog again and again if they sensed that I have absolutely no idea what I am talking about. I do. It is pretty arrogant of you to dismiss the opinions of people who do in fact have a lot more understanding of Islamic teachings and Islamic history than you do.
when you top it all off by being inaccurate and hyperbolic
What have I been inaccurate about? Even you admitted that you didn't find any factually wrong assertions in my posts about rapes. Your claims about "inaccuracy" and "hyperbole" seem to boil down to one single word that I have used one single time: "Epidemic". Does a tripling of the number of rape charges in Sweden parallel with the ongoing mass-immigration constitute an "epidemic"? I don't know, which is the reason why I haven't used that word since. But I don't find it ridiculous to think that it does. If that's all you can come up with of "inaccuracy" and "hyperbole", then I think I have done a pretty good job.
"The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that Islam can in fact coexist with non-Muslims in peace over a prolonged period of time."
So the burden of proof is on me to show that your theory about the future is false? The history of social predictions is so bleak that you can safely bet against any prediction that goes decades into the future. Especially disastrous ones.
And to assume that the meeting between our culture and Islam will play out in the same way as with any other culture is to ignore the large number of ways in which our culture is unique. We're the single most powerful, creative, adaptive, wealthy, knowledgeable, seductive and frightening culture in history. On what basis do you conclude that Islam will face us unchanged? You talk about how Islam meets other culture. But look at how we meet other cultures. We not only offer an alternative to the traditional values of others, we undermine the whole rationale behind those values, by being wealthier and more stable than they are.
In memetic terms, an Islam that is able to adopt the strengths of our culture will be superior to an Islam that doesn't, and will gradually replace it. Religion is all about memetic evolution. And our culture is the comet from the sky of memeplexes. Which isn't any guarantee for the future. But it does mean that you can't base your prophecies mindlessly on the past, as if the meeting of our cultures is the non-complex product of two variables.
"It is pretty arrogant of you to dismiss the opinions of people who do in fact have a lot more understanding of Islamic teachings and Islamic history than you do."
If they believe that Islam is inherently evil, based on some personal interpretation of the Quran, or if they think that acopalyptic predictions decades into the future can be meaningful, I don't care how much quantity of knowledge they have, they're still wrong.
"Your claims about "inaccuracy" and "hyperbole" seem to boil down to one single word that I have used one single time: "Epidemic"."
Inaccuracy refers to your habit of generalizing about Islam. You don't care about nuances and details. You're not interested in improving your understanding of Islam. You think you already understand it, and see your task as one of convincing the rest of us to share your view, through anecdotes and selective judgment.
Hyperbole refers to words like "epidemic", "war" and "invasion". You speak like an activist, more interested in propagandizing than in convincing through reason. I don't trust activists, for the same reason I don't trust politicians - it's an inherently dishonest profession. Activism corrupts even the best of intentions, it turns even the noblest of idealists into liars. And as in politics, the most powerful lies are the ones you tell yourself.
- Bjørn Stærk
Bjorn posted: Accuracy is the only honest, intelligent and honorable option. Without accuracy you trick not only your audience but also yourself.
I feel that the argument is being conducted on differing assumptions of what constitutes an "honest" debate. Bjorn states his desire for accuracy, intelligence and honour. We all assume, that we have all three in some measure. However, "accuracy" needs to be defined a little more clearly in this debate.
So before we set go any further, perhaps Bjorn can define for us, what his understanding of "accuracy" is, in the context of a debate that is afterall, a prognosis of events to come.
DP111
Bjoern,
You say that Western Civilization is a powerful memeplex, and that Islam would be forced to adapt or die out in the face of it.
Western Civ. was a pretty powerful memeplex already in the 16-17th centuries, but Islam did not adapt. Instead, Islam pushed as far as it could (the gates of Vienna) and was then repelled.
Björn: And to assume that the meeting between our culture and Islam will play out in the same way as with any other culture is to ignore the large number of ways in which our culture is unique. We're the single most powerful, creative, adaptive, wealthy, knowledgeable, seductive and frightening culture in history. On what basis do you conclude that Islam will face us unchanged?
We are not at all concluding that Islam will face us unchanged. Instead we believe that we are seeing the begining of the end of Islam before us.
However, on what basis do you conclude that we will face Islam unchanged?
We are not at all ignoring the large number of ways in which our culture is unique. (For one, we are not suggesting that we are going to lose this war). However, you are ignoring the large number of ways in which Islam is unique. You need to study this properly before you can be so cocksure about it. Etno-centric dreams about Western supremacy is not gonna make it for you.
If they believe that Islam is inherently evil, based on some personal interpretation of the Quran...
