Essayist Fjordman has written another whopper of a post over at Dhimmi Watch entitled Why the European Union Must be Dismantled. It’s a little long, so let me select a few choice passages, as well as some passages from his response to angry commenters.
I must repeat that Islam is the primary contemporary enemy of freedom and peace in the world – a mix of racism, belligerence, institutionalized hatred, misogyny, and religious sickness that is more insidious and threatening to humanity than Nazism or Communism. While many Muslims have not succumbed to Islam’s wicked and awful teachings, too many have, and we need to face the facts and resist it. I wish I could say it more strongly, but the more you look into the face of evil, seeing the putrid depths of its roots, while everyone else is deceived by its wiles, the more you get incensed.
1. Mutliculturalists have given Islam so much leeway that their mistake is now painfully obvious, and has awakened serious anti-Islamic sentiment
The massive infiltration of Leftist and anti-Western rhetoric that now permeates our media and academia predates Islam, but the failure to identify the threat posed by Muslim immigration has exposed it. Many ordinary citizens still remember that our so-called academic experts and media columnists hailed Multiculturalism and Muslim immigration, which are turning out to be the most massive mistakes in modern Western history. This will sooner or later trigger a backlash.
2. How to defeat Islam in the West – Provoke Muslims as Much as Possible
[The Muslims’] greatest flaw is that they are insanely aggressive and can’t handle criticism or mockery at all. A smart move would be to deliberately provoke Muslims as much as humanly possible. The more they rage and rant and threaten, the more they will discredit the ones who said it was a good idea to let them into our countries and that everybody who said otherwise were “racists.”
I would add that it would change the minds of many liberals as Islam’s pervasive and persistent violence betrays any thought of peace, although I suspect many liberals would say “you deserve to be bludgeoned to death by Islamists for publishing editorials and cartoons critical of Mohammed. How insensitive!”
3. The Welfare State has to be scaled back seriously, not only because it doesn’t work, but because Muslim immigrants, with their large families, will crash the system rather than help pay for it.
The welfare state is now just a big pyramid scheme where Leftist parties take our money and give it to Muslim immigrants in return for voter support. The welfare state in fact provides insecurity, since it is used to fund the Muslim colonization of the continent.
Half of the first immigrants to Norway in the first half of the 1970s are now living on state payments. The study focused on 2,500 immigrants from Pakistan, India, Turkey and Morocco born between 1936 and 1955, and compared with a control group of Norwegians of the same age. In their first ten years the immigrants were actively employed, and as many were employed as Norwegians. But after this period their activity declined sharply, and by 2000 half of the immigrants were unemployed, compared to 13 percent of their Norwegian peers.
4. Islam is not a natural, historical part of Europe (or the West). In fact, it has historically been the enemy.
I’ve heard the term “Europhobe” being used of those who criticize the European Union. EU officials are busy rewriting our history books to insert Islam as a “natural part of European culture,” despite the fact much of the history of Europe since Charles Martel in the 8th century has been about defending the continent against Islam. The real “Europhobes,” those who hate or fear Europe, are those who run the EU, not those who are against it.
5. Perhaps we need some “de-colonization” – send Muslims back to their home countries. If leftists are against colonization, it only follows that we should resist the insidious Islamic colonization of our countries, and kick them out.
There are now probably more Algerians in France than there ever were Frenchmen in Algeria. Surely, if it could be called “national liberation” and “de-colonization” when the French were kicked out of Algeria, the same rules should apply if the French were to kick Algerians out of France? Or what about Pakistanis out of Britain? Is that racist, you say? Well, Leftists always hail any struggle for self-determination for indigenous people against colonialist aggression. Then they wouldn’t mind if Europeans were to exercise this right, too? Or do we detect a double standard saying that indigenous people have the right to self-preservation, unless the indigenous people happen to be white? That would be racist, wouldn’t it?
Hard words, but worth thinking about.
Religion is the enemy of freedom Seeker, not just Islam.
