It appears yet again that the more observant and devout one is in Islam, the more likely one is to Misunderstand the Religion of Peace. "A new German study shows that boys growing up in pious Muslim families are more likely to be violent," from the National Secular Society via Muslims Debate, n.d. (thanks to F.P.):
A new German study shows that boys growing up in pious Muslim families are more likely to be violent.The study, which involved intensive questioning of 45,000 teenagers from 61 towns and regions across the country, was conducted by Christian Pfeiffer of the criminal research institute of Lower Saxony.
Pfeiffer was quick to assure the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper that he was not a racist or 'Islamophobe' and that, in fact, he had been dismayed by the results of the survey....
News flash, Pfeiffer: there are few, if any, actual "Islamophobes," and this caveat will not prevent you from being labeled one. Those who are called "Islamophobes" are those who have studied the texts and teachings of Islam and how those texts and teachings are applied in Islamic societies and among Muslims in the West. Often many of these "Islamophobes" were dismayed by what they were seeing.
[...] Pfeiffer said that even when other social factors were taken into account, there remained a significant correlation between religiosity and readiness to use violence. There were some positive correlations too he said, noting that young religious Muslims were much less likely than their non-Muslim counterparts to drink alcohol - or to steal from shops. The increased likelihood to use violence was restricted to Muslim boys, Pfeiffer said - Muslim girls were only as likely to be violent as non-Muslim girls.This led him to conclude that there was not a direct link between Islamic belief and violence - but an indirect one. He pointed to Christian teachings which justified domestic violence and male dominance of society for a long time.
Pfeiffer runs completely off-course here. He doesn't appear to understand that Islam not only contains teachings that justify violence, but also teachings that relegate women to second-class status. And his moral equivalence, given the absence of Christian terror groups around the world, just politically correct attitudinizing.
His researchers asked the teenagers a range of questions about their ideas of manliness, for example whether they thought a man was justified in hitting his wife if she had been unfaithful. They also asked about what media and computer game violence they were exposed to, as well as whether their friends were involved in crime or violence.The results showed that Muslim boys from immigrant families were more than twice as likely to agree with macho statements than boys from Christian immigrant families. The rate was highest among those considered as very religious, Pfeiffer said. They were also more likely to be using violent computer games and have criminal friends.
Added to that, the more religious Muslim boys felt the least integrated into German society, with only 14.5 percent of the very religious Turkish boys (the largest group of Muslims in the study) saying they felt German, although 88.5 percent had been born there.
Pfeiffer said he thought the responsibility for the macho culture lay with Imams in Germany, who he said usually come from abroad and often cannot speak German or have much understanding of the culture. "We have to prevent attempts at integration from being destroyed by Imams who preach Turkish provincial stories and a reactionary male image," said Pfeiffer. He concluded that Germans should reconsider how they treat Muslims, noting that there had been a damaging loss of trust since the September 11 attacks in 2001....
A new German study shows that boys growing up in pious Muslim families are more likely to be violent.
No kidding? Sounds like the plan is working perfectly...
"He pointed to Christian teachings which justified domestic violence and male dominance of society for a long time."
This is so infuriating---they have to include this in every piece about Muslims. Even putting aside the fact that Jesus and Muhammad led about as different lives as two people could possibly live, and religions based on their respective lives are obviously going to be drastically different---the very idea of bringing up moral equivalency is irrational. I wonder, when the debate over slavery ran through the Christian community in the US in the 19th century, would these people have said "we shouldn't criticize slavery too strongly---remember, in the Islamic world, slavery is accepted."
Their moral equivalency argument basically goes like this: "we shouldn't be too hard on Islam, because remember, Christianity had flaws too.....which were rightly criticized, and largely corrected because of that....so that's why we shouldn't criticize Islam......because Islam and Christianity are basically the same....and in order to show that they're the same, we should treat them differently and hold them to different standards....because.....because....YOU'RE A RACIST ISLAMOPHOBE WHO'S COMMITTING HATE SPEECH!!"
Islam is founded on a cult of hypermasculinity and institutionalised macho criminality.
sean
Islam is indeed a religion for men: not just temporally but eternally. What other religion promises sexual gratification in the afterlife? Isn't heaven a union with God? For the Muslim (man), it's a drunken orgy.
Perhaps Christian Pfeiffer should broaden his research to include Muslim girls. FGM, arranged marriages, child marriages, physical violence, honor killings, multiple wives, multiple pregnancies, and a career one can have in bare feet without an education.