Björn. Present to me just one single ex-muslim that does not agree with our so-callad "personal interpretations" of the Quran and the Hadith. Just a single one! There are millions of them out there. Just find a single one for me. Or are you so cocksure about your prediction of future status quo and Western supremacy that you won't even bother to investigate the issue?
Why ask the ex-mulims? Well Björn, tell me: Who would you trust about the true nature of communism. The one that is still a communist (even if he/she is a nice law-abiding non-violent communist), or the ex-communist? Who would you trust about the true nature of Scientology? The one that is still part of the cult, or the one that has left it? You should also ask yourself seriously why there are so few ex-muslims around to ask (except for anonymously on the Internet), not even ex-communists or ex-nazis were treated so badly and lived in such fear.
...or if they think that acopalyptic predictions decades into the future can be meaningful, I don't care how much quantity of knowledge they have, they're still wrong.
Come on. Do you claim to have a different prediction about the future, or do you claim that predictions about the future are meaningless? Make up our mind!
Björn: What you need to show is that irrevocable cultural differences between Muslims and native Europeans will lead to unrest and civil war.
But Björn! Cultural differences does not lead to war, even if they were to be irrevocable. The Chinese, for example, are much more different from us than the Muslims, and there is not much sign of change. They come to Europe, they do not mix, they work hard, but never really leave their roots of China. When it's time to die they go back to China. But this is not leading to war. How could it?
The Muslim invation is leading to war, and is already a war, since Islam is an ideology of war. Simple as that.
A timely article from the Weekly Standard. The Peculiar Alliance - Islamists and neo-Nazis find common ground by hating the Jews
Hi Bjørn.
As you correctly note, Fjordman believes that Islam in Europe portends nothing but bad news. You seem to think (and please correct me if I'm not understandng you) that Muslims in Europe represent a sort of cultural absorption, with their gradually coming to resemble the Europeans they found when they got there.
I'd like to ask you for your anecdotal experiences about Muslims in your country, and anywhere else in Europe where you've traveled and feel qualified to talk about. In general, do they assimilate? In particular, do they intermarry? Do you and your non-Muslim friends socialize with them? Do they cooperate harmoniously side-by-side with non-Muslims at work? Do they start their own businesses that trade more or less evenly with Muslims and non-Muslims (like the Arab grocers in Paris)? Do they eventually move out of Muslim enclaves (if they exist) to live among non-Muslims?
Muslim immigration to Europe is in historical terms fairly recent, but the generally placid absorption of European Muslims into the broader Western culture would seem to require that these things occur. (Dogmatic multiculturalism would say otherwise, but I reject that belief.) So are they occurring in large numbers yet?
Your contributions are always very interesting, so I'll be interested in your impressions of these matters.
As Bjorn notes, we have a long history of Cassandras, and they are usually wrong. However, sometimes cultures and civilizaitions do crumble, so we cannot afford not to listen to our prophets of doom. To my mind, the most telling sign that Europe may be crumbling is its very low birthrate, especially the non-immigrant birthrate. A people who don't want to reproduce themselves? How is one to take their future seriously? Integration of newcomers? But what should the newcomers see as workable about the culture they are joining that cannot reproduce itself? This is what I would like Bjorn to answer. And thanks for the efforts in debate already.
So Björn believes that Islam is peace...
Amazing, you should informyourself about Islam, it is an evil, it is not a question of interpretations, anybody can read it and check. May be there will be moslems that will be able to "sweet" the violent parts of their texts, and may be this is the only path to avoid their and our disaster.
Why do you think that wherever Islam reigns no other religion can flourish? Why are they at war with everybody else?
You have written interesting things about the accuracy of the word "epidemic" but it is amazing that you don´t care that most of the rapes are commited by muslims.
Are your multicultural faith more important than the victims?
Mange lesere av bloggen din er nå en gjeng høyreskstreme tullinger som elsker den feilaktige og overdrevne propagandaen din. Kommentarene til "analysene" dine tyder ofte på at det finnes faktisk folk til høyre for deg. Sakligheten din oppildner denne ulveflokken som lusker rundt og koser seg med misnøye.
To "innlegg": You are welcome to criticize my views, but do so in English, as most of my readers are non-Scandinavians. Also, if you believe any of my posts are incorrect, please state why, specifically.
Bjørn Stærk:
To assume that the meeting between our culture and Islam will play out in the same way as with any other culture is to ignore the large number of ways in which our culture is unique. We're the single most powerful, creative, adaptive, wealthy, knowledgeable, seductive and frightening culture in history. On what basis do you conclude that Islam will face us unchanged? In memetic terms, an Islam that is able to adopt the strengths of our culture will be superior to an Islam that doesn't, and will gradually replace it.
