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.
Showing posts with label Valhalla. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Valhalla. Show all posts
Saturday, October 27, 2007
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
Interview with No Sharia, Part 1
In this post we begin interviewing an individual from Sweden who is an author at Islam Watch and goes by the name No Sharia.
My purpose in these interviews is to establish a little bit of background about No Sharia, and then gain No Sharia's input about the situation in Sweden regarding the influx, in recent years, of Muslim immigrants and their interaction with the existing culture.
My purpose here is not to rehash No Sharia's writings, which are available at Islam Watch, and which I encourage you to read for yourself.
I try to keep my questions fair and neutral, and you can judge for yourself to what extent I have succeeded. Similarly, I leave No Sharia's answers pretty much "as-is", except for minor formatting, so you can judge No Sharia's competence as a source based upon the writing.
The questions are numbered, and No Sharia's answers are italicized.
1) What country are you native to?
Sweden.
2) What country do you live in now?
Sweden.
3) Do you live in a large city, small city, town, or rural area?
Large city.
4) How is Christianity treated publicly, for example, in the media, in the country where you live? (If you are from a country other than the one where you now live, please compare and contrast the situation in the country where you now live with the situation in the country you are from. Please do so throughout.)
With indifference or concealed contempt.
5) How is Judaism treated publicly in your country?
Fairly good, but there seem to be a growing anti-semitism owing to left leaning journalists.
6) How is Islam treated publicly in your country?
Both critically and with multicultural lies e g that it is a religion of peace and tolerance.
7) How are other religions (Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, etc.) treated publicly in your country?
With indifference or some respect owing to their not being Christian.
8) How would you characterize the government in your country? Officially: a) Is it religious? b) Does it guarantee freedom of religion? c) Does it guarantee freedom of speech and of the press? d) How does this compare with actual practice?
a) Single members may be religious but they don’t show it besides a religious Christian party.
b) Yes, but probably not totally in practice. People who are afraid of showing that they are apostates are probably critical.
c) Yes but there is a risk that they may limit freedom of speech in the name of religion.
d) -
9) Is there a political elite in your country? Is there a wealthy class that has more power, or is there a religious class that holds more power? Is there a royal family? Does the royal family hold real political power, or is it more of a ceremonial figurehead?
Yes, there is kind of a political elite - a number of families both in the non-socialistic and socialistic camp. However, that is not so important.
Wealth or religion is not the basis for great political influence.
There is a royal family with a king in a ceremonial role without power.
9) Please characterize the majority political views of those in power. How do they relate to religion and freedoms addressed above?
I suspect that some members of the government may be willing to sacrifice freedom of expression etc in order to appease muslims but I have no evidence - yet. However, if the prime minister as some reports say, made an excuse for the pictures of dogs with a Muhammad face, it is a really bad sign.
11) Please characterize the people you interact with on a daily basis. Are they citizens of your country, whose families have been there for generations? Or, are they citizens who have recently arrive and obtained their citizenship? Or, are they newly-arrived immigrants, who have not yet obtained citizenship? If immigrants, are they generally legal immigrants, or illegal immigrants?
The majority are Swedes who are born in the country. I interact with some foreigners and also immigrants (first and second generation). They are legal immigrants.
12) Based on your experience interacting with other people in your country, do the policies of those who govern reflect the desires of those who are governed? Please describe the means by which the people can influence their government. Comment both on how it is supposed to work officially, and how it works in practice.
Not regarding immigration or now the EU constitution. The politicians may try to ram it down the throats of Swedes.
In other matters the policies follow the will of the people. People have limited means to influence the government between the elections. Demonstrations are allowed but are ineffective; articles in a press is not a great weapon because the press and other media are in effect controlled by left leaning journalists.
13) Please offer any other comments that you feel appropriate; for example, you may wish to expound upon an answer above, or address a question that was not brought up.
The immigrants are concentrated to certain areas and mostly Swedish people in these areas are anti-muslim besides being anti-islamist. However, the anti-islamic feelings seem to expand also to other areas.
My purpose in these interviews is to establish a little bit of background about No Sharia, and then gain No Sharia's input about the situation in Sweden regarding the influx, in recent years, of Muslim immigrants and their interaction with the existing culture.
My purpose here is not to rehash No Sharia's writings, which are available at Islam Watch, and which I encourage you to read for yourself.
I try to keep my questions fair and neutral, and you can judge for yourself to what extent I have succeeded. Similarly, I leave No Sharia's answers pretty much "as-is", except for minor formatting, so you can judge No Sharia's competence as a source based upon the writing.
The questions are numbered, and No Sharia's answers are italicized.
1) What country are you native to?
Sweden.
2) What country do you live in now?
Sweden.
3) Do you live in a large city, small city, town, or rural area?
Large city.
4) How is Christianity treated publicly, for example, in the media, in the country where you live? (If you are from a country other than the one where you now live, please compare and contrast the situation in the country where you now live with the situation in the country you are from. Please do so throughout.)
With indifference or concealed contempt.
5) How is Judaism treated publicly in your country?
Fairly good, but there seem to be a growing anti-semitism owing to left leaning journalists.
6) How is Islam treated publicly in your country?
Both critically and with multicultural lies e g that it is a religion of peace and tolerance.
7) How are other religions (Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, etc.) treated publicly in your country?
With indifference or some respect owing to their not being Christian.
8) How would you characterize the government in your country? Officially: a) Is it religious? b) Does it guarantee freedom of religion? c) Does it guarantee freedom of speech and of the press? d) How does this compare with actual practice?
a) Single members may be religious but they don’t show it besides a religious Christian party.
b) Yes, but probably not totally in practice. People who are afraid of showing that they are apostates are probably critical.
c) Yes but there is a risk that they may limit freedom of speech in the name of religion.
d) -
9) Is there a political elite in your country? Is there a wealthy class that has more power, or is there a religious class that holds more power? Is there a royal family? Does the royal family hold real political power, or is it more of a ceremonial figurehead?
Yes, there is kind of a political elite - a number of families both in the non-socialistic and socialistic camp. However, that is not so important.
Wealth or religion is not the basis for great political influence.
There is a royal family with a king in a ceremonial role without power.
9) Please characterize the majority political views of those in power. How do they relate to religion and freedoms addressed above?
I suspect that some members of the government may be willing to sacrifice freedom of expression etc in order to appease muslims but I have no evidence - yet. However, if the prime minister as some reports say, made an excuse for the pictures of dogs with a Muhammad face, it is a really bad sign.
11) Please characterize the people you interact with on a daily basis. Are they citizens of your country, whose families have been there for generations? Or, are they citizens who have recently arrive and obtained their citizenship? Or, are they newly-arrived immigrants, who have not yet obtained citizenship? If immigrants, are they generally legal immigrants, or illegal immigrants?
The majority are Swedes who are born in the country. I interact with some foreigners and also immigrants (first and second generation). They are legal immigrants.
12) Based on your experience interacting with other people in your country, do the policies of those who govern reflect the desires of those who are governed? Please describe the means by which the people can influence their government. Comment both on how it is supposed to work officially, and how it works in practice.
Not regarding immigration or now the EU constitution. The politicians may try to ram it down the throats of Swedes.
In other matters the policies follow the will of the people. People have limited means to influence the government between the elections. Demonstrations are allowed but are ineffective; articles in a press is not a great weapon because the press and other media are in effect controlled by left leaning journalists.
13) Please offer any other comments that you feel appropriate; for example, you may wish to expound upon an answer above, or address a question that was not brought up.
The immigrants are concentrated to certain areas and mostly Swedish people in these areas are anti-muslim besides being anti-islamist. However, the anti-islamic feelings seem to expand also to other areas.
Wednesday, September 5, 2007
The Valhalla Exchange:
Twilight of the Gods
This post is an essay based on The Valhalla Exchange multipart article:
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Administrative Questions
Long ago, the northern Germanic peoples believed in a complex mythology, with roots going back to ancient times, and complete with a cosmology that explained places so otherworldly and times so distant as to defy human comprehension.
According to this mythology, valkyries, magnificent though minor female deities, surveyed the scenes of earthly battles, seeking worthy warriors and bringing them to Valhalla, where they would fight every day and feast and drink every night, as they awaited their destiny of serving with Odin, who would lead them in the preordained battle at the end of the world.
This end would be preceded by the Fambulwinter, a winter equivalent to three successive winters with no summer in between. As a result of Fambulwinter, warfare would break out, and morality would disappear, setting the stage for a time marked by powerful earthquakes that would topple trees and tumble mountains... a time when the sky would be devoid of light, leaving the earth blanketed in darkness... a time when monstrous sea creatures would make their furious way toward the land, their angry movements churning up the seas and sending waves beating violently against the land, their venomous breath polluting the earth and poisoning the sky above... a time known simply as the Twilight of the Gods.
As Christianity moved northward, the northern Germanic peoples traded in this future for a Christian one, a future with similar earthy tribulations, but one where people could now be spared through love, good works, and faith in a Savior from Heaven.
As the centuries passed, many Western cultures began to grow bored with Christianity, and even suspicious of it as a vehicle of repression at the hands of corrupted priesthoods; people sought a future more tangible, secured in the arms of things more understandable. The high priests of science stepped in and made a convincing case for their cosmology, while that Sweet Lady Liberty offered sanctuary from repression and corruption.
Governments secularized.
But, so did the societies they governed.
People became aware "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"; but they began to exercise their Liberty in the pursuit of their Happiness, without due consideration to their Creator Who had given them these things.
Infatuated with Democracy, but unfamiliar with Republicanism which places necessary limits on the power of their voice, people voted for themselves a future secured by government checks, without taking responsibility to ensure the productivity necessary to provide the wealth so their governments could underwrite those checks; drunk on the sweet wine offered by Sweet Lady Liberty, people indulged their every earthly fancy, without realizing that with Liberty comes Responsibility.
And so, gathered by their captivating new valkyries, minor gods with alluring names like Pleasure, Beauty, Youth and Security, they spend their time indulging themselves, even as they apprehensively eye the toppled trees and tumbled mountains resulting from the earthquakes around them, and the polluting of their earth and the poisoning of their skies from the monsters in their midst. Meanwhile, arriving on their doorstep is an exotic ideology, one that increasingly harkens back to a violent past, and which, like the Norse legends of old, promises a hereafter full of earthly pleasures, only replete with unlimited sexual gratification in the presence of seventy-two virgins, to worthy warriors who have fallen advancing their cause.
The Western world has exhanged one Valhalla for another, even as their other Valhalla is now threatened by the arrival of yet a third.
But, the enchanting new valkyries are false gods, and, in the end, they can deliver only twilight, both their own and that of those who succumb to their temptations, as they gather the worthy warriors of hedonistic modernism "together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon."
Unless those in this new Valhalla wake up to the danger they are in, it only remains to be established whether this Twilight of the Gods will occur at their own hands, or at the hands of others.
Part I
Part II
Part III
Part IV
Part V
Administrative Questions
Long ago, the northern Germanic peoples believed in a complex mythology, with roots going back to ancient times, and complete with a cosmology that explained places so otherworldly and times so distant as to defy human comprehension.
According to this mythology, valkyries, magnificent though minor female deities, surveyed the scenes of earthly battles, seeking worthy warriors and bringing them to Valhalla, where they would fight every day and feast and drink every night, as they awaited their destiny of serving with Odin, who would lead them in the preordained battle at the end of the world.
This end would be preceded by the Fambulwinter, a winter equivalent to three successive winters with no summer in between. As a result of Fambulwinter, warfare would break out, and morality would disappear, setting the stage for a time marked by powerful earthquakes that would topple trees and tumble mountains... a time when the sky would be devoid of light, leaving the earth blanketed in darkness... a time when monstrous sea creatures would make their furious way toward the land, their angry movements churning up the seas and sending waves beating violently against the land, their venomous breath polluting the earth and poisoning the sky above... a time known simply as the Twilight of the Gods.
As Christianity moved northward, the northern Germanic peoples traded in this future for a Christian one, a future with similar earthy tribulations, but one where people could now be spared through love, good works, and faith in a Savior from Heaven.
As the centuries passed, many Western cultures began to grow bored with Christianity, and even suspicious of it as a vehicle of repression at the hands of corrupted priesthoods; people sought a future more tangible, secured in the arms of things more understandable. The high priests of science stepped in and made a convincing case for their cosmology, while that Sweet Lady Liberty offered sanctuary from repression and corruption.
Governments secularized.
But, so did the societies they governed.
People became aware "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"; but they began to exercise their Liberty in the pursuit of their Happiness, without due consideration to their Creator Who had given them these things.