"He concluded that Germans should reconsider how they treat Muslims, noting that there had been a damaging loss of trust since the September 11 attacks in 2001...."
This is a case where the data accumulated points to conclusions antipathetic to the researcher, so he wishes to give his own spin and his own nostrum. But what Germans, and all others in Western Europe, should reconsider is something else: the folly of their heedless immigration policy, one that allowed millions of Muslims to enter, but that made no provision, or did not enforce, the rules early on for their being permitted -- and in what numbers, and what conditions -- to remain in countries that, to the extent that they are good Muslims, cannot possibly have a claim on their loyalty, and with legal and political institutions, and social arranagements, that are flatly contradicted by the letter and spirit of the Holy Law of Islam, the Shari'a.
What Germans, and French, and British, and Belgians, and Dutch and others should be reconsidering are the unexamined assumptions and pieties of the age, that got them into this mess in the first place, and should rectify their own ignorance of Islam. And then halt the flow of outside Arab money to pay for mosques and madrasas, end all immigration by Muslims, halt the building of mosques and not merely ban, here and there, the occasional minaret or burka, and begin to understand, and to talk openly about, the fate of art, science, and mental freedom, under Islam, about the Enlightenment, about all the things that makes us us, and that could never be tolerated for one instant under Islam, and proceed from there.
There is time -- just.
:
But, but, but .............. Islam is the "religion of peace"? Isn't it?
Oops - you forgot the trademark symbol!
He concluded that Germans should reconsider how they treat Muslims, noting that there had been a damaging loss of trust since the September 11 attacks in 2001....
Careful what you wish for. You just might get it.
There has indeed been a damaging loss of trust since 9/11. Some of us no longer trust Muslims. Maybe we will reconsider letting them travel to our countries and live among us. We simply don't know if we can trust them ever again.
nice....
Director of the criminal research institute of Lower Saxony
Christian Pfeiffer
http://www.kfn.de/MitarbeiterInnen/WissenschaftlerInnen/Christian_Pfeiffer.htm
has no clue of Islam and betrays Germany
Pfeiffer was quick to assure the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper that he was not a racist or 'Islamophobe'...
Good on the first count. But on the second I say any Infidel who doesn't fear Moslems is a delusional self-contented fool.
It would be a change for the best if the personality of Mohammed was replaced for that of Jesus who was a more peaceful individual. For that change to take place the Koran would have to be discarded for the New Testament, and the Mosque outfitted with a cross. Over night the Muslim worshipers would become peace loving Christians who attended church services every Sunday. The unemployed imams would become ministers who would follow the teachings of Jesus and officiate in a more peaceful way. Religious beliefs cannot exist without a structure and if mosques suddenly disappeared, a thousand churches would take their place.
He pointed to Christian teachings which justified domestic violence and male dominance of society for a long time.
In the sacred texts of every religion there are passages which can be used to justify violence, if one chooses to interpret them in that way.
But Christians and other non-Muslims do not choose to interpret those passages in such a way; Muslim do. That's the difference.
The article makes the same point:
Muslim boys from immigrant families were more than twice as likely to agree with macho statements than boys from Christian immigrant families.
But there is no indication that the author understands what he is saying.
The amount of doublethink going on in the MSM is truly amazing.
That would certainly be nice, but I wouldn't get my hopes up if I were you.
On the psychology of 'suicide bombers' and their handlers:
http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/culturelab/2010/07/a-psychologist-inside-the-mind-of-suicide-bombers.html
This paints a very interesting psychological profile of those who would blow themselves up to kill, violence in extreme disconnect from humanity, compliments of Islamic Jihad.
http://www.shalomlife.com/eng/13360/Germany_Sets_up_Suicide_Bomber_Hotline/
Germany Sets up Suicide Bomber Hotline
On Monday, the German government debuted a suicide bomber hotline called HATIF, meaning “telephone” in Arabic. The goal of the hotline is to provide help to Muslims who want to abandon extremism. “The primary goal of HATIF is to prevent violence in the name of Islam,” stated the German Federal Constitution Protection Office.
[...]
There are an estimated 36,000 Islamist extremists currently in Germany, with a fraction considered to be potentially violent. The Muslim population in Germany is between 3.8 million and 4.3 million making up 4.6 and 5.2 per cent of the country’s population. Members of the intelligence service can be contacted online or by phone. The service is offered in Arabic, Turkish, and German.