What is wrong is to assume that just because other religions, such as Christianity, managed to reform and adapt to the modern world, Islam will do the same. I don't think it will, and Islam is fundamentally different from Christianity in many important ways. There is no equivalent of sharia in Christianity, no ultra-violent founder and a formative period as a movement separate from the state.
You are confident that Islam will "adapt" to our ways. But history is full of examples of cultures who have failed to adapt to a changing world, and died out or got crushed because of this. As Herr Unswedenizer, I suspect Islam belongs to this category. Islam will die as a global force during this century, simply because its core ideas aren't flexible enough to adapt to a modern world. The problem is that Islam includes one fifth of humanity. Which means that even its passing could rock the world.
"Islam will die as a global force during this century, simply because its core ideas aren't flexible enough to adapt to a modern world."
Only if it isn't able take over the world first and revert it to an Islamic version of the dark ages. You are right that it cannot adapt; but it also cannot evolve. If Western and East Asian cultures can last until oil-based energy becomes a thing of the past, the current Islamic world will look more like it did two hundred years ago than an evolution from what it is today.
Sweden threatened with jihad
Referring to a well known Swedish reverend, Runar Soogard, who is reported to be under police protection after offending Muslims with a speech about Islam’s prophet, Muhammad, Dehex wrote: “Runar Soogard had a very bad and nasty speech about our greatest prophet Mohamed.”
“It's because he doesn't wan't to apologyze to the Ummah Nation on at least television. Thats why they are giving out this videos as a warning! There will be one more warning, if he dosen't apologize on television…” wrote the user, in an ominous warning.
‘Dehex’ also posted an image showing a bloodied knife plunged into a map of Sweden, accompanied by the message: “We will slaughter all who dared to attack our prophet Mohamed”
Do read it and send it along to all Swedes.
From the above limk.
“We will slaughter all who dared to attack our prophet Mohamed”
The muslim that murdered Theo Van Gogh did noit just murder Van Gogh but it was an attempted murder of Freedom of expression. Now we the same thing in relation to Reverend Runar Soogard.
This so obvious a pattern that only the wilfully optically challenged will miss. From Salman Rushdie to Ali Sena, Ibn Warraq and others like him, are hiding and living in constant fear for their lives. And this is happening in the West. Bah!
The continuing dimunition of the most quintessential freedom of all, the freedom of expression, is the price we pay for muslims to live on Western social security benefit.
Is it worth it?
DP111
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
fjordman quoted : Islam will die as a global force during this century, simply because its core ideas aren't flexible enough to adapt to a modern world.
This pre-supposes that islam will have to rely on its own tenets. I'm afraid this is not going to be the case. Islam is basically parasitical, and will continue to survive on the back of the rest of humanity. The roots of Jihad have been invigorated primarily due to immigration to the West and Saudi money.
The only way that islam will die out, is if it is contained within dar-ul-islam. No immigration and all contact reduced to the necessary. This must necessarily include an "exchange of populations", as a measure to safeguard our internal security.
This is indeed very harsh, but the alternatives are far far worse.
If islam collapses under the weight of its own idiocy, then all the better, as it will release 1.2 billion souls from the bondage that is essentially slavery. If it does'nt, then it will continue to lag further behind the rest of the world, and consequently pose an ever diminishing threat. In either case, we do not have to sacrifice the freedoms that we have taken for granted.
Such a policy also means hope for the future. Hope is important for all humans. A war of the form envisaged by so many- a global civil war, will leave a schism in humanity for a long time.
DP111
Okay, I'm going to be the optimist today. It's possible that the co-existence of democracy and Islam will be proved possible in Iraq. It is possible that Iraq will get it's economy on track and be the envy of the Middle East.
If democracy and prosperity can thrive in the ME, then the muslims will move BACK to their own countries. I know quite a few muslims and for some strange reason they seem to like their ethnic countries. They assimilate well in America, and start to become more like us, but because of their strong family ties, they're always going home to see their families.
If they had something to move back for, I think they'd do it. This is my hope.
I think one of the problems you're having in Europe might be the "coddling" of your minorities. In America we "mix" with them, say whatever we want, and they do likewise.
How many muslims do you personally know? It takes a while to get to know them to the degree where you can say whatever you want, ie Mohammed was a pediophile, and the Koran was written by a dissident Jew, but when you get to that point (and of course they feel they can do likewise) then they stop taking themselves so seriously.