Infatuated with Democracy, but unfamiliar with Republicanism which places necessary limits on the power of their voice, people voted for themselves a future secured by government checks, without taking responsibility to ensure the productivity necessary to provide the wealth so their governments could underwrite those checks; drunk on the sweet wine offered by Sweet Lady Liberty, people indulged their every earthly fancy, without realizing that with Liberty comes Responsibility.
And so, gathered by their captivating new valkyries, minor gods with alluring names like Pleasure, Beauty, Youth and Security, they spend their time indulging themselves, even as they apprehensively eye the toppled trees and tumbled mountains resulting from the earthquakes around them, and the polluting of their earth and the poisoning of their skies from the monsters in their midst. Meanwhile, arriving on their doorstep is an exotic ideology, one that increasingly harkens back to a violent past, and which, like the Norse legends of old, promises a hereafter full of earthly pleasures, only replete with unlimited sexual gratification in the presence of seventy-two virgins, to worthy warriors who have fallen advancing their cause.
The Western world has exhanged one Valhalla for another, even as their other Valhalla is now threatened by the arrival of yet a third.
But, the enchanting new valkyries are false gods, and, in the end, they can deliver only twilight, both their own and that of those who succumb to their temptations, as they gather the worthy warriors of hedonistic modernism "together into a place called in the Hebrew tongue Armageddon."
Unless those in this new Valhalla wake up to the danger they are in, it only remains to be established whether this Twilight of the Gods will occur at their own hands, or at the hands of others.
"Behold, I come as a thief."
The Valhalla Exchange, Part V
This post is the fifth of a multipart article where I interview a subject named "Reinhard". Reinhard is a member of FOMI - Svenska Forum Mot Islamisering (information in English; FOMI in English).
Questions are numbered and in italics, and Reinhard's responses are in plain text. Some of these questions refer to questions and answers found in the first, second, third and fourth parts of the interview; see also the administrative questions.
34. In Question 28 you paint Islamic culture as essentially the opposite of a culture that respects women's rights. In Question 27 you paint Swedish culture as one that emphasizes compromise over confrontation. Are those fair summaries? In Question 19 you state "today’s Swedes are suffering from the consequences of a choice made by the political elite of the previous generation." Why does Swedish society, and in particular the feminist movement, not speak out against features of Islamic culture that are perceived as discriminating against women? Is it because they are afraid of confrontation? Is it because they refuse to admit their own mistakes? What explains this appearance of hypocrisy? Or, do they speak out against it, and I am not aware of this?
Your summaries are correct. In Sweden we have two ideologies which regulate what can be said and indeed believed: the ideology of multiculturalism, and its running dog, the ideology of political correctness which stifles all debate about multiculturalism. Since Swedes generally don’t like to argue and be perceived as causing trouble, it becomes far too easy to silence critics by calling them racists. Feminists do not support immigrant women who are subjected to honour violence, since in order to do so, the feminists would have to search for the roots of that violence; but since those roots are to be found in the culture of the immigrants, then owning up to this fact would make the feminists appear to be racists. And since feminists are motivated by a desire to do good, and pride themselves on being good people, they would never do anything which might make them appear to be racists, who are bad people. These dangerous ideologies of blind acceptance and self-censorship thus hamstring the efforts of feminists who are trying to get to the bottom of honour violence.
Feminists also seem to be acting in the same way as communists and others who behave like religious fanatics in defending their beliefs and world-view. Why is the left not fighting against Islamic imperialism? Because according to their world-view, USA is always the aggressor. The feminists are likewise unable to get past their belief that all immigrants are by definition good people and the victims of the patriarchy/West/white male establishment. They would never admit to making a mistake in this, since they sincerely believe that they are committing no mistake. They are right; they are not racists; they will refuse all proof to the contrary, no matter how convincing, since to admit that they were wrong, would force them to abandon their entire world-view. The situation has indeed become absurd, but is somewhat alleviated by dissident feminists, many of whom have their background in Muslim countries, who are pointing to specific problems in Islamic culture which need to be discussed in public. (And since these dissidents are immigrants, according to the logic of multiculturalism, they can never be racists, and thus people are forced to hear them out.)
35. In a similar theme, why does a society that views itself as secular not at least question such strongly-held religious beliefs as can be found in some places in the Islamic world, even right within its own political borders? Why does such a society, which seems to pride itself on not having had a war in two centuries, not denounce violence when committed by certain elements of the Islamic community within areas subject to its own jurisdiction and against its own citizens, the very people this society has sought to liberate? Are Christians fair game because they will likely turn the other cheek, while Muslims are deferred to, because they might take off one's head? Please correct any assumptions that I implicity make that you feel may be in error.
All of this has to do with political correctness and the quasi-religious belief among some that USA/the West is always to blame, and that Muslims are always the victims. To concede that Muslims, either in Muslim states or in Sweden, can be the aggressors, would be perceived as racist (specifically, ”Islamophobic”). bin Laden is reacting against US oppression, the Palestinians are forced to commit suicide bombings because of the evil Israelis, etc. The tactic to blame the victim has worked wonders in Sweden, which is traditionally a left-leaning country. All attacks on the West, and even attacks on Sweden, are our own fault. There was a lack of condemnation of Islamic jihadism in the wake of 9/11 which was truly horrifying. Almost everyone seemed to be arguing along the lines of "Well, they had it coming". Needless to say, attitudes such as these have often had the unintended effect of galvanizing the anti-Islamic resistance and causing more people to join the fight.
Swedes espouse secularism but to insist that Muslim immigrants adhere to a secular code of conduct, would be to impose demands on them, and that is impossible, since immigrants are always victims; they can’t find jobs because we don’t give them the opportunity. (Anyone who even suggests that they might in fact be unwilling to assimilate, is immediately branded a racist.) Verbal attacks against Christians and Christianity are accepted since Christians are a majority. Muslims are a minority and therefore good people. If anyone from the majority criticizes any minority, he is at fault, since regardless of what he says, he is a member of the oppressive majority. Of course, the obvious fact that Muslims can resort to violence when they feel that they are under attack, ensures that people are more loathe to criticize Muslims than any other immigrant group. Physical intimidation goes hand in hand with political correctness: they complement each other perfectly, and can indeed be seen as two sides of the same coin.
36. Your turn: What are your thoughts on the dynamic between modern Western society, with what appears to me to be a waning Christian influence, and modern Islamic society, with what appears to be a waxing influence harkening to violent elements of its past?
It is impossible to say if Christianity has really declined in Western society; I suspect that it will soon return as more people start reacting against the "spiritual void" in the West. The great danger is that people who need to believe in something will turn to Islam because it appears to be a "real" religion which doesn’t compromise on its values. In the West we are taught to believe that war is bad in itself and that it must be avoided at all costs. I personally believe that there can be justified wars, specifically if they are fought in self-defence. Being forced into submission is a worse alternative than war; peace without liberty is worth nothing at all. The challenge facing the West today comes from a revitalized Islam which, due to its oil money and certain Islamic successes (the Iranian revolution, the defeat of the Sovjets in Afghanistan, etc.), is rekindling its ancient imperialistic imperative and acting on it. Why is there for instance such a strong movement in the Islamic world today to reinstate the caliphate? Well, because the caliph can call for jihad and invade non-Muslim countries, and this is something that the Islamists want to do, since they know that according to orthodox Islamic theology, the entire umma sins if no one engages in jihad to subjugate non-Muslims. All Muslims are in effect sinning since no one is offering the kafirs the choice of conversion, dhimmitude or war, in accordance with Muhammed’s instructions (as per Qur’an 9:29).
This imperialistic imperative has never been deemed theologically invalid within Islam. Since the Ottomans’ defeat at Vienna in 1683, it has not been actively pushed, since the umma has been dominated militarily by the West. Today the situation is reversing, with the Islamic world starting to dominate the West through terror, the oil weapon, da’wa (Islamic missionary activity), and demography. Islam as a global entity has started to feel in control of things; it has its weapons and soldiers, and is now returning to the "jihad-mode" which defined Islam from the 7th through 17th centuries. Christianity and Western civilization has been moving constantly away from violence; Islamic culture is moving backwards, and trying to revive its violent past. This is the great threat that the West faces today: not from jihadists per se, but from Islam as a whole, which is returning to its violent, orthodox teachings. My great fear is that the West in its present state, abhorring violence, will not be equipped to deal with an opponent which glorifies violence in the name of higher powers. In a fight between culture and barbarity, the barbarian will always win, since he does not hesitate to be ruthless. History has borne this out countless times.
However, the absolutely worst thing which can happen, is that Islamists keep pushing until the West finally pushes back. There has always been a violent streak to Western civilization; when it has felt threatened, it has reacted with everything from isolated assassinations to large-scale ethnic cleansing and genocide. Less than 20 years ago, we saw ethnic cleansing taking place in Europe, and 60 years ago, we saw a genocide being perpetrated on an industrial scale. If the West decides to push back against the Islamists, then that defence, no matter how justified in its intentions, risks devolving into attacks on civilian Muslims. The scenario of all-out religious war and ethnic cleansing within Europe’s borders might seem improbable, but is certainly not impossible. It is our duty as civilized people to make sure that this never happens. We fight in order to prevent an atavistic return to our violent past. In effect, we fight to protect civilian lives – Western as well as Muslim. Therein lies a possible bridge between the anti-Islamic movement and the Islamic world. We do have common interests, and we can only benefit from pursuing them. Only one thing is certain: if we do nothing at all, we will soon be facing a new dark age.
This concludes the interview with Reinhard.
Thank you very much, Reinhard, for taking so much time, and going to so much effort, to so comprehensively answer these questions and suggest directions for follow-up.
Please stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest for Yankee Doodle's comments on this theme.
Questions are numbered and in italics, and Reinhard's responses are in plain text. Some of these questions refer to questions and answers found in the first, second, third and fourth parts of the interview; see also the administrative questions.
34. In Question 28 you paint Islamic culture as essentially the opposite of a culture that respects women's rights. In Question 27 you paint Swedish culture as one that emphasizes compromise over confrontation. Are those fair summaries? In Question 19 you state "today’s Swedes are suffering from the consequences of a choice made by the political elite of the previous generation." Why does Swedish society, and in particular the feminist movement, not speak out against features of Islamic culture that are perceived as discriminating against women? Is it because they are afraid of confrontation? Is it because they refuse to admit their own mistakes? What explains this appearance of hypocrisy? Or, do they speak out against it, and I am not aware of this?
Your summaries are correct. In Sweden we have two ideologies which regulate what can be said and indeed believed: the ideology of multiculturalism, and its running dog, the ideology of political correctness which stifles all debate about multiculturalism. Since Swedes generally don’t like to argue and be perceived as causing trouble, it becomes far too easy to silence critics by calling them racists. Feminists do not support immigrant women who are subjected to honour violence, since in order to do so, the feminists would have to search for the roots of that violence; but since those roots are to be found in the culture of the immigrants, then owning up to this fact would make the feminists appear to be racists. And since feminists are motivated by a desire to do good, and pride themselves on being good people, they would never do anything which might make them appear to be racists, who are bad people. These dangerous ideologies of blind acceptance and self-censorship thus hamstring the efforts of feminists who are trying to get to the bottom of honour violence.
Feminists also seem to be acting in the same way as communists and others who behave like religious fanatics in defending their beliefs and world-view. Why is the left not fighting against Islamic imperialism? Because according to their world-view, USA is always the aggressor. The feminists are likewise unable to get past their belief that all immigrants are by definition good people and the victims of the patriarchy/West/white male establishment. They would never admit to making a mistake in this, since they sincerely believe that they are committing no mistake. They are right; they are not racists; they will refuse all proof to the contrary, no matter how convincing, since to admit that they were wrong, would force them to abandon their entire world-view. The situation has indeed become absurd, but is somewhat alleviated by dissident feminists, many of whom have their background in Muslim countries, who are pointing to specific problems in Islamic culture which need to be discussed in public. (And since these dissidents are immigrants, according to the logic of multiculturalism, they can never be racists, and thus people are forced to hear them out.)
35. In a similar theme, why does a society that views itself as secular not at least question such strongly-held religious beliefs as can be found in some places in the Islamic world, even right within its own political borders? Why does such a society, which seems to pride itself on not having had a war in two centuries, not denounce violence when committed by certain elements of the Islamic community within areas subject to its own jurisdiction and against its own citizens, the very people this society has sought to liberate? Are Christians fair game because they will likely turn the other cheek, while Muslims are deferred to, because they might take off one's head? Please correct any assumptions that I implicity make that you feel may be in error.
