We continue from Part 1 our interview with No Sharia. Questions are numbered, and No Sharia's answers are in italics.
14) In your answer to Question 5, you indicate that anti-Semitism is due to "left leaning journalists". Why do you associate anti-Semitism with left-leaning journalists? In other words, what causes you to have that impression? Why, in your opinion, are "left leaning journalists" anti-Semitic?
The journalists in e g Sweden belong to the left to a large extent. They are not only social democratic but many vote for the former communist party. They are against the market economy, the US and therefore also against Israel. In reality many detest the West because the West defeated socialism, and now they think they can defeat the West by the help of muslim immigration. They hate the fact that the West has a superior system. Their beloved system –socialism - was revealed to have been a sham, and they hate that. So they sympathize with the Palestineans and with arabs who critizize the west. They have taken over the arguments of the Palestineans. Their so-called anti-sionism seems in reality often be anti-Semitism even if they never will admit that.
They don't understand that the Palestinean problem has been held unsolved intentionally by Arab governments for 60 years in order for those to have a scapegoat and be able to blame others for their own shortcomings. Antisemitism fulfills the same function, and during the last decades it has been based more and more on islam which in itself is antisemitic.
15) In your answer to Question 4, you state that Christianity is treated by the media "with indifference or concealed contempt". In Question 6, you indicate that non-Christian religions, other than Judaism and Islam, are treated "with indifference or some respect owing to their not being Christian". These answers indicate a distinct anti-Christian public bias. Is this accurate? Why would this be so? Please explain, for an audience that is not familiar with Sweden, the cultural dynamics that have resulted in this.
Yes I think it is accurate. The journalists are seldom religious and they often seem to despise religion. Christianity was earlier connected with what they interpret as a class society which they as socialists naturally abhor. They are Marxists and the church historically belongs to the oppressors.
16) In Question 9, you state: "I suspect that some members of the government may be willing to sacrifice freedom of expression etc in order to appease muslims". The implication of the word "appease" is that there is a problem, presumably with violence associated with the Muslim community. Is that accurate? What information or evidence can you offer to support that? Is this first-hand (i.e., something that you have witnessed or experienced), is it second-hand (i.e., something a friend or relative of yours witnessed or experienced, and then told you about), or how far removed is this information?
You mentioned violence; I didn't so I don't need to present any evidence for just that.
Political violence has not started yet in Sweden besides that many rapes performed by muslims sometimes seem to have a religious undertone. The behaviour of those muslims is probably accepted by many other muslims because they are in Dar al-Harb – Europe - and the women dress in the wrong way anyway.
However, the demonstrations around the world regarding the cartoons and "rondell" dogs seem to have made the politicians apprehensive and very cautious. Their knowledge about islam is so shallow that they may believe that by suppressing some human rights they will satisfy the muslims. They don't understand that muslim organizations use the salami tactics. I judge the states of mind of politicians from what they say in the media and from their decisions.
17) In Question 6, you indicate that Islam is treated "both critically and with multicultural lies". This seems related to your answer from Question 9, quoted in Question 16 above. Please elaborate. What is stated about Islam publicly that is accurate, and what is stated publicly that is inaccurate? By whom? Why?
The lie that islam is a religion of peace and tolerance is repeated by politicians and journalists too often. Nobody dares to talk about the real islam which now takes over the muslim world everywhere. The moderate Islamic variants in some countries are now revealed to just be just local cultural phenomena which have no basis in the religious doctrine. So the moderate variants retreat when the real islam appears and takes over the mosques and muslim organizations (helped by oil money, of course).
They don't dare to talk about how muslims look at non-muslims and their view of the superiority of muslims. They don't dare to talk about human rights generally in the muslim countries and what it may mean for us. They don't dare to talk about the long-term plans of muslims for introducing sharia in Europe. What they can critizise is e g the treatment of women by muslim men but they don't do much about it.
What we need is a proactive nontolerance of all crimes against women by muslims. And we need to define new crimes: (1) religious hate crimes i e crimes based on and caused by religon and (2) crimes against integration.
18) Following the thread of Questions 16 & 17, and in light of your answer to Question 9, do you perceive an effort on the part of the government to cover up violence and criminal acts perpetrated by people associated with Islam? If so, is it merely ambiguously labeled, but with its existence acknowledged? Or is it buried as if it never occurred? Why would this be happening?
It is in many cases buried deep. Media generally don't talk about the religion of criminals even when the crime evidently is based on religion. The reason they conceal these facts is basically that they want the immigration to continue so that the social democrats will get a permanent majority on its side. So they don´t want to give any arguments to those who want to stop the immigration of muslim fundamentalists.
Why the non-socialistic government keeps quiet is surprising. Probably the reason is that the non-socialistic parties increased their shares of the immigrant vote in the last election and that the government wants Turkey getting into the EU. They think that a stand against muslim immigrants regarding any issue will weaken them in these two respects.
Another weaker reason is that they don't know how to handle the issue. They behave like children; by not talking about it they think it will go away.
However, when a terrorist act will be committed by a muslim the media will label it as such but they will draw no conclusions. The media and the intelligentia have betrayed their functions in the society. They shall upheld [should uphold -- YD] the standards in society regarding rationality and logic, and also intellectually protect the society and human rights. They fail miserably in both respects.