Added to that, the more religious Muslim boys felt the least integrated into German society, with only 14.5 percent of the very religious Turkish boys (the largest group of Muslims in the study) saying they felt German, although 88.5 percent had been born there.
only 14.5 percent of the very religious Turkish boys (the largest group of Muslims in the study) saying they felt German, although 88.5 percent had been born there.
========
Bears defecate in woods - new report reveals.
In other news Pope confirms he's Catholic.
A "damaging lack of trust since the September 11 attacks in 2001?" How can that be?
Really, you can't make this stuff up...
In "God's Middle Finger", a fun travelogue on Mexico's Sierra Madres (partly inspired by the movie "The Treasure of the Sierra Madres" - "We don't need no stinkin' badges!"), Richard Grant discusses Mexico's macho culture. It appears to have its roots in Spain, which was heavily influenced by seven centuries of Islamic rule.
Religious beliefs cannot exist without a structure and if mosques suddenly disappeared, a thousand churches would take their place.
You lost me there Morris...Lots of people walk around with religious beliefs and the only structure they have is the temple of their soul...their physical body...This is the only structure that they need...Since birds of a feather like to flock together, buildings and places of worship were constructed that could be called churches, or mosques, but not always...
It is the habit of humans to build these, and usually, but not always, priests of some kind are in control and sermonize...but they are more for gatherings, fellowship and a place to worship together, rather than an absolute necessity...
The more religious they are ,the more violent they are +
'a damaging loss of trust since the September 11 attacks in 2001....'
Some researchers just can't put 2 and 2 together .
The loss of trust is BECAUSE OF Sept 11 and their general
tendency to violence
"Pfeiffer said he thought the responsibility for the macho culture lay with Imams in Germany..."
Funny how Pfeiffer, who seems to get everything else wrong about the data under his nose, apparently agrees with most Jihad Watchers on the cause of the problem, eh? I.e., most Muslims are "ignorant" of their own Islam or "relaxed" in a secularism which according to Wilsonianists is the Natural State of Man (including all Muslims), and then these Muslims get radicalized through being persuaded or strong-armed by a tiny elite of imams and other self-styled Muslim experts of Islam to go against their "inner Westerner" which Wilsonianists believe exists in every Muslim.
So the answer to the problem, of course, is more Wilsonianism -- now in its new and improved form: Wildersianism!
Germany Sets up Suicide Bomber Hotline.
Haa. Who sez the Huns don't have a sense of humor? Man that's funny. These scenes are the skits that Saturday Night Live should, but don't, do.
*** 8:57 ***
One can only imagine Angela Merkel sitting at her kitchen table imaging a young Moslem sitting at his kitchen table, surrounded by all the hair he just shaved off, a suicide bomb vest on the other chair, staring at the phone wondering whether he should call in to the HATIF counselors to help be talked down from the mass murder commandments of the Ko-Ran tugging at his confused mind.
*** 4:142 ***
But who's Angela gonna call to bring her back to reality? Betcha HATIF was funded with German Judeo-Christian taxpayer dollars.
@George
You're, of course, so right when you say that this stuff can't be made up. A stupid dhimmi blaming himself for the lack of trust in the wake of 9-11?? C'mon!
But you know what? That trust can't be built because when it comes to 9-11 you're dealing with classic muhammadan double-think. On the one hand, muhammadans revere osama bin laden as their hero for orchestrating 9-11, and, oh, by the way, 9-11 was all an inside job by the Mossad and the CIA, doncha know?
First, Pfeiffer says....
Then he says....
"We"? And then....
So Pfeiffer sees imams as "responsible for the macho culture"....but expects non-Muslims to "prevent" the problem and "reconsider" their behavior? Incredulously, Pfeiffer doesn't call on the imams to "prevent" the problem and "reconsider" their behavior, despite laying the responsibility for these problems at the imams' feet to begin with. And we then wonder why the ummah blames non-Muslims for the ummah's problems? Largely because folks who think like Pfeiffer let them!
If only Pfeiffer would publicly demand from Islam what he publicly demands from Germans -- that is, the cure for the ummah's ills. A tall order which many Muslims believe Islam can deliver on, but Pfeiffer curiously implies only non-Muslims can. The inconvenient flip side for Muslims is if Islam can't deliver the cure (regardless of how much they might blame kafirs for the cause), Islam risks its claims of "the perfect way/system of life" being exposed as quackery and BS. Muslims can't accept this, either. So pushing this unavoidable dilemma incessantly at the ummah creates the cognitive dissonance necessary for true reform to take place in Islam...or better yet, abandonment of dangerous utopian concepts like "Islamic state" altogether.