All of this has to do with political correctness and the quasi-religious belief among some that USA/the West is always to blame, and that Muslims are always the victims. To concede that Muslims, either in Muslim states or in Sweden, can be the aggressors, would be perceived as racist (specifically, ”Islamophobic”). bin Laden is reacting against US oppression, the Palestinians are forced to commit suicide bombings because of the evil Israelis, etc. The tactic to blame the victim has worked wonders in Sweden, which is traditionally a left-leaning country. All attacks on the West, and even attacks on Sweden, are our own fault. There was a lack of condemnation of Islamic jihadism in the wake of 9/11 which was truly horrifying. Almost everyone seemed to be arguing along the lines of "Well, they had it coming". Needless to say, attitudes such as these have often had the unintended effect of galvanizing the anti-Islamic resistance and causing more people to join the fight.
Swedes espouse secularism but to insist that Muslim immigrants adhere to a secular code of conduct, would be to impose demands on them, and that is impossible, since immigrants are always victims; they can’t find jobs because we don’t give them the opportunity. (Anyone who even suggests that they might in fact be unwilling to assimilate, is immediately branded a racist.) Verbal attacks against Christians and Christianity are accepted since Christians are a majority. Muslims are a minority and therefore good people. If anyone from the majority criticizes any minority, he is at fault, since regardless of what he says, he is a member of the oppressive majority. Of course, the obvious fact that Muslims can resort to violence when they feel that they are under attack, ensures that people are more loathe to criticize Muslims than any other immigrant group. Physical intimidation goes hand in hand with political correctness: they complement each other perfectly, and can indeed be seen as two sides of the same coin.
36. Your turn: What are your thoughts on the dynamic between modern Western society, with what appears to me to be a waning Christian influence, and modern Islamic society, with what appears to be a waxing influence harkening to violent elements of its past?
It is impossible to say if Christianity has really declined in Western society; I suspect that it will soon return as more people start reacting against the "spiritual void" in the West. The great danger is that people who need to believe in something will turn to Islam because it appears to be a "real" religion which doesn’t compromise on its values. In the West we are taught to believe that war is bad in itself and that it must be avoided at all costs. I personally believe that there can be justified wars, specifically if they are fought in self-defence. Being forced into submission is a worse alternative than war; peace without liberty is worth nothing at all. The challenge facing the West today comes from a revitalized Islam which, due to its oil money and certain Islamic successes (the Iranian revolution, the defeat of the Sovjets in Afghanistan, etc.), is rekindling its ancient imperialistic imperative and acting on it. Why is there for instance such a strong movement in the Islamic world today to reinstate the caliphate? Well, because the caliph can call for jihad and invade non-Muslim countries, and this is something that the Islamists want to do, since they know that according to orthodox Islamic theology, the entire umma sins if no one engages in jihad to subjugate non-Muslims. All Muslims are in effect sinning since no one is offering the kafirs the choice of conversion, dhimmitude or war, in accordance with Muhammed’s instructions (as per Qur’an 9:29).
This imperialistic imperative has never been deemed theologically invalid within Islam. Since the Ottomans’ defeat at Vienna in 1683, it has not been actively pushed, since the umma has been dominated militarily by the West. Today the situation is reversing, with the Islamic world starting to dominate the West through terror, the oil weapon, da’wa (Islamic missionary activity), and demography. Islam as a global entity has started to feel in control of things; it has its weapons and soldiers, and is now returning to the "jihad-mode" which defined Islam from the 7th through 17th centuries. Christianity and Western civilization has been moving constantly away from violence; Islamic culture is moving backwards, and trying to revive its violent past. This is the great threat that the West faces today: not from jihadists per se, but from Islam as a whole, which is returning to its violent, orthodox teachings. My great fear is that the West in its present state, abhorring violence, will not be equipped to deal with an opponent which glorifies violence in the name of higher powers. In a fight between culture and barbarity, the barbarian will always win, since he does not hesitate to be ruthless. History has borne this out countless times.
However, the absolutely worst thing which can happen, is that Islamists keep pushing until the West finally pushes back. There has always been a violent streak to Western civilization; when it has felt threatened, it has reacted with everything from isolated assassinations to large-scale ethnic cleansing and genocide. Less than 20 years ago, we saw ethnic cleansing taking place in Europe, and 60 years ago, we saw a genocide being perpetrated on an industrial scale. If the West decides to push back against the Islamists, then that defence, no matter how justified in its intentions, risks devolving into attacks on civilian Muslims. The scenario of all-out religious war and ethnic cleansing within Europe’s borders might seem improbable, but is certainly not impossible. It is our duty as civilized people to make sure that this never happens. We fight in order to prevent an atavistic return to our violent past. In effect, we fight to protect civilian lives – Western as well as Muslim. Therein lies a possible bridge between the anti-Islamic movement and the Islamic world. We do have common interests, and we can only benefit from pursuing them. Only one thing is certain: if we do nothing at all, we will soon be facing a new dark age.
This concludes the interview with Reinhard.
Thank you very much, Reinhard, for taking so much time, and going to so much effort, to so comprehensively answer these questions and suggest directions for follow-up.
Please stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest for Yankee Doodle's comments on this theme.
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The Valhalla Exchange, Part IV
This post is the fourth of a multipart article where I interview a subject named "Reinhard". Reinhard is a member of FOMI - Svenska Forum Mot Islamisering (information in English; FOMI in English).
Questions are numbered and in italics, and Reinhard's responses are in plain text. Some of these questions refer to questions and answers found in the first, second and third parts of the interview; see also the administrative questions.
33. It has been suggested that the movement of Western culture away from Christianity and toward secularism has left a spiritual vacuum which Islam is ready to fill. Please notice that I refer to the movement of Western culture, and not of Western politics. The establishment of the First Amendment guarantee of separation of church and state was, for me, an American, a major step toward the movement of politics away from religion, but the politicians and the people they represented were still steeped in (Judeo-) Christian ethics, and the laws they passed, and the way those laws were interpreted and enforced, were very much within a context of accountability and duty to a Higher Authority. Now, however, there seems to be a growing sense of "anything goes" and "everybody does it", a hedonistic sense of moral relativism with little restraint. We buy on credit, we vote ourselves a government check, we tolerate scandals among our political elites... I have the impression that to the extent that this is true in different Western societies, such societies are ripe for takeover by anyone with a firm agenda, who is willing to say "this is right and that is wrong", especially by someone who puts things in a spiritual context. What are your thoughts on that? Is the West decadent? Is the West "ripe for the picking"? What about Sweden in particular?
First of all: hedonism is good for you! It is a sign of a healthy, free society. I define liberty as the ability to do whatever you want. Liberty is inherently amoral, and must be curtailed, since some people do want to hurt others. The question then becomes – which freedoms should we curtail and why? I believe that no individual should ever have the freedom to hurt anyone else. Other than that, everyone should be able to do exactly what they want, including hurting themselves. Not everyone can be expected to approve of for instance homosexuality, but a society where homosexuality is considered criminal, limits individual freedom in unacceptable ways. Someone having sex in an odd manner with a consenting, adult partner hurts no one. Sexual moralism, especially when promulgated by the state, is always unacceptable and can never be justified.
This line of reasoning is of course something that Islamic culture would never agree to. In Islam, an individual’s sexuality is seen as affecting the state, which is a ludicrous notion. The West’s "decadence" as portrayed by Muslims, is in effect the natural consequence of a society which respects individual liberty. Mankind is by nature pleasure-seeking and thus hedonistic. Attempts to control this will always fail. What Muslims abhor in the West, is our freedom; a cliché, perhaps, but one with dangerous implications when we realize that we will never see the majority of Muslim immigrants accepting such concepts of individual liberty as we take for granted in the West. This is yet another example of exactly why many Muslims will never be assimilated; they will refuse to assimilate, because to do so would entail accepting a way of life which is unacceptable from the perspective of their culture.
The sexual liberation we have seen in the West ties into the question of the West’s fading Christian identity. Sexual liberation goes hand in hand with a move away from religion. Individual liberty can only ever be truly guaranteed by a secular society. All religion is more or less repressive when it comes to sex. The alternative to a strong religious society might seem to be a confusing mess, but it is preferrable to the alternative. This apparent confusion (resulting in large part from the fact that people are generally not used to being free) and the lack of a well-defined Western religious identity (we seem to believe in a little bit of everything nowadays), is seen as both an insult and an invitation by devout Muslims. An insult because they see people in the West as living in ways contrary to Allah’s wishes; an invitation because they believe that they can fill the spiritual void.
I do believe that Western culture has become less Christian and gravitated towards secularism, but I do not see this as a problem, since I do not believe that religion is by definition a good thing. You are absolutely correct that the present state of confusion is something which many people do not appreciate. Since mankind seeks pleasure, we will always strive to end any such state of confusion. Doubt is unpleasant, lack of doubt is pleasant: thus, Islam gains recruits from converts to Islam who see in it a fixed system which removes all doubt. While I support secularism, I also realize that many people have a need to believe in religion. Secularism is of course never an alternative to religion. This void that has appeared has to be filled with a new ideology which centers on Western values and explains why those should be defended. This ideology does not yet exist, but we can observe that its seeds have taken root (I am mainly thinking of the opposition to the current multiculturalist ideology). On a more practical level, the anti-Islamic movement has to adopt a ”broad church” approach and include both atheists/agnostics and believers of all faiths (except Islam, of course). Atheistic crusaders have to realize that not all religions are equally bad; the Christian clergy has to stop cooperating with Islamic organizations in the name of ecumenism.
As for Sweden, I would like to give a few examples of behaviour that has to stop. The Brotherhood-movement, the Christian wing of the dominant Social Democratic party, has cooperated with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Social Democratic party has had close ties to the PLO since the 1980’s and systematically favour the Palestinian side in the Israel/Palestine-conflict. We Swedes, and not just the political elite, pride ourselves on our diversity and openness towards other cultures; that openness can often result in naiveté. We can be taken for a ride by Islamists skilled in the art of taqqiyah, since we do not even know what taqqiyah is. We assume that everyone is pretty much the same, wherever they come from, and are thus blind to the differences that do exist between cultures – to acknowledge these differences would be construed as racism. Since we avoid conflicts, we do our best to appease even those who actively seek out conflict. These traits of the Swedish "national psyche" contribute, along with secularism and the concept of individual liberties, to creating that "spiritual void" which Muslims believe exists (and perhaps it does, but I wouldn’t be surprised if religion makes a comeback in a big way). If this void does exist, then it is a good thing, and should be defended. A stronger sense of religious identity is not necessary to defend the West against the Islamic onslaught; however, we absolutely do need to clarify what we appreciate about Western culture and explain to ourselves why that culture is worth fighting for.
Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest for the conclusion of the interview with Reinhard, Part V of The Valhalla Exchange. Following that will be a post where I offer my thoughts on the theme.
Questions are numbered and in italics, and Reinhard's responses are in plain text. Some of these questions refer to questions and answers found in the first, second and third parts of the interview; see also the administrative questions.
33. It has been suggested that the movement of Western culture away from Christianity and toward secularism has left a spiritual vacuum which Islam is ready to fill. Please notice that I refer to the movement of Western culture, and not of Western politics. The establishment of the First Amendment guarantee of separation of church and state was, for me, an American, a major step toward the movement of politics away from religion, but the politicians and the people they represented were still steeped in (Judeo-) Christian ethics, and the laws they passed, and the way those laws were interpreted and enforced, were very much within a context of accountability and duty to a Higher Authority. Now, however, there seems to be a growing sense of "anything goes" and "everybody does it", a hedonistic sense of moral relativism with little restraint. We buy on credit, we vote ourselves a government check, we tolerate scandals among our political elites... I have the impression that to the extent that this is true in different Western societies, such societies are ripe for takeover by anyone with a firm agenda, who is willing to say "this is right and that is wrong", especially by someone who puts things in a spiritual context. What are your thoughts on that? Is the West decadent? Is the West "ripe for the picking"? What about Sweden in particular?
First of all: hedonism is good for you! It is a sign of a healthy, free society. I define liberty as the ability to do whatever you want. Liberty is inherently amoral, and must be curtailed, since some people do want to hurt others. The question then becomes – which freedoms should we curtail and why? I believe that no individual should ever have the freedom to hurt anyone else. Other than that, everyone should be able to do exactly what they want, including hurting themselves. Not everyone can be expected to approve of for instance homosexuality, but a society where homosexuality is considered criminal, limits individual freedom in unacceptable ways. Someone having sex in an odd manner with a consenting, adult partner hurts no one. Sexual moralism, especially when promulgated by the state, is always unacceptable and can never be justified.