19) Following up to Question 18, are there other criminal acts that are covered up? For example, acts associated by other religious or political groups? If so, how do you know that and why do you perceive that? What do you feel might be the reason for this, and why do you think it is a reason?
No, I don't think so. The acts by nazi and extreme leftist groups are published by the media, and the government sees no advantages in not talking about such atrocities. Regarding these groups, the media find no difficulty in talking about the underlying ideology. It is only regarding islam that they can never discover a connection between the ideology - a religion – and the crime.
20) In Question 8, you indicate that there is a political elite. In Question 12, you indicate that political leaders adopt some policies, specifically regarding immigration, that do not reflect the will of the people. Why do you feel that the people do not support such policies? Why does the political elite ignore the will of the people they govern? How can they get away with it?
The opinion polls indicate a hardening attitude towards muslim immigration and illegal behaviour of immigrants. Government policies don't reflect that.
If you have a smaller group which reacts against a government policy, and a large group – the Swedish population – which really doesn't care, the smaller group can influence the politicians. That's one of the reasons for the opportunism of the government. But now a growing part of the population starts to care and that will hopefully cause a change in the behaviour. The government can't get away with ignoring the issues, if the people care about them and it affects the opinion polls.
The social democrats cannot be expected to do the right thing. The people didn't want them so they try to create another people. They will protect immigration with teeth and nails in order to arrange a new permanent majority in the future. They risk the future of the nation of Sweden in order to win political goals.
21) Also in Question 12, you indicate that "the press and other media are in effect controlled by left leaning journalists". Why do you state that?
Journalists cannot be fired if those dismissals are not a part of a program to save the economy of the newspaper. So the journalists and the editors are to a great extent the newspaper. They tend to recruit people who have the same opinions as they have. The exception regards the economy pages of a newspaper.
So the number of promotions and recruitments of non-socialistic journalists will certainly be held down. However, regarding higher positions where the management of the newspaper has a larger influence, this power of the journalists diminishes distinctly. But the power to influence what is written in all the articles is real power. Journalists push the multicultural agenda meaning that all cultures have the same value but that the western civilization is worse than most.
22) Related to Questions 20 and 21, how did the situation develop wherein there is a political and media elite in Sweden that is not responsive to the people? What are your thoughts on that?
The media have always been to the left. After the Berlin wall, the socialists among them (the large majority) seem not to have accepted that they were wrong all their lives and that their chosen ideology was pure shit. Now they – like communist and social democratic politicians - try to put new life into socialism and take back the political initiative by protecting a huge immigration. Muslim immigrant voters will overwhelmingly vote for socialistic parties. The former communists and the socialdemocratic party will protect the immigration. The reason for the passivity of the non-socialistic parties were commented upon in q. 20. They have yet not understood the real issues and the great danger of the muslim immigration.
23) In Question 13, you indicate that the native Swedes who live in areas with concentrations of Muslim immigrants are anti-Muslim as well as anti-Islamist. Please define what you mean by the terms "anti-Muslim" and "anti-Islamist". You also indicate that native Swedes outside those areas share those feelings as well. Why is that? What makes you believe there are such feelings? And, did they have such feelings before Muslim immigrants arrived, or have these feelings developed since Muslim immigrants arrived? Please explain.
To be Anti–islamist is to be against Islamism i e radical, political islam. To be Anti-muslim is to understand that there really is no moderate islam and that moderates sooner or later can easily and rapidly develop into radicals and islamists. They just have to be better muslims (according to the doctrine). It may also mean that one doesn't like the attitudes of people from the Middle East who don't have the same view as we regarding any human rights.
I said that people outside these muslim-dominated areas start to have a similar view but just start. The reason is an increased understanding of the muslim culture and of islam: honour killings, the attempts of muslims to suppress all critique of islam, their contempt for Western human rights, what the muslims say about political issues etc.
It is said – and it is a basis of multiculturalism — that if we know more about each other we like each other more and will become more tolerant. That is totally false. The more people know about islam, the worse opinion they will have of that religion. And if they know the truth they will want to prevent all muslim immigration and resist all attempts to introduce sharia in Sweden. In a decade the peoples of Europe will – owing to the anti-jihadist movement – know much more about the important theological issues. The conflicts between muslims and non-muslims will then increase rapidly (also see my prognosis of the political development of Europe). The path of Europe is set. It points towards civil war if we don't implement the strong anti-islamist policies (or similar) which I have defined.
No Sharia is an author at Islam Watch. The prognosis No Sharia refers to, and No Sharia's other writings, can be found there on No Sharia's page.
I hope you will read those writings, because when we next catch up with No Sharia, we will be asking questions about them. If you have a question you would like to submit to No Sharia, please leave it in the comments, or submit it to me via email, with the words "Question for No Sharia" in the subject line, and I will pass the question along.
Please note that since the content of emails is generally considered confidential, I will pass your question along, but not your email address. Similarly, you will only get back the answer to your question and any related comments, and no one's email address but my own. However, unless you specifically state otherwise, the question will be assumed to be publishable on the blog; similarly, unless No Sharia specifically states otherwise, the answer will be assumed to be publishable on the blog as well.