I guess if I could give some advice, it would be the above, and then beyond that it would be to get rid of ridiculous gun control laws (if for no other reason than to allow your women some protection!). This rape thing is ridiculous. You're supposed to protect your women and children. Any country that doesn't do that is disgusting (in my opinion).
I hope this thread is still being read.
Bjorn,
I am Indian. In India the Islamic Jihad against the Hindu-Buddhist civilization (openly declared - when the Koran talks about Polytheists it IS talking about us) has cost us tens of millions of lives.
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust/
If you tell me that in the past everyone was violent so what - well firstly we were not violent on the basis of "religion" (we do not have a word for "religion" in any Indian language - even today - the closest word is "Dharma" which actually means a philosophy or set of duties - like a king (Raja) follows RAJDharma - this obviously does not mean King's separate "religion" - if the concept does not exist how would people fight over it?)
Secondly the latest jihadi genocide was carried out in 1971 when the Pakistani army butchered 3 million Bengalis. Would this be an accurate definition if "genocide"?
Compare the experiences of the following sets of people when "interacting" with Islam
1. Hindus in India
2. Buddhists in Thailand
3. Christians in Eastern Europe
4. Animists/Tribals in Africa.
Explain how all four completely different races and religions have almost the same set of experiences when dealing with Islam?
The very fact that you are denying land-grab means you do not understand the concept of Dar-ul-Harb and Dar-ul-Islam. The creation of Pakistan and Bangladesh was a LAND GRAB for Islam and Jihad. Kashmir is a land grab for Islam.
There is once assumption I have seen in Westerners which colors their thinking. The assumption is that life/civilization will keep advancing over time. This is a false assumption.
It can be rationally that both India and Persia were more advanced by any measure of civilization - (art/music/poetry/literature/culture/civic consciousness/town planning/etc. etc- only exception is technology ) 1300 years ago than they are today.
What is the difference from 1300 years and today - there is just one factor - Islam - the society has REGRESSED.
The Bamiyan buddha statues were built by the ANCESTORS of todays TALIBAN.Can you believe it? - What can those very same people build today?
In India the Muslim invaders came from the NorthWest corner. You can take a bike ride through India from North to South in a straight line. Every 100 kms you will notice an improvement in the status of women. THAT IS EVIDENCE/PROOF. The farther south you go - the further away you go from historical Islamic influence. By the way all the Indian religions (Hinduism/Buddhism/Sikhism/Jainism) have had female monks for thousands of years - and we still worship goddesses.
I could go on and on - but I think this thread is dead and I am sleepy.
Well Ik, I read it. It was very interesting and true. I've heard someone did DNA tests on Eygptians and found it matched the DNA of Arabs, not that of the ancient mummys. So there you have it.
Their purpose is not to respect cultures, but to overtake and destroy them, as dictated by the Koran. It's what they do. It's what they are told to do.
sissyblue,
Yes I did read an article once about how Egypt was conquered - they killed all the males and forcibly took all the females.
What about the Copts?
ik:
I believe that the objection is that since Norway isn't India, you can take your evidence and stuff it.
And by the way: Where's the evidence?
Herr Unswedenizer, What was that about? Are you being sarcastic?
Sorry everybody if I was being too sarcastic. It's just that it freaks me out the way that most Europeans refuses to even consider a story from India as told by Ik.
Europeans are really very stupid. These people neither have eyes to see or brain to think. How much did they learn from the Second World War? As much as the criminal being asked: What did you learn by being in jail? -That I will never shoot Sonny Cooper again.
Europeans do everything to stop the Second World War happening again, but they do not seem to care about a third one coming.
If that is not dumb, then I just don't know what is.
Herr Unswedenizer, OK, I guess it was just a mis-communication. I thought Ik's information was very good, thoughtful and accurate. I guess you were making fun of others out there. Sometimes it's hard keeping track of all the different posts.
No the fault is on me. I went to far. What I wanted to emphasize is how Europeans will consider such info, as the one from Ik, as completely useless (unless they already know about Islam).
Europeans love to travel around the world, to India, to Thailand. They learn a lot. But they see it all as some kind of Disneyland, or Tolkienland. I never occurs to them that they can learn something about themselves and their own cultures on these trips.
Europeans are simply unable to understand that lessons can be drawn from history or from other continents of the world. Such uneducable minds will have to learn it the hard way.
Obviously it's not all Europeans, but rather the "left", which is unfortunately a lot of people in Europe. As Ik said they believe that humanity is getting better over time, and that's just not true. We have the left here too, and they're just as stupid as the your left in Europe.
No, Sissyblue, obviously most Europeans. The majority of the right-wingers too.
Post a Comment
<< Home