This line of reasoning is of course something that Islamic culture would never agree to. In Islam, an individual’s sexuality is seen as affecting the state, which is a ludicrous notion. The West’s "decadence" as portrayed by Muslims, is in effect the natural consequence of a society which respects individual liberty. Mankind is by nature pleasure-seeking and thus hedonistic. Attempts to control this will always fail. What Muslims abhor in the West, is our freedom; a cliché, perhaps, but one with dangerous implications when we realize that we will never see the majority of Muslim immigrants accepting such concepts of individual liberty as we take for granted in the West. This is yet another example of exactly why many Muslims will never be assimilated; they will refuse to assimilate, because to do so would entail accepting a way of life which is unacceptable from the perspective of their culture.
The sexual liberation we have seen in the West ties into the question of the West’s fading Christian identity. Sexual liberation goes hand in hand with a move away from religion. Individual liberty can only ever be truly guaranteed by a secular society. All religion is more or less repressive when it comes to sex. The alternative to a strong religious society might seem to be a confusing mess, but it is preferrable to the alternative. This apparent confusion (resulting in large part from the fact that people are generally not used to being free) and the lack of a well-defined Western religious identity (we seem to believe in a little bit of everything nowadays), is seen as both an insult and an invitation by devout Muslims. An insult because they see people in the West as living in ways contrary to Allah’s wishes; an invitation because they believe that they can fill the spiritual void.
I do believe that Western culture has become less Christian and gravitated towards secularism, but I do not see this as a problem, since I do not believe that religion is by definition a good thing. You are absolutely correct that the present state of confusion is something which many people do not appreciate. Since mankind seeks pleasure, we will always strive to end any such state of confusion. Doubt is unpleasant, lack of doubt is pleasant: thus, Islam gains recruits from converts to Islam who see in it a fixed system which removes all doubt. While I support secularism, I also realize that many people have a need to believe in religion. Secularism is of course never an alternative to religion. This void that has appeared has to be filled with a new ideology which centers on Western values and explains why those should be defended. This ideology does not yet exist, but we can observe that its seeds have taken root (I am mainly thinking of the opposition to the current multiculturalist ideology). On a more practical level, the anti-Islamic movement has to adopt a ”broad church” approach and include both atheists/agnostics and believers of all faiths (except Islam, of course). Atheistic crusaders have to realize that not all religions are equally bad; the Christian clergy has to stop cooperating with Islamic organizations in the name of ecumenism.
As for Sweden, I would like to give a few examples of behaviour that has to stop. The Brotherhood-movement, the Christian wing of the dominant Social Democratic party, has cooperated with the Muslim Brotherhood. The Social Democratic party has had close ties to the PLO since the 1980’s and systematically favour the Palestinian side in the Israel/Palestine-conflict. We Swedes, and not just the political elite, pride ourselves on our diversity and openness towards other cultures; that openness can often result in naiveté. We can be taken for a ride by Islamists skilled in the art of taqqiyah, since we do not even know what taqqiyah is. We assume that everyone is pretty much the same, wherever they come from, and are thus blind to the differences that do exist between cultures – to acknowledge these differences would be construed as racism. Since we avoid conflicts, we do our best to appease even those who actively seek out conflict. These traits of the Swedish "national psyche" contribute, along with secularism and the concept of individual liberties, to creating that "spiritual void" which Muslims believe exists (and perhaps it does, but I wouldn’t be surprised if religion makes a comeback in a big way). If this void does exist, then it is a good thing, and should be defended. A stronger sense of religious identity is not necessary to defend the West against the Islamic onslaught; however, we absolutely do need to clarify what we appreciate about Western culture and explain to ourselves why that culture is worth fighting for.
Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest for the conclusion of the interview with Reinhard, Part V of The Valhalla Exchange. Following that will be a post where I offer my thoughts on the theme.
The Valhalla Exchange: Administrative Questions
During the email interview, I had solicited some feedback from Reinhard regarding how the interview was going. I considered those questions to be administrative in nature, and had not planned to include them in the posted interview.
However, at the behest of Reinhard, I am posting those now, to give the readers a more thorough picture of what transpired.
I did not want to go back and alter the parts that were already posted, so I include the questions here.
Reinhard is a member of FOMI - Svenska Forum Mot Islamisering (information in English; FOMI in English).
Questions are numbered and in italics, and Reinhard's responses are in plain text. See also the first, second and third parts of the interview.
21) Also, please give me feedback regarding the questions I am asking. :)
Good questions, but I’m waiting for the specific questions about Islam, that’s where I really shine! Oh, and you should get in touch with the Center for Vigilant Freedom, if you haven’t done so already.
32) Please add any other comments you would like to make, but haven't already.
Pertinent questions regarding Western self-hatred and the alliance between Islamists and the left would be welcome.
However, at the behest of Reinhard, I am posting those now, to give the readers a more thorough picture of what transpired.
I did not want to go back and alter the parts that were already posted, so I include the questions here.
Reinhard is a member of FOMI - Svenska Forum Mot Islamisering (information in English; FOMI in English).
Questions are numbered and in italics, and Reinhard's responses are in plain text. See also the first, second and third parts of the interview.
21) Also, please give me feedback regarding the questions I am asking. :)
Good questions, but I’m waiting for the specific questions about Islam, that’s where I really shine! Oh, and you should get in touch with the Center for Vigilant Freedom, if you haven’t done so already.
32) Please add any other comments you would like to make, but haven't already.
Pertinent questions regarding Western self-hatred and the alliance between Islamists and the left would be welcome.
The Valhalla Exchange, Part III
This post is the third of a multipart article where I interview a subject named "Reinhard". Reinhard is a member of FOMI - Svenska Forum Mot Islamisering (information in English; FOMI in English).
Questions are numbered and in italics, and Reinhard's responses are in plain text. Some of these questions refer to questions and answers found in the first or second parts of the interview.
21) (This question was administrative.)
22) Please categorize yourself regarding religion. Are you Christian, Muslim, agnostic, atheist, or something else (please specify)?
Agnostic.
23) Please describe how you have learned about Islam. Have you interacted with Muslims? Have you observed Muslims in your community or elsewhere? Are there many Muslims in the area where you live? From where? Have you read the Koran and other Islamic texts? What books or other printed media have you read about Islam, and what websites have you visited (a long, comprehensive list is not necessary, but I am trying to get a flavor for how much information you may have, and from where)? Please add any comments that may be appropriate.
My interest in Islam came about as a direct result of the Muhammed cartoon crisis. Although it mainly affected Denmark, Swedes have a strong connection to both Denmark, Norway and Finland, and what happens in one of these countries, often has an effect on the others. I was also outraged by people in Sweden who argued along the lines of ”Freedom is speech is good, but…” I felt that my liberties were being attacked from without and within, and that I had to do something.
I have mainly learned about Islam through books. I have met very few Muslims, and there are not many Muslims where I live; like I said, Sweden is a highly segregated society. Most Muslims in Sweden are from the Balkans, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and Somalia.
I have read the Qur’an several times, along with Ibn Kathir’s tafsir, the main hadith collections (sahih sittah), and the sira of Ibn Ishaq in their entirety. I am currently studying Islamic jurisprudence, and have read a large number of academic studies of and articles about Islam. Apart from Islamic scripture, I read polemical texts such as those of Robert Spencer et al., and more traditional (Western) scholarship on Islam. I read Jihadwatch regularly, and occasionally read the websites of Daniel Pipes and others when they publish items of interest to me. Other than that, I scan newspapers for events concerning Islam.
My approach to criticizing Islam is that I basically have to know more than most Muslims about their religion. I study Islam as it is defined by Muslims themselves; not only do I read their scripture, but also their interpretations of said scripture. This ensures that I always have the context covered while studying and debating Islam. That being said, I see it as my main priority to summarize the texts I’ve read so that others won’t have to. I see myself primarily as a producer of arguments.
24) What are your observations regarding Islam as a religion? In your view and based on your information, is Islam, as is so often claimed, a "Religion of Peace"? Why or why not?
First of all, one must differentiate between Islam as a religion and what Muslims believe in. My main ”beef” is with Islam, not with all Muslims. Many Muslims do not believe in the doctrine of jihad, but that does not change the fact that jihad is prescribed by Islam. Jihad as a doctrine of invasion and subjugation (dhimmitude) has always been espoused by orthodox Islam, ever since it was first formulated by Muhammed. This becomes painfully obvious when one studies Islamic scripture. This doctrine and many other aspects of Islam show that Islam has never been only a religion; it has always been a religion and a political ideology. This makes it doubly dangerous, since the political decisions it encourages Muslims to make, are thought to come from Allah himself. Since jihad, dhimmitude, and the sharia are divinely ordained, and can only be considered as violent and intolerant, this leads me to conclude that Islam has never been a religion of peace, but rather a religion of war, to a much higher degree than any other religion – since jihad has no counterpart amongst other religions.
25) Would you consider Islam a political agenda? Why or why not?
Muhammed ordained that Islamic hegemony over the entire world should be established by warfare. Muhammed was both a religious leader and a statesman; the latter part of his career was by definition political, and that tradition was continued by the caliphs, who were both political and religious leaders, in that they also instigated jihad to conquer non-Islamic countries. This is the most flagrant example of how Islam has never made a distinction between religion and politics. Indeed, it is clear that Muhammed conceived of Islam as a belief system which included every aspect of human life, including politics. Any secular Muslim state will therefore be un-Islamic. This has unfortunately lead Muslims to believe that secularism is outlawed by their religion, which of course makes it difficult for Muslim immigrants to the West to accept the secular (and non-Islamic) system of Western countries.
26) Do you agree with the statement that Islamic culture is from one religion but from more than one country, while ethnic Swedish culture is from one country, but may be from more than one religion? Why or why not?
I agree with the first but not the second part of this statement. All Muslim countries have had their culture influenced by Islam, since it is an ideology which seeks to dominate. However, regional and national variations naturally occur, and I am not sure how much, say, a Tunisian would have in common with a Saudi. Swedish culture is influenced by our Catholic and Protestant Christian background. No other religion has ever had any serious impact on Swedish culture. During the last century or so, secularism has become an integrated part of Swedish culture, and Sweden can today be considered a secular Western state with its ethical roots in our Christian background.
27) I am going to use the terms Islamic culture and Swedish culture. If you haven't already done so, and feel it is appropriate, please give me your definitions for these terms which I have introduced. How are Islamic culture and Swedish culture alike? How are they different? If the Islamic culture that you have observed is from different countries or from different schools of Islam, please note any regional or other differences in its attributes. Also, please note any distinctions in Swedish culture caused by regional or religious variations. (You may wish to read the remaining questions before you answer this one, as some of your answers will more appropriately be associated with them.)
I see Islamic culture as a culture which insists on living in accordance with the tenets of Islam. It is a highly religious, aggressive and patriarchal culture, with no tradition of secularism and liberal democracy, and which quashes dissent, abhors difference, and focuses on the collective (the family and the umma) rather than the individual. Swedish culture prizes secularism while respecting all faiths, seeks compromise instead of conflict, focuses on the responsibilities and rights of the individual, and sees all human beings as equal. Islamic culture is monolithic, whereas Swedish is pluralistic; in this, we are no different than most Western countries, and I indeed feel a strong connection to the greater whole of Western civilization, which has given me those individual freedoms which I take for granted and which could never exist in an Islamic society.
Since few or none of the values I appreciate in Western civilization are to be found in Islam, I have come to realize that Western culture in general, of which Swedish culture is a part, has very few similarities to Islamic culture. This leads me to conclude that the presence of Muslims in Western countries can only lead to problems. All Islamic cultures, regardless of regional differences, are still influenced by Islam, which is in itself anathema to Western civilization; our cultures and values are simply too different for us to co-exist peacefully. This can be observed by examining which areas of Sweden are most disparaging or welcoming towards immigrants and Islam. There is no strong anti-Islamic movement in Gothenburg, which has always been a socialist city; the opposite goes for Skane, our southernmost region, which has always been more politically independent, with a stronger connection to the continent. Of course, the sheer number of Muslim immigrants in Skane (they tend to settle in Malmo, which has been described as a lost city) also helps explain this opposition, and the ensuing success of SD in this region.
28) Compare and contrast the concept of "Women's Rights" in Islamic culture and in Swedish culture.