I think the German researchers would find a rather precise description of the mechanisms that lead to violence and fascism in "THE MASS PSYCHOLOGY OF FASCISM", 1933, by Wilhelm Reich.
It seems that Wilhelm Reich was right in his primary thesis, that the suppressed sexual energy is used to sustain the political and religious fascist power structures and secure their reproduction:
"... What is important here is the following: the sexual inhibitions which constitute the prerequisite of the continued existence of the authoritarian family and the essential basis of the structure of the lower middle class individual are brought about with the aid of religious fears which thus become sexual guilt feelings and deeply anchored. This leads to the problem of the connection between religion and denial of sexual pleasure. Sexual weakness undermines self-confidence; compensation is effected by rigid character traits or brutal sexual behavior.
The necessity for sexual self-control, for maintenance of sexual repression, leads to the development of compulsive, emotionally highly charged ideas of honor, duty, courage and self-control. The compulsiveness and emotional charge of these ideas, however, is in strange contrast to the actual behavior. The genitally gratified individual is honest, conscientious, courageous and selfcontrolled, without making any fuss about it. These attitudes are organic parts of his personality. The individual with a weakened genitality and a contradictory sexual structure, on the other hand, must incessantly remind himself to control his sexuality, to preserve his sexual honor, to fight temptations courageously, etc.
Every child and adolescent goes through the struggle against the temptation to masturbate. In this struggle, all elements of the reactionary human structure develop. In the lower middle classes, this structure is most strongly developed and most deeply anchored. This compulsive suppression of sexuality provides mysticism, of whatever kind, with its energy and also with some of its contents. ..."
Link:
http://www.whale.to/b/reich.pdf
I lived and worked in Germany for five years during the 1990s. And if I learned anything about the Germans, it's that they don't take any nonsense lying down. Once they cotton on to what Islam is all about they'll soon put Teutonic efficiency to work and take the problem by the scruff of the neck.
PS. A note to the loquacious Hesperado. You assert:
"Funny how Pfeiffer .... apparently agrees with most Jihad Watchers on the cause of the problem, eh? I.e., most Muslims are "ignorant" of their own Islam or "relaxed" in a secularism which according to Wilsonianists is the Natural State of Man (including all Muslims), and then these Muslims get radicalized through being persuaded or strong-armed by a tiny elite of imams and other self-styled Muslim experts of Islam to go against their "inner Westerner" which Wilsonianists believe exists in every Muslim."
I've read JW articles and posts avidly for a few years now, and I've never got the impression that most JWs have the idea that most Muslims are just peacefully flaffing around, adjusting their kefiyahs and henna-ing their beards, until some evil sprite of an Imam stands up in a mosque and tells them all to create mayhem in the unsuspecting society in which they have come to live and, hey presto, there are enraged Muslims rioting on the streets and we're all shocked and surprised.
JWs are a savvy bunch. Wilsonian policies, as far as Islam is concerned, is pretty much like the relationship between Prospero and Caliban. The savage is dealt with in a humane way, but continues to behave like an ingrate who wants to rape Prospero's daughter and take advantage of every kindness offered him. Caliban also sees Prospero's humanity as weakness, too.
Islam chaining its slaves to the Ummah is what Kennedy presciently warned us about when he said: Don't ask what my country can do for me, but what I can do for my country.
Of course, if you think that you belong to the Ummah first and foremost, then the USA is not 'your country'.
Caliban/Taliban - much of a muchness, Hesp.
First of all Germans should ban all foreign Imama coming into the country and see if that improves Muslim boys' behavior. If that doesn't help, it's the religion - stupid, that produces violent Muslims - nothing abnormal here, that's how they are!!1
Greetings, Yankel,
Yes, for those wacky muslims it isn't just, "My way or the highway," no, they want it BOTH ways or the highway!
Which reminds me very little of the old joke about the golfer-priest, who...
Woke-up on a perfect suumer morning and decided he'd call-in sick for the service (it couldn't hurt just ONCE, nobody will know) and hit the links instead.
On the fourth hole, par three, he watches his tee-shot head straght for the pin, bounce once, twice, and roll into the cup.
"I did it! After all these years! An Ace, a hole-in-one! Thank you, God!"
Suddenly the sky breaks open and the booming voice of God says,
"WHO ARE YOU GOING TO TELL?"
"He pointed to Christian teachings which justified domestic violence and male dominance of society for a long time."
I quess this guy has never read:
Genesis 2
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Deuteronomy 24
5 If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married.
Malachi 2
14Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the LORD hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
15And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
16For the LORD, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