Yes, I know that the modern atheist and secular movements view all religion as the enemy. I, of course, disagree, both personally and philosophically.
I also agree that fundamentalism of all types is dangerous, including secular and atheist fundamentalism/extremism/exclusivism, which, like the kind you are exhibiting, has no tolerance for other views.
I also think there is an unfortunate confusion about the differences between fundamentalism and extremism – while these may be synonymous in Islam, they are not so in Christianity.
For example, those seeking to protect marriage may be fundamentalists, they are not extremists – the extremists are the Fred Phelps groups, and those advocating violence against people.
But this is one problem with current liberal rhetoric – they like to group everyone who disagrees with them into the same camp as the Islamic terrorists. An unintelligent and strategically dumb move that will bite them in the end.
Yes, I know that the modern atheist and secular movements view all religion as the enemy.
Untrue, especially since the majority of secularists in the U.S. are Christians themselves. Atheists make up what, 10% of the population, if that? Take note that I was careful to say fundamentalist Islam/Christianity and not all religion.
…including secular and atheist fundamentalism/extremism/exclusivity
No such thing. Secularism is…
So, if that is what secularism is, then what exactly is the fundamental form of secularism?
An unintelligent and strategically dumb move that will bite them in the end.
Then tell me how the Muslim indoctrination of their children into their religion is any different than the Christian indoctrination of children into theirs. They both brainwash their kids to have fundamental beliefs in their religion. I think before someone becomes an extremist, they must first have to be a fundamentalist. Who ever heard of a moderate extremist?
Then tell me how the Muslim indoctrination of their children into their religion is any different than the Christian indoctrination of children into theirs.
I don't think you are really interested in the difference. But I note that, as I mentioned, you conflate the words "fundamentalist" and "extremist" which is part of the problem in our discussions. While those terms may be synonymous when discussing Islam, they are not when discussing Christianity.
then what exactly is the fundamental form of secularism?
That is a good question, although I stand by my previous definition, which is based on the definition of fundamentalist. However, if you are hung up on the use of that word and demand a narrow (fundamentalist ;) application of it, I will gladly use another:
For more, you can always re-read Secular Fundamentalism and Democracy
I don't think you are really interested in the difference.
You conflate the words "fundamentalist" and "extremist"
Then show me the error of my ways. I contend that to be an religious "extremist" one must also be a religious "fundamentalist."
If there is a difference, then I'm interested. I am not talking about ideological differences between the 2 religions. I am speaking of the method of indoctrinating children into Islam or Christianity. It's the religious indoctrination that secularists find inexcusable and, coupled with isolation, breeds extremism.
Secular Fundamentalism: A movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles
You have articulated my position by citing this definition. What fundamentals are secularists trying to return to if they already espouse the total separation of church and state? If you ask me the same question about Christianity, I can easily answer.
Here is a nice definition of secularism.
Ooops! http://www.leicestersecularsociety.org.uk/secular…
. I am speaking of the method of indoctrinating children into Islam or Christianity.
It will help if you first think about and answer this question. "What is the difference between indoctrination, on one hand, vs. communicating your values and world view to your children?"
Regarding the fundamentals of secularism, perhaps you can answer the question for me – who defines what secularism is or believes? I would refer to the Humanist Manifesto, since humanism and secularism are intricately linked.
That document contains the fundamentals of secularism, which includes a low view of faith, a strict separation of religion from public life, and in some cases, suppression of religion (since it is considered superstitious and evil, as well as anti-rational).
Seeker,
I am more than tolerant of your views. I just don't believe that I should be forced to abide by them legally. You believe your views so superior to everybody else's that you believe others should live exactly as you do. I believe individuals are capable of making their own decisions, just as individuals are more than capable of deciding with whom they like to enter into legal contracts with.
I am more than tolerant of your views. I just don’t believe that I should be forced to abide by them legally. You believe your views so superior to everybody else’s that you believe others should live exactly as you do.