If a Swedish male wanted to marry a nine year old, take three other wives as well, and then force them all to wear the hijab, he would be tarred and feathered and run out of town. Swedish culture considers women to be the equal of men in every respect; those who disagree are considered pariahs. In Sweden we generally allow women to express their sexuality freely, and scoff at anyone who proposes that women should refrain from dressing and acting however they want. We regard it as an inalienable right to explore and take control of one’s sexuality. Gay rights are likewise respected, and homophobes are denounced.
The situation could not be more different in Islamic culture. My opinion is that Islamic culture views women as dangerous, unpredictable creatures who must be dominated by men, lest they wreak havoc on the fabric of society. Sexuality is regulated: sex is unlawful unless one is married, and even then, there are certain things which Allah doesn’t want you to do (such as anal sex, which is haram; interestingly enough, marriage with children, which is apparently not a sin at all, is permitted). The honour of any male resides to a large degree in the behaviour of the women of his family. A licentious daughter or sister is a disgrace to the male, who has to blot out that affront to his honour. Add to this less violent forms of misogyny such as the sharia stating that women only inherit half of what their brothers receive, that a man can divorce a woman by stating ”Talaq” three times, that a woman who gets a divorce and then wants to return to her ex-husband first has to sleep with another man – and why not include the sayings of Muhammed himself, who stated that women are deficient in their religion and that most of the inhabitants of Hell are women – then it becomes plain to see that Islamic culture and Swedish/Western culture have nothing in common whatsoever when it comes to women’s rights – mainly because women quite simply have no rights in Islam.
29) Compare and contrast the concept of "Religious Freedom" in Islamic culture and in Swedish culture.
Islam considers apostasy to be a capital offence, which I of course find wildly offensive. Religion is somewhat of a non-issue in Sweden, whereas in Islam, it is of paramount importance. Islam is considered by Muslims to have abrogated every other religion; all other religions are false. The Qur’an exhorts to war against polytheists and monotheists. Islam can simply not accept the existence of other religions. This attitude influences the view on religious freedom. Such a concept is an impossibility within Islam. Again, Islamic and Swedish culture are worlds apart.
30) Compare and contrast the concept of "work ethic" in Islamic culture and in Swedish culture.
The general work ethic in Sweden is inherited from our Protestant background. Stores are open every day of the week. We strive to find jobs which are satisfying in and of themselves; I believe that few people in Sweden are prepared to work solely for the money. At the same time, we make sure that no one has to starve, regardless of how able or willing they are to work. Islamic culture seems to not have as strong a work ethic as Swedish culture. While I am loathe to generalize, I have the distinct impression that many (but certainly not all) Muslim immigrants are perfectly happy to live on welfare without even trying to find a job. This leads to a large segment of the population costing the state a lot of money and giving nothing in return. The lack of a strong work ethic within Islamic culture can further be observed by studying Muslim states around the world; when it comes to for instance technology, they import everything and export nothing. I have yet to find any Islamic scripture which tries to impart a work ethic to Muslims; perhaps because Islam, as formulated by Muhammed, originally subsisted on war booty?
31) Compare and contrast the role of violence in Swedish culture and in Islamic culture. Specifically, what historical roots does violence have in Sweden? Please consider group violence (such as war), individual violence (such as schoolyard fighting or domestic abuse), and anything in between (street gangs, for example). How does that compare and contrast with modern Sweden? Then, please compare and contrast with the role of violence in historical Islam, as you understand it, and in modern Islam, especially as you understand it within Sweden.
Sweden engaged in imperialism during the 16th and 17th centuries. Our power then waned during the 18th century. We have not partaken in any wars since the early 19th century. We thus have a roughly 200 year old tradition of remaining neutral and avoiding conflict. We have not had any civil wars since the middle ages. Swedes on an individual basis are likewise prone to backing down rather than asserting themselves in potentially violent situations. Modern Sweden conforms to its history of non-assertiveness and its belief that all conflicts can be solved through discussion, which leads to difficulties when we are confronted by immigrants from more assertive and aggressive cultures.
Islam has always seen violence as something which is good and pleasing to Allah as long as it helps the spread of Islam. Violence is in itself never condemned by Islamic scripture; on the contrary, it is glorified when it relates to jihad. This breeds into the culture of Muslim nations. Islam inculcates hatred of non-Muslims, and it is my belief that many Muslim immigrants to Sweden bring with them this culture of hate and violence and refuse to get rid of it while living here. Muslims are victims of Islam, and now we are the victims of Muslim violence. The source of the problem is with Islam. What we are seeing on a global scale today, is the return of Muslims to the Islam of their forefathers; jihadists today are no different from the jihadists of the middle ages. The traditional Islam has reawakened, and is acting as it always has, demanding submission and inciting to violence. The only way to defeat the global jihad is to reform Islam. Islam is not the solution; it is the problem.
32) (This question was administrative.)
Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest for further questions and some final comments on The Valhalla Exchange.
Questions are numbered and in italics, and Reinhard's responses are in plain text. Some of these questions refer to questions and answers found in the first or second parts of the interview.
21) (This question was administrative.)
22) Please categorize yourself regarding religion. Are you Christian, Muslim, agnostic, atheist, or something else (please specify)?
Agnostic.
23) Please describe how you have learned about Islam. Have you interacted with Muslims? Have you observed Muslims in your community or elsewhere? Are there many Muslims in the area where you live? From where? Have you read the Koran and other Islamic texts? What books or other printed media have you read about Islam, and what websites have you visited (a long, comprehensive list is not necessary, but I am trying to get a flavor for how much information you may have, and from where)? Please add any comments that may be appropriate.
My interest in Islam came about as a direct result of the Muhammed cartoon crisis. Although it mainly affected Denmark, Swedes have a strong connection to both Denmark, Norway and Finland, and what happens in one of these countries, often has an effect on the others. I was also outraged by people in Sweden who argued along the lines of ”Freedom is speech is good, but…” I felt that my liberties were being attacked from without and within, and that I had to do something.
I have mainly learned about Islam through books. I have met very few Muslims, and there are not many Muslims where I live; like I said, Sweden is a highly segregated society. Most Muslims in Sweden are from the Balkans, Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and Somalia.
I have read the Qur’an several times, along with Ibn Kathir’s tafsir, the main hadith collections (sahih sittah), and the sira of Ibn Ishaq in their entirety. I am currently studying Islamic jurisprudence, and have read a large number of academic studies of and articles about Islam. Apart from Islamic scripture, I read polemical texts such as those of Robert Spencer et al., and more traditional (Western) scholarship on Islam. I read Jihadwatch regularly, and occasionally read the websites of Daniel Pipes and others when they publish items of interest to me. Other than that, I scan newspapers for events concerning Islam.
My approach to criticizing Islam is that I basically have to know more than most Muslims about their religion. I study Islam as it is defined by Muslims themselves; not only do I read their scripture, but also their interpretations of said scripture. This ensures that I always have the context covered while studying and debating Islam. That being said, I see it as my main priority to summarize the texts I’ve read so that others won’t have to. I see myself primarily as a producer of arguments.
24) What are your observations regarding Islam as a religion? In your view and based on your information, is Islam, as is so often claimed, a "Religion of Peace"? Why or why not?
First of all, one must differentiate between Islam as a religion and what Muslims believe in. My main ”beef” is with Islam, not with all Muslims. Many Muslims do not believe in the doctrine of jihad, but that does not change the fact that jihad is prescribed by Islam. Jihad as a doctrine of invasion and subjugation (dhimmitude) has always been espoused by orthodox Islam, ever since it was first formulated by Muhammed. This becomes painfully obvious when one studies Islamic scripture. This doctrine and many other aspects of Islam show that Islam has never been only a religion; it has always been a religion and a political ideology. This makes it doubly dangerous, since the political decisions it encourages Muslims to make, are thought to come from Allah himself. Since jihad, dhimmitude, and the sharia are divinely ordained, and can only be considered as violent and intolerant, this leads me to conclude that Islam has never been a religion of peace, but rather a religion of war, to a much higher degree than any other religion – since jihad has no counterpart amongst other religions.
25) Would you consider Islam a political agenda? Why or why not?
Muhammed ordained that Islamic hegemony over the entire world should be established by warfare. Muhammed was both a religious leader and a statesman; the latter part of his career was by definition political, and that tradition was continued by the caliphs, who were both political and religious leaders, in that they also instigated jihad to conquer non-Islamic countries. This is the most flagrant example of how Islam has never made a distinction between religion and politics. Indeed, it is clear that Muhammed conceived of Islam as a belief system which included every aspect of human life, including politics. Any secular Muslim state will therefore be un-Islamic. This has unfortunately lead Muslims to believe that secularism is outlawed by their religion, which of course makes it difficult for Muslim immigrants to the West to accept the secular (and non-Islamic) system of Western countries.
26) Do you agree with the statement that Islamic culture is from one religion but from more than one country, while ethnic Swedish culture is from one country, but may be from more than one religion? Why or why not?
I agree with the first but not the second part of this statement. All Muslim countries have had their culture influenced by Islam, since it is an ideology which seeks to dominate. However, regional and national variations naturally occur, and I am not sure how much, say, a Tunisian would have in common with a Saudi. Swedish culture is influenced by our Catholic and Protestant Christian background. No other religion has ever had any serious impact on Swedish culture. During the last century or so, secularism has become an integrated part of Swedish culture, and Sweden can today be considered a secular Western state with its ethical roots in our Christian background.
27) I am going to use the terms Islamic culture and Swedish culture. If you haven't already done so, and feel it is appropriate, please give me your definitions for these terms which I have introduced. How are Islamic culture and Swedish culture alike? How are they different? If the Islamic culture that you have observed is from different countries or from different schools of Islam, please note any regional or other differences in its attributes. Also, please note any distinctions in Swedish culture caused by regional or religious variations. (You may wish to read the remaining questions before you answer this one, as some of your answers will more appropriately be associated with them.)
I see Islamic culture as a culture which insists on living in accordance with the tenets of Islam. It is a highly religious, aggressive and patriarchal culture, with no tradition of secularism and liberal democracy, and which quashes dissent, abhors difference, and focuses on the collective (the family and the umma) rather than the individual. Swedish culture prizes secularism while respecting all faiths, seeks compromise instead of conflict, focuses on the responsibilities and rights of the individual, and sees all human beings as equal. Islamic culture is monolithic, whereas Swedish is pluralistic; in this, we are no different than most Western countries, and I indeed feel a strong connection to the greater whole of Western civilization, which has given me those individual freedoms which I take for granted and which could never exist in an Islamic society.
Since few or none of the values I appreciate in Western civilization are to be found in Islam, I have come to realize that Western culture in general, of which Swedish culture is a part, has very few similarities to Islamic culture. This leads me to conclude that the presence of Muslims in Western countries can only lead to problems. All Islamic cultures, regardless of regional differences, are still influenced by Islam, which is in itself anathema to Western civilization; our cultures and values are simply too different for us to co-exist peacefully. This can be observed by examining which areas of Sweden are most disparaging or welcoming towards immigrants and Islam. There is no strong anti-Islamic movement in Gothenburg, which has always been a socialist city; the opposite goes for Skane, our southernmost region, which has always been more politically independent, with a stronger connection to the continent. Of course, the sheer number of Muslim immigrants in Skane (they tend to settle in Malmo, which has been described as a lost city) also helps explain this opposition, and the ensuing success of SD in this region.
28) Compare and contrast the concept of "Women's Rights" in Islamic culture and in Swedish culture.
If a Swedish male wanted to marry a nine year old, take three other wives as well, and then force them all to wear the hijab, he would be tarred and feathered and run out of town. Swedish culture considers women to be the equal of men in every respect; those who disagree are considered pariahs. In Sweden we generally allow women to express their sexuality freely, and scoff at anyone who proposes that women should refrain from dressing and acting however they want. We regard it as an inalienable right to explore and take control of one’s sexuality. Gay rights are likewise respected, and homophobes are denounced.
The situation could not be more different in Islamic culture. My opinion is that Islamic culture views women as dangerous, unpredictable creatures who must be dominated by men, lest they wreak havoc on the fabric of society. Sexuality is regulated: sex is unlawful unless one is married, and even then, there are certain things which Allah doesn’t want you to do (such as anal sex, which is haram; interestingly enough, marriage with children, which is apparently not a sin at all, is permitted). The honour of any male resides to a large degree in the behaviour of the women of his family. A licentious daughter or sister is a disgrace to the male, who has to blot out that affront to his honour. Add to this less violent forms of misogyny such as the sharia stating that women only inherit half of what their brothers receive, that a man can divorce a woman by stating ”Talaq” three times, that a woman who gets a divorce and then wants to return to her ex-husband first has to sleep with another man – and why not include the sayings of Muhammed himself, who stated that women are deficient in their religion and that most of the inhabitants of Hell are women – then it becomes plain to see that Islamic culture and Swedish/Western culture have nothing in common whatsoever when it comes to women’s rights – mainly because women quite simply have no rights in Islam.
29) Compare and contrast the concept of "Religious Freedom" in Islamic culture and in Swedish culture.
Islam considers apostasy to be a capital offence, which I of course find wildly offensive. Religion is somewhat of a non-issue in Sweden, whereas in Islam, it is of paramount importance. Islam is considered by Muslims to have abrogated every other religion; all other religions are false. The Qur’an exhorts to war against polytheists and monotheists. Islam can simply not accept the existence of other religions. This attitude influences the view on religious freedom. Such a concept is an impossibility within Islam. Again, Islamic and Swedish culture are worlds apart.
30) Compare and contrast the concept of "work ethic" in Islamic culture and in Swedish culture.
The general work ethic in Sweden is inherited from our Protestant background. Stores are open every day of the week. We strive to find jobs which are satisfying in and of themselves; I believe that few people in Sweden are prepared to work solely for the money. At the same time, we make sure that no one has to starve, regardless of how able or willing they are to work. Islamic culture seems to not have as strong a work ethic as Swedish culture. While I am loathe to generalize, I have the distinct impression that many (but certainly not all) Muslim immigrants are perfectly happy to live on welfare without even trying to find a job. This leads to a large segment of the population costing the state a lot of money and giving nothing in return. The lack of a strong work ethic within Islamic culture can further be observed by studying Muslim states around the world; when it comes to for instance technology, they import everything and export nothing. I have yet to find any Islamic scripture which tries to impart a work ethic to Muslims; perhaps because Islam, as formulated by Muhammed, originally subsisted on war booty?
31) Compare and contrast the role of violence in Swedish culture and in Islamic culture. Specifically, what historical roots does violence have in Sweden? Please consider group violence (such as war), individual violence (such as schoolyard fighting or domestic abuse), and anything in between (street gangs, for example). How does that compare and contrast with modern Sweden? Then, please compare and contrast with the role of violence in historical Islam, as you understand it, and in modern Islam, especially as you understand it within Sweden.
Sweden engaged in imperialism during the 16th and 17th centuries. Our power then waned during the 18th century. We have not partaken in any wars since the early 19th century. We thus have a roughly 200 year old tradition of remaining neutral and avoiding conflict. We have not had any civil wars since the middle ages. Swedes on an individual basis are likewise prone to backing down rather than asserting themselves in potentially violent situations. Modern Sweden conforms to its history of non-assertiveness and its belief that all conflicts can be solved through discussion, which leads to difficulties when we are confronted by immigrants from more assertive and aggressive cultures.
Islam has always seen violence as something which is good and pleasing to Allah as long as it helps the spread of Islam. Violence is in itself never condemned by Islamic scripture; on the contrary, it is glorified when it relates to jihad. This breeds into the culture of Muslim nations. Islam inculcates hatred of non-Muslims, and it is my belief that many Muslim immigrants to Sweden bring with them this culture of hate and violence and refuse to get rid of it while living here. Muslims are victims of Islam, and now we are the victims of Muslim violence. The source of the problem is with Islam. What we are seeing on a global scale today, is the return of Muslims to the Islam of their forefathers; jihadists today are no different from the jihadists of the middle ages. The traditional Islam has reawakened, and is acting as it always has, demanding submission and inciting to violence. The only way to defeat the global jihad is to reform Islam. Islam is not the solution; it is the problem.
32) (This question was administrative.)
Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest for further questions and some final comments on The Valhalla Exchange.
Monday, September 3, 2007
The Valhalla Exchange, Part II
This post is the second of a multipart article where I interview a subject named "Reinhard". Reinhard is a member of FOMI - Svenska Forum Mot Islamisering (information in English; FOMI in English).
Questions are numbered and in italics, and Reinhard's responses are in plain text. Some of these questions refer to questions and answers found in the first part of the interview.
14) Regarding your answer to Question 5, is it fair to say then that you, personally, make a distinction between a) Jews and Jewish beliefs on the one hand, and b) Israelis and Israeli politics on the other? Is it accurate to further say that the government does not share in making this distinction? Finally, what are your impressions about other Swedes -- do they make a disctinction between "Jewish" and "Israeli"?
I make a distinction between Jews in general, Judaism as a religion, and Israel as a state whose policies do not necessarily have anything to do with either of the first two factors. The problem is that certain segments of the Swedish population, including some left-wing politicians, as well as many Muslims and neo-Nazis, do not clearly make such distinctions. Criticism of Israel bleeds into anti-semitism, and little is done on the part of police and the government to hinder this. The general populace makes the distinction at least in theory; those who are anti-semites, do not state this, since it is not politically correct to harbour such thoughts.
15) Regarding Questions 4-6, is it accurate to say then that the government and Swedish society in general are very permissive of free speech regarding Judaism and Israel, going so far as to tolerate inciteful speech, but are very sensitive concerning what is said about Islam and the Islamic world? Please elaborate.
The main problem concerning Israel is that it is perfectly acceptable in Sweden to view Israel as an apartheid state which is engaging in ethnic cleansing and genocide. Basically anything can be said about Israel, except for pure anti-semitism. Criticism of Jews and Judaism as such is seldom expressed, since that would be seen as touching on anti-semitism. Hateful speech against Jews and Judaism is taboo, but these prohibitions are rarely enforced when Israel as a state enters into the equation. The situation concerning Islam and the Islamic world is very much different. Criticism of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic states is often seen as Islamophobic hate-speech. Even criticism of Islamic theology (jihad, sharia etc.) can be seen as hate-speech directed against Muslims. Muslims are so to speak even more protected than Jews by political correctness and laws about hate-speech. Muslims are fast becoming a group which it is impossible to criticize, which is a direct result of their conscious efforts to portray themselves collectively as victims.
16) Also regarding Questions 4-6, is it accurate to say that Christians who expound beliefs that are very much in contrast with what is accepted in Swedish culture are condemned, while Muslims who expound beliefs that are very much in contrast with what is accepted in Swedish culture are tolerated? In other words, there is tolerance for Islamic extremism, but not for Christian extremism? Why? Can you give any examples?
This is correct. We tolerate from Muslims what we do not tolerate from anyone else, since Muslims are ”protected”. Christians are the mainstream, and the mainstream is never a minority; all minorities, however, are seen by the rules of political correctness as victims who need protection. One example is when a famous (but often ridiculed) evangelical preacher, Runar Sogaard, called Muhammed a pedophile. There was general outrage against this, including from a Kurdish Muslim journalist, Kurdo Baksi, who defended Muhammed by saying that he wasn’t a pedophile, since pedophilia according to Baksi is limited to buying sex from children. In essence, Baksi said that Muhammed wasn’t a pedophile since he was married to the child he had sex with. If someone like Runar had made this argument in public, he would have been severely criticized. However, no one reacted against Baksi’s argument.
17) Following up on Question 8, would this mean that the government guarantees the freedoms of its citizens, but does not necessary act to protect their rights? Please explain your answer and give any examples you can think of.
A guarantee is worth nothing if it is not enforced. During the past few months several attacks have been made against politicians active in the Swedish Democratic party. Members of the extreme left anti-fascist group AFA for instance attacked a meeting held by SD:s members. The editor of SD:s party magazine was hospitalized. No one has been charged with this attack. SD works within the democratic system, and are often attacked by leftist agitators who work outside of this system and commit political violence. The government has done very little to stop this recent trend. Slightly less serious is the ruling system of political correctness, which can effectively end the career of anyone who speaks out against multiculturalism. Nothing whatsoever has been done by the government to combat this system of virulent censorship and self-censorship.
18) In Question 10, you mention women's rights. Can you define what is understood to be women's rights? Why are women's rights an issue?
Women’s rights are mostly defined as a woman’s right to equal terms and pay as men on the job market, and an underlying conviction that women are in every way worth as much as men. There has also been an increase in questions regarding honour killings during the past few years, mainly because of highly publicized cases of honour killings among immigrant families. Many feminists are loathe to stand up against oppression of women when it is caused by immigrants, since that could be seen as racism. Again, this could be caused by the view of immigrants as protected from criticism. If I were to point out in public that female genital mutilation has strong support in Islamic jurisprudence, I would be labeled as an Islamophobic racist and be shunned by polite society.
19) Also in Question 10, you mention immigration as a big issue for those in power. Later in Question 12, you mention that most Swedes feel too many immigrants have been welcomed into Swedish society. Do you feel then that immigrants have been welcomed faster than they can assimilate, and that this is a source of problems? What served to start the policy to welcome so many immigrants? Why does the government continue the policy of welcoming so many immigrants, if so many Swedes are against the policy? I have the impression that some situation caused the government to suddenly bring in many immigrants, but that this influx caused problems, and that the government and other of society's "elites" are now in a state of denial and cover-up regarding the problems they have caused. Is this accurate?
It is my opinion that the problems caused by immigration can be subdivided into three factors: we have welcomed too many immigrants; we have been unable to integrate those we have welcomed; and we have accepted immigrants from cultures which are radically different than our own (I am specifically thinking of Muslims), without asking ourselves if this could pose any difficulties. The first part has to do with economics and society: immigration is expensive, and can cause friction between immigrants and ethnic Swedes and resistance on the part of the latter. The economic difficulties can be overcome, but the shift in attitude is harder to come to terms with, since it often brought on by real or imagined differences in culture. I believe that everyone has the right to question immigration, and I will never call someone a racist simply because he or she prefers to live among members of his/her own culture (but all ideas about immigrants somehow being in any way worse people than ethnic Swedes I totally reject). I would prefer allowing people to dislike immigration, if the alternative is a society where "wrong thoughts" are punished.
That said, the resistance against immigration is a relatively recent phenomenon. Large-scale immigration to Sweden was unheard of until we welcomed many Italian immigrants during the 60’s, to remedy a shortage in the work force. Germany had the same problem and welcomed Turks; the difference being that we welcomed members of a culture not far removed from our own. It was only during the 1990’s that we accepted large numbers of Muslim immigrants, following the Balkan war. We have since welcomed Iraqis, Somalis and members of other Muslim nations who have fled from conflicts and poverty. This influx is recent and began when multiculturalism was already an established ideology. That being said, there has never been any referendum on whether or not we should accept any immigrants at all; politicans during the 60’s simply decided for immigration, and no one in power has ever challenged the multiculturalist ideology which followed. To question this ideology is seen as racist, and therefore it continues, despite its having lost much popular support. Your analysis is also correct in this regard: today’s Swedes are suffering from the consequences of a choice made by the political elite of the previous generation. There is a strong opposition towards immigration today, which also explains the successes of SD.
I should also add that no real effort has ever been made to integrate the immigrants we have accepted. We have tended to allow them to settle in ethnic enclaves in low-cost suburbs outside our major cities. I believe that ethnic enclaves always cause problems, but when those enclaves are inhabited by Muslims, the problems increase manifold. (The unofficial European capital of Syrian Christians is in Sodertalje, south of Stockholm; this enclave causes much less problems than Rosengard, the largest Muslim enclave, in Malmo.) It is seen as racist to demand that immigrants accept Swedish values and traditions; instead we allow them to retain their connection to their previous countries to a high degree. Since we see them as victims who have to be helped by us, we refuse to demand anything from them. Combined with the Swedish welfare state, which ensures that anyone can receive enough money to live on, regardless of whether or not they even try to get a job, this encourages a lack of integration. We basically tell immigrants that they do not need to conform to how things are done in Sweden, and then give them money with no expectation of them doing anything in return. This failure of the integration policy – the failure in effect being that there exists no real integration policy – has created an untenable situation which only SD will discuss in public (and therefore they are of course labeled racists).
20) Some more pointed questions now... You mention in Question 13 a shift in public debate regarding Islam and Muslims in Sweden. Do you feel Sweden (as a nation-state with a culturally identifiable people) is dying? If so, is the presence and continued influx of unassimilated immigrants a symptom of this, or is it the disease? Why? You also state: "This shift does not bode well for the future." Do you feel Sweden is on the brink of civil unrest? Is Sweden headed for civil war?