;)
Seeker,
What I like best about conversing with you is when you lie. What law have I ever proposed or endorsed that restrains your right to be a Christian? Now compare with every law you have proposed/endorsed/defended which restricts the freedoms of gays. If we’re going to converse, you absolutely need to stop lying.
The problem is not that I am lying, but that you oversimplify and then moralize based on your oversimplifications, accusing me of doing something that you also do. You just choose a different value system and parameters for how you decide to limit freedoms and rights.
You would allow homosexual marriage, yet disallow polygamy , incest between consenting adults, and bestiality based on your value system.
You are also so libertarian that you would allow the weak and helpless to be abused by the powerful because you would not want to restrict anyone’s “freedom.” Here, I am specifically talking about abortion. So your high-minded “tolerant” approach, and calling me a liar, are really just a sham to cover your less than adequate morality system.
I too believe that individuals are capable of making their own decisions. However, I am also for laws that ensure domestic tranquility, among them, not sanctioning sexually deviant behavior that is unhealthy both mentally and physically, and socially destabilizing, arguably.
You would rather rush ahead carelessly, ignoring biology, psychology, epidemiology, and thousands of years of culture based on your acceptance of immoral behaviors. You can accuse me of some sort of fascism because I believe in limited freedoms, which is the only logical and practical way to view government – government is limited, as are our individual rights. Painting me as some fascist because I don’t want to validate gay marriage (and again, I am not prohibiting it, just prohibiting official recognition) may make you feel better, but it is wildly inaccurate and polemic, and is not really part of the civil and logical part of the debate – it’s childish, tiring reactionism and hyperbole which we must listen to less and less.
It’s like calling Bush akin to Hitler, or being unable to distinguish between Christian and Islamic fundamentalism. I realize that the liberal ability to discern and discriminate has been all but obliterated by a subjective approach to values, a multicultural approach to culture which fails to understand that some ideas are inferior to others, and a retreat into extreme anti-religious secularism.
And so, I am not surprised that you think of me as you do, and so when I respond, in your cognitive dissonance, you must merely call me a liar because what I say and what you hear are two very different things – you have a huge stereotypical edifice in your mind that forces you to categorize me in one of your extremists buckets, and to force your evaluations of what my beliefs must be, and their relative worthiness upon what I say.
At least, that’s my impression. ;) So you can call me a liar, while I will call you blinded by your prejudices and inaccurate and narrow stereotypes. You can’t help but misunderstand, misrepresent, and erroneously evaluate the conservative position because you are deeply entrenched and beyond reason at this point, imho.
Sigh. There is no prejudice in what I see Seeker, because I never proposed that the government restrict your right to worship, or believe, or have your love legally recognized. And if somebody did propose restricting your freedoms in this fashion, I would obviously be in opposition. But your viciousness toward gays – that they’re damaging society, that their love is worth less than yours, that they should be essentially worthless before the law – is downright cruel. And then you claim you’re only seeking moral neutrality, when you damn well know that moral neutrality is a victory for you. What boggles the mind is that, even if gays are allowed to legally marry, your right to oppose those marriages is not infringed upon. In other words, you can still be an ignorant bigot.
The problem here is, again, you believe your values to be so much better than everybody else’s that you want them written into law, whereas I recognized that my values are no better than the values of most other people (except for those that actually want to harm other human beings), and so I recognize that the law shouldn’t reflect only my needs. Which is why you retain your right to pray without being jailed.
Let me begin with saying that the majority of the comments in this discussion are all based on imperforate provincialism, or on complete savagery. Moderate and liberal Christian, are not at all represented in this completely biased discussion;and you call your self Christians. This is blasphemy,this is what this is. For all of you Evangelicals and Fundamentalists out there, Islam is a religion of peace.You want to take the rights away from Muslim immigrants, and then deport them right? Sir what happened to the Bill of rights? What happened to the Constitution? Why do you defy the two sacred documents on which this country was formed upon. Their are Christian extremists, but you imply that they have no ties with terrorism. I, with all due respect beg to differ.Before you wrote this essay, basing it on your raciest nativeness personal pint of view. You are probably also raciest against blacks and other colors. Your essay should be taken off this site, to maybe save its great reputation. What you need to do instead of writing essays is to maybe consult a psychiatrist, and get some help. It is non intelligent beings like you sir, with all due respect that that plague this country with
non correct and unconditional literature.