I do not think that Swedes or Sweden are in danger of being eradicated anytime soon, but there is a strong sense that we have to be ashamed of our cultural heritage. We are so afraid of being called racists that we refuse to take pride in our heritage and display that pride in public. Swedes are told that we have no culture (even by our politicans), and that to insist that we do is racist. Immigrants, on the other hand, naturally have an identifiable culture; to say otherwise would be considered racist. This is of course untenable.
I believe that we have to restrict the influx of immigrants, regardless of origin, in order to give those we have already welcomed a chance to be assimilated. Muslim immigration is in part a separate question; I welcome immigrants from all cultures (in manageable numbers), but am totally opposed to all further Muslim immigration, since I believe that an unreformed Islam has no place whatsoever in the West. Continued Muslim immigration, violence perpetrated by jihadists, and the demands put forth by ordinary Muslims as well as Islamists to limit freedom of speech and impose sharia, are dangerous factors which are already causing considerable civil unrest. I don’t believe that Sweden is headed for civil war, since we do not have nearly the same amount of ordinary or radical Muslims as countries like France and the Netherlands. But it is entirely possible that the situation will deteriorate and approach that of those countries, if nothing is done about the rise of Islamism and jihadism. I believe that Western civilization is headed towards civil war, but I believe that Sweden (a country which is generally loathe to partake in armed conflict) will try to stay out of such a war as far as possible.
There will be further information on The Valhalla Exchange -- stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest!
Questions are numbered and in italics, and Reinhard's responses are in plain text. Some of these questions refer to questions and answers found in the first part of the interview.
14) Regarding your answer to Question 5, is it fair to say then that you, personally, make a distinction between a) Jews and Jewish beliefs on the one hand, and b) Israelis and Israeli politics on the other? Is it accurate to further say that the government does not share in making this distinction? Finally, what are your impressions about other Swedes -- do they make a disctinction between "Jewish" and "Israeli"?
I make a distinction between Jews in general, Judaism as a religion, and Israel as a state whose policies do not necessarily have anything to do with either of the first two factors. The problem is that certain segments of the Swedish population, including some left-wing politicians, as well as many Muslims and neo-Nazis, do not clearly make such distinctions. Criticism of Israel bleeds into anti-semitism, and little is done on the part of police and the government to hinder this. The general populace makes the distinction at least in theory; those who are anti-semites, do not state this, since it is not politically correct to harbour such thoughts.
15) Regarding Questions 4-6, is it accurate to say then that the government and Swedish society in general are very permissive of free speech regarding Judaism and Israel, going so far as to tolerate inciteful speech, but are very sensitive concerning what is said about Islam and the Islamic world? Please elaborate.
The main problem concerning Israel is that it is perfectly acceptable in Sweden to view Israel as an apartheid state which is engaging in ethnic cleansing and genocide. Basically anything can be said about Israel, except for pure anti-semitism. Criticism of Jews and Judaism as such is seldom expressed, since that would be seen as touching on anti-semitism. Hateful speech against Jews and Judaism is taboo, but these prohibitions are rarely enforced when Israel as a state enters into the equation. The situation concerning Islam and the Islamic world is very much different. Criticism of Islam, Muslims, or Islamic states is often seen as Islamophobic hate-speech. Even criticism of Islamic theology (jihad, sharia etc.) can be seen as hate-speech directed against Muslims. Muslims are so to speak even more protected than Jews by political correctness and laws about hate-speech. Muslims are fast becoming a group which it is impossible to criticize, which is a direct result of their conscious efforts to portray themselves collectively as victims.
16) Also regarding Questions 4-6, is it accurate to say that Christians who expound beliefs that are very much in contrast with what is accepted in Swedish culture are condemned, while Muslims who expound beliefs that are very much in contrast with what is accepted in Swedish culture are tolerated? In other words, there is tolerance for Islamic extremism, but not for Christian extremism? Why? Can you give any examples?
This is correct. We tolerate from Muslims what we do not tolerate from anyone else, since Muslims are ”protected”. Christians are the mainstream, and the mainstream is never a minority; all minorities, however, are seen by the rules of political correctness as victims who need protection. One example is when a famous (but often ridiculed) evangelical preacher, Runar Sogaard, called Muhammed a pedophile. There was general outrage against this, including from a Kurdish Muslim journalist, Kurdo Baksi, who defended Muhammed by saying that he wasn’t a pedophile, since pedophilia according to Baksi is limited to buying sex from children. In essence, Baksi said that Muhammed wasn’t a pedophile since he was married to the child he had sex with. If someone like Runar had made this argument in public, he would have been severely criticized. However, no one reacted against Baksi’s argument.
17) Following up on Question 8, would this mean that the government guarantees the freedoms of its citizens, but does not necessary act to protect their rights? Please explain your answer and give any examples you can think of.
A guarantee is worth nothing if it is not enforced. During the past few months several attacks have been made against politicians active in the Swedish Democratic party. Members of the extreme left anti-fascist group AFA for instance attacked a meeting held by SD:s members. The editor of SD:s party magazine was hospitalized. No one has been charged with this attack. SD works within the democratic system, and are often attacked by leftist agitators who work outside of this system and commit political violence. The government has done very little to stop this recent trend. Slightly less serious is the ruling system of political correctness, which can effectively end the career of anyone who speaks out against multiculturalism. Nothing whatsoever has been done by the government to combat this system of virulent censorship and self-censorship.
18) In Question 10, you mention women's rights. Can you define what is understood to be women's rights? Why are women's rights an issue?
Women’s rights are mostly defined as a woman’s right to equal terms and pay as men on the job market, and an underlying conviction that women are in every way worth as much as men. There has also been an increase in questions regarding honour killings during the past few years, mainly because of highly publicized cases of honour killings among immigrant families. Many feminists are loathe to stand up against oppression of women when it is caused by immigrants, since that could be seen as racism. Again, this could be caused by the view of immigrants as protected from criticism. If I were to point out in public that female genital mutilation has strong support in Islamic jurisprudence, I would be labeled as an Islamophobic racist and be shunned by polite society.
19) Also in Question 10, you mention immigration as a big issue for those in power. Later in Question 12, you mention that most Swedes feel too many immigrants have been welcomed into Swedish society. Do you feel then that immigrants have been welcomed faster than they can assimilate, and that this is a source of problems? What served to start the policy to welcome so many immigrants? Why does the government continue the policy of welcoming so many immigrants, if so many Swedes are against the policy? I have the impression that some situation caused the government to suddenly bring in many immigrants, but that this influx caused problems, and that the government and other of society's "elites" are now in a state of denial and cover-up regarding the problems they have caused. Is this accurate?
It is my opinion that the problems caused by immigration can be subdivided into three factors: we have welcomed too many immigrants; we have been unable to integrate those we have welcomed; and we have accepted immigrants from cultures which are radically different than our own (I am specifically thinking of Muslims), without asking ourselves if this could pose any difficulties. The first part has to do with economics and society: immigration is expensive, and can cause friction between immigrants and ethnic Swedes and resistance on the part of the latter. The economic difficulties can be overcome, but the shift in attitude is harder to come to terms with, since it often brought on by real or imagined differences in culture. I believe that everyone has the right to question immigration, and I will never call someone a racist simply because he or she prefers to live among members of his/her own culture (but all ideas about immigrants somehow being in any way worse people than ethnic Swedes I totally reject). I would prefer allowing people to dislike immigration, if the alternative is a society where "wrong thoughts" are punished.
That said, the resistance against immigration is a relatively recent phenomenon. Large-scale immigration to Sweden was unheard of until we welcomed many Italian immigrants during the 60’s, to remedy a shortage in the work force. Germany had the same problem and welcomed Turks; the difference being that we welcomed members of a culture not far removed from our own. It was only during the 1990’s that we accepted large numbers of Muslim immigrants, following the Balkan war. We have since welcomed Iraqis, Somalis and members of other Muslim nations who have fled from conflicts and poverty. This influx is recent and began when multiculturalism was already an established ideology. That being said, there has never been any referendum on whether or not we should accept any immigrants at all; politicans during the 60’s simply decided for immigration, and no one in power has ever challenged the multiculturalist ideology which followed. To question this ideology is seen as racist, and therefore it continues, despite its having lost much popular support. Your analysis is also correct in this regard: today’s Swedes are suffering from the consequences of a choice made by the political elite of the previous generation. There is a strong opposition towards immigration today, which also explains the successes of SD.
I should also add that no real effort has ever been made to integrate the immigrants we have accepted. We have tended to allow them to settle in ethnic enclaves in low-cost suburbs outside our major cities. I believe that ethnic enclaves always cause problems, but when those enclaves are inhabited by Muslims, the problems increase manifold. (The unofficial European capital of Syrian Christians is in Sodertalje, south of Stockholm; this enclave causes much less problems than Rosengard, the largest Muslim enclave, in Malmo.) It is seen as racist to demand that immigrants accept Swedish values and traditions; instead we allow them to retain their connection to their previous countries to a high degree. Since we see them as victims who have to be helped by us, we refuse to demand anything from them. Combined with the Swedish welfare state, which ensures that anyone can receive enough money to live on, regardless of whether or not they even try to get a job, this encourages a lack of integration. We basically tell immigrants that they do not need to conform to how things are done in Sweden, and then give them money with no expectation of them doing anything in return. This failure of the integration policy – the failure in effect being that there exists no real integration policy – has created an untenable situation which only SD will discuss in public (and therefore they are of course labeled racists).
20) Some more pointed questions now... You mention in Question 13 a shift in public debate regarding Islam and Muslims in Sweden. Do you feel Sweden (as a nation-state with a culturally identifiable people) is dying? If so, is the presence and continued influx of unassimilated immigrants a symptom of this, or is it the disease? Why? You also state: "This shift does not bode well for the future." Do you feel Sweden is on the brink of civil unrest? Is Sweden headed for civil war?
I do not think that Swedes or Sweden are in danger of being eradicated anytime soon, but there is a strong sense that we have to be ashamed of our cultural heritage. We are so afraid of being called racists that we refuse to take pride in our heritage and display that pride in public. Swedes are told that we have no culture (even by our politicans), and that to insist that we do is racist. Immigrants, on the other hand, naturally have an identifiable culture; to say otherwise would be considered racist. This is of course untenable.
I believe that we have to restrict the influx of immigrants, regardless of origin, in order to give those we have already welcomed a chance to be assimilated. Muslim immigration is in part a separate question; I welcome immigrants from all cultures (in manageable numbers), but am totally opposed to all further Muslim immigration, since I believe that an unreformed Islam has no place whatsoever in the West. Continued Muslim immigration, violence perpetrated by jihadists, and the demands put forth by ordinary Muslims as well as Islamists to limit freedom of speech and impose sharia, are dangerous factors which are already causing considerable civil unrest. I don’t believe that Sweden is headed for civil war, since we do not have nearly the same amount of ordinary or radical Muslims as countries like France and the Netherlands. But it is entirely possible that the situation will deteriorate and approach that of those countries, if nothing is done about the rise of Islamism and jihadism. I believe that Western civilization is headed towards civil war, but I believe that Sweden (a country which is generally loathe to partake in armed conflict) will try to stay out of such a war as far as possible.
There will be further information on The Valhalla Exchange -- stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest!
The Valhalla Exchange, Part I
I have begun a new series of posts exploring the jihad and counterjihad in Sweden. The series is based on interviews with people who currently reside or have recently resided in Sweden, and so have first-hand knowledge of the situation. The posts will be found under the new label Valhalla, which comes from the title of the first multipart article in the series.
This post is the first of a multipart article where I interview a subject named "Reinhard". Reinhard is a member of FOMI - Svenska Forum Mot Islamisering (information in English; FOMI in English), and his command of English is excellent; consequently, I have done essentially no editing of the interview. The questions are as I emailed them to Reinhard, and the answers are as Reinhard emailed them back. The very few grammatical and spelling errors that Reinhard makes should serve to emphasize how well he commands English, a command which, in turn, gives an indication of his intelligence and education.
Questions are numbered and in italics, and Reinhard's responses are in plain text:
1) What country are you native to?
Sweden.
2) What country do you live in now?
Sweden.
3) Do you live in a large city, small city, town, or rural area?
Small city.
4) How is Christianity treated publicly, for example, in the media, in the country where you live? (If you are from a country other than the one where you now live, please compare and contrast the situation in the country where you now live with the situation in the country you are from. Please do so throughout.)
Sweden is to a great extent a secular country. Christianity sometimes comes under attack from the more aggressive part of the secular movement, which is mainly organized by a group called Humanisterna (Humanists). There have also been instances of public debate about certain works of art which were seen as provocative towards Christian beliefs. However, no one ever tried to get such works banned, and the public debate which followed was healthy.
There is not much interest in Christianity, Swedes are either atheists/agnostics or simply not interested in religion. Official representatives of Christianity sometimes take part in debates, but almost all of them belong to the mainstream of the Swedish church, which tries to be as inclusive as possible. Christianity in Sweden is not conservative, with the exception of a few evangelical preachers. One of those once criticized Muhammed and called him a pedophile; another called homosexuals a cancer on society. Both of those were condemned by the media, public and other Christians, showing that Christians who do not share the liberal values of Swedish society can be stigmatized.
5) How is Judaism treated publicly in your country?
There have never been many Jews in Sweden. Jews, and especially Jewish sionists, tend to keep a low profile, and most Jews do not wear religious symbols openly. There is an unfortunate blending of anti-Israelism and anti-semitism. One example of this was when anti-semitic cassettes sold at Stockholm’s largest mosque were reported to the government, which declined to act against it, stating that it had to do with the conflict in Israel and not with anti-semitism. There have been reports of growing Muslim anti-semitism, but news of this is usually quieted down so as to not offend the ideology of multiculturalism.
6) How is Islam treated publicly in your country?
Because our politicians and media have decided that Sweden is to be a multicultural society, and since anyone who questions this is labeled a racist, there is seldom any public debate about Islam which is critical of either Islam or of Muslim immigrants. Defenders of Islam, Muslim or non-Muslim, are given every opportunity to engage in apologetics.
Critics of Islam often face everything from ridicule to death threats. The tone is, however, changing, and with every new attempt at Islamization and jihadist terror attack, more people are starting to question the place of Islam in Swedish society. The debate is slowly but perceptibly starting to shift to the viewpoint of the critics of Islam.
7) How are other religions (Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, etc.) treated publicly in your country?
The only religions with a strong presence in Sweden are the three monotheistic religions. The others are rarely a topic of discussion.
8) How would you characterize the government in your country? Officially: a) Is it religious? b) Does it guarantee freedom of religion? c) Does it guarantee freedom of speech and of the press? d) How does this compare with actual practice?
The government is not very religious, only one party has a religious profile (Kristdemokraterna, Christian Democrats). The government guarantees freedom of religion, speech and the press. In practice, these freedoms are respected. The great threat today comes from Muslim groups who are trying to put limitations on the freedom of speech because of their religious sensibilities.
9) Is there a political elite in your country? Is there a wealthy class that has more power, or is there a religious class that holds more power? Is there a royal family? Does the royal family hold real political power, or is it more of a ceremonial figurehead?
The political elite is the social democratic party, which has been in power since the early 1900’s, with a few exceptions. It lost the last election because it was seen as having become corrupted from having been in power for too long. Wealth and religious affiliation don’t matter that much in Sweden, which prides itself on being an egalitarian country. The royal family has no political power.
10) Please characterize the majority political views of those in power. How do they relate to religion and freedoms addressed above?
The social democrats tend to focus on issues relating to worker rights, with attention also being given to womens’ rights and immigration, which is seen as a good thing. The social democrats are to the left on the political scale, and often form governments with the Green party (Miljopartiet) and the Leftist party (Vansterpartiet, which was formerly known as the Left party/Communists). Their official policy is that they are protecting the Swedish welfare state, but during the past decade or so they have started privatizing infrastructure and have gravitated towards the right, while the right have moved to the left. The main challenger to the political establishment comes from the Swedish democratic party (Sverigedemokraterna), who are opposed to the current immigration policies. All political parties, except for the right- and left-wing fringe extremists, subscribe to the principles of democracy and the freedoms associated with liberal democracy.
11) Please characterize the people you interact with on a daily basis. Are they citizens of your country, whose families have been there for generations? Or, are they citizens who have recently arrive and obtained their citizenship? Or, are they newly-arrived immigrants, who have not yet obtained citizenship? If immigrants, are they generally legal immigrants, or illegal immigrants?
Sweden is a segregated society. Ethnic Swedes and first generation immigrants do not socialize often; the rule of thumb is that you are only welcome into society if you are perceived as being a part of Swedish ”culture”. I only socialize with ethnic and cultural Swedes, and have no friends who can be defined as being immigrants.
12) Based on your experience interacting with other people in your country, do the policies of those who govern reflect the desires of those who are governed? Please describe the means by which the people can influence their government. Comment both on how it is supposed to work officially, and how it works in practice.
My opinion is that most Swedes feel that we have welcomed too many immigrants, and that this has caused problems both for the Swedish economy and for the lives of ordinary citizens. The successes of Sverigedemokraterna points to Swedes being tired of the multiculturalist ideology, which is seen as promoting immigration at the expense of Swedish culture and national identity. Immigration is the single most divisive issue being debated in Sweden today, but it is in a sense not really being debated, since the politically correct media does its best to shun dissidents. People have few means of influencing government; we have no culture of demonstration comparable with for instance France. We choose our government every four years, and in the period between elections, the people can do very little to change current policies. This is the natural state for our democratic system, which has no counterpart to the Swiss concept of direct democracy.
13) Please offer any other comments that you feel appropriate; for example, you may wish to expound upon an answer above, or address a question that was not brought up.
The question of Islam’s role in Swedish society is connected with most of the questions above. Muslims who are unable or unwilling to integrate into Swedish society and who cannot accept the Swedish system of secularism and liberal democracy, are polarizing Swedes and are seen as undermining the Swedish way of life, which includes values and political systems which are deemed incompatible with Islam. Islam is fast becoming the most discussed topic in the public debate in Sweden, and there is a noticeable shift towards suspicion of both Islam and Muslims in general. This shift does not bode well for the future.
Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest for subsequent parts of the interview with Reinhard, which will be under the title "The Valhalla Exchange".
This post is the first of a multipart article where I interview a subject named "Reinhard". Reinhard is a member of FOMI - Svenska Forum Mot Islamisering (information in English; FOMI in English), and his command of English is excellent; consequently, I have done essentially no editing of the interview. The questions are as I emailed them to Reinhard, and the answers are as Reinhard emailed them back. The very few grammatical and spelling errors that Reinhard makes should serve to emphasize how well he commands English, a command which, in turn, gives an indication of his intelligence and education.
Questions are numbered and in italics, and Reinhard's responses are in plain text:
1) What country are you native to?
Sweden.
2) What country do you live in now?
Sweden.
3) Do you live in a large city, small city, town, or rural area?
Small city.
4) How is Christianity treated publicly, for example, in the media, in the country where you live? (If you are from a country other than the one where you now live, please compare and contrast the situation in the country where you now live with the situation in the country you are from. Please do so throughout.)
Sweden is to a great extent a secular country. Christianity sometimes comes under attack from the more aggressive part of the secular movement, which is mainly organized by a group called Humanisterna (Humanists). There have also been instances of public debate about certain works of art which were seen as provocative towards Christian beliefs. However, no one ever tried to get such works banned, and the public debate which followed was healthy.
There is not much interest in Christianity, Swedes are either atheists/agnostics or simply not interested in religion. Official representatives of Christianity sometimes take part in debates, but almost all of them belong to the mainstream of the Swedish church, which tries to be as inclusive as possible. Christianity in Sweden is not conservative, with the exception of a few evangelical preachers. One of those once criticized Muhammed and called him a pedophile; another called homosexuals a cancer on society. Both of those were condemned by the media, public and other Christians, showing that Christians who do not share the liberal values of Swedish society can be stigmatized.
5) How is Judaism treated publicly in your country?
There have never been many Jews in Sweden. Jews, and especially Jewish sionists, tend to keep a low profile, and most Jews do not wear religious symbols openly. There is an unfortunate blending of anti-Israelism and anti-semitism. One example of this was when anti-semitic cassettes sold at Stockholm’s largest mosque were reported to the government, which declined to act against it, stating that it had to do with the conflict in Israel and not with anti-semitism. There have been reports of growing Muslim anti-semitism, but news of this is usually quieted down so as to not offend the ideology of multiculturalism.
6) How is Islam treated publicly in your country?
Because our politicians and media have decided that Sweden is to be a multicultural society, and since anyone who questions this is labeled a racist, there is seldom any public debate about Islam which is critical of either Islam or of Muslim immigrants. Defenders of Islam, Muslim or non-Muslim, are given every opportunity to engage in apologetics.
Critics of Islam often face everything from ridicule to death threats. The tone is, however, changing, and with every new attempt at Islamization and jihadist terror attack, more people are starting to question the place of Islam in Swedish society. The debate is slowly but perceptibly starting to shift to the viewpoint of the critics of Islam.
7) How are other religions (Hinduism, Confucianism, Buddhism, etc.) treated publicly in your country?
The only religions with a strong presence in Sweden are the three monotheistic religions. The others are rarely a topic of discussion.
8) How would you characterize the government in your country? Officially: a) Is it religious? b) Does it guarantee freedom of religion? c) Does it guarantee freedom of speech and of the press? d) How does this compare with actual practice?
The government is not very religious, only one party has a religious profile (Kristdemokraterna, Christian Democrats). The government guarantees freedom of religion, speech and the press. In practice, these freedoms are respected. The great threat today comes from Muslim groups who are trying to put limitations on the freedom of speech because of their religious sensibilities.
9) Is there a political elite in your country? Is there a wealthy class that has more power, or is there a religious class that holds more power? Is there a royal family? Does the royal family hold real political power, or is it more of a ceremonial figurehead?
The political elite is the social democratic party, which has been in power since the early 1900’s, with a few exceptions. It lost the last election because it was seen as having become corrupted from having been in power for too long. Wealth and religious affiliation don’t matter that much in Sweden, which prides itself on being an egalitarian country. The royal family has no political power.
10) Please characterize the majority political views of those in power. How do they relate to religion and freedoms addressed above?
The social democrats tend to focus on issues relating to worker rights, with attention also being given to womens’ rights and immigration, which is seen as a good thing. The social democrats are to the left on the political scale, and often form governments with the Green party (Miljopartiet) and the Leftist party (Vansterpartiet, which was formerly known as the Left party/Communists). Their official policy is that they are protecting the Swedish welfare state, but during the past decade or so they have started privatizing infrastructure and have gravitated towards the right, while the right have moved to the left. The main challenger to the political establishment comes from the Swedish democratic party (Sverigedemokraterna), who are opposed to the current immigration policies. All political parties, except for the right- and left-wing fringe extremists, subscribe to the principles of democracy and the freedoms associated with liberal democracy.
11) Please characterize the people you interact with on a daily basis. Are they citizens of your country, whose families have been there for generations? Or, are they citizens who have recently arrive and obtained their citizenship? Or, are they newly-arrived immigrants, who have not yet obtained citizenship? If immigrants, are they generally legal immigrants, or illegal immigrants?
Sweden is a segregated society. Ethnic Swedes and first generation immigrants do not socialize often; the rule of thumb is that you are only welcome into society if you are perceived as being a part of Swedish ”culture”. I only socialize with ethnic and cultural Swedes, and have no friends who can be defined as being immigrants.
12) Based on your experience interacting with other people in your country, do the policies of those who govern reflect the desires of those who are governed? Please describe the means by which the people can influence their government. Comment both on how it is supposed to work officially, and how it works in practice.
My opinion is that most Swedes feel that we have welcomed too many immigrants, and that this has caused problems both for the Swedish economy and for the lives of ordinary citizens. The successes of Sverigedemokraterna points to Swedes being tired of the multiculturalist ideology, which is seen as promoting immigration at the expense of Swedish culture and national identity. Immigration is the single most divisive issue being debated in Sweden today, but it is in a sense not really being debated, since the politically correct media does its best to shun dissidents. People have few means of influencing government; we have no culture of demonstration comparable with for instance France. We choose our government every four years, and in the period between elections, the people can do very little to change current policies. This is the natural state for our democratic system, which has no counterpart to the Swiss concept of direct democracy.
13) Please offer any other comments that you feel appropriate; for example, you may wish to expound upon an answer above, or address a question that was not brought up.
The question of Islam’s role in Swedish society is connected with most of the questions above. Muslims who are unable or unwilling to integrate into Swedish society and who cannot accept the Swedish system of secularism and liberal democracy, are polarizing Swedes and are seen as undermining the Swedish way of life, which includes values and political systems which are deemed incompatible with Islam. Islam is fast becoming the most discussed topic in the public debate in Sweden, and there is a noticeable shift towards suspicion of both Islam and Muslims in general. This shift does not bode well for the future.
Stay tuned to Stop Islamic Conquest for subsequent parts of the interview with Reinhard, which will be under the title "The Valhalla Exchange".
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