This is blasphemy,this is what this is. For all of you Evangelicals and Fundamentalists out there, Islam is a religion of peace.
Only if you ignore the news, fail to follow the commands of Mohamed, and believe that the ‘peace’ of Islam is really only for those inside of Islam, while outside is ‘war.’
What peace is there for people who believe that even if they do their best, they may not be forgiven by Allah? Christianity teaches that we can be SURE of forgiveness, not by our poor and imperfect works of righteousness, but by the life and death of Christ, who lived a perfect life and died to take our punishment for sin. As it is written:
You want to take the rights away from Muslim immigrants, and then deport them right? Sir what happened to the Bill of rights? What happened to the Constitution?
We also have a right to control our borders, and ‘ensure domestic tranquility,’ as per our Constitution as well. Immigrants have no rights here until AFTER they immigrate. Before that, they are foreigners. Once they are accepted here, they have the same rights as all of us. No one is talking about deporting, except for criminals and people who threaten and perform violence. If they want to commit acts of violence, or disobey the laws, they will have to answer to the authorities.
Those of us who have observed the effects of Muslim immigration into France, Britain, and Holland can see the plain truth, which is that wherever Islam goes, oppression of rights, threats, and murder follow. You can claim you are a religion of peace all you want, but as long as so many people kill in the name of Islam (see the sidebar with ‘Humanity’s Enemies’ for the latest count on acts of violence by Muslims), you should be preaching to your own, not us. The actions of your fellow Muslims speak louder than your empty assertions.
Their are Christian extremists, but you imply that they have no ties with terrorism. I, with all due respect beg to differ.
You can differ, but not without facts. Where are these Christian terrorists you speak of? Where are these vigilantes who perform honor killings of their own children, kill those who leave the faith, and call for the beheading of those who mock them?
While you have no fear at all if you blaspheme against Christianity, Muslims murder those who besmirch their ‘prophet.’ They are graceless and unforgiving, just like their god. Don’t you feel the need to purge the world of blasphemers? Don’t you hear the voice of Mohamed urging you to kill those who dishonor Allah? Reminds me of what Jesus said to the Jews who wanted to kill him:
You are probably also raciest against blacks and other colors.
Not at all. But some have accused us of hating gays, though we do not. If you search this site, you will find nothing racist.
Your essay should be taken off this site, to maybe save its great reputation.
Actually, our site doens’t really have a great reputation at all, and our traffic is a paultry 500 unique visitors a day. But thanks for your concern. And to make Islamopaths happy, we’d have to take down many other posts, including:
Islam leads to a Misogynist, Homophobic Theocracy
Robert Spencer’s Five Step Plan for Muslims fighting Islamofascism
John Quincy Adams on Christianity and Islam
Many Sons, Lots of Guns
The Ugly Side of Islam – Acid Attacks
There are no moderate Muslims
Dealing with Islam: Passive or Active Resistance?
France Suffering From Islam’s Fear and Intimidation
More (deserved) Catholic Criticism of Islam
…and many more.
What you need to do instead of writing essays is to maybe consult a psychiatrist, and get some help.
Actually, my therapist said that I wouldn’t be happy until I wrote all this stuff down and shared it with others.
It is non intelligent beings like you sir, with all due respect that that plague this country with non correct and unconditional literature.
Actually, what is most unintelligent is to think that Islam is a religion of peace. It brings neither temporal nor spiritual peace wherever it goes. The peace you seek may only be found in Jesus, who was not just a prophet, but the Messiah, the savior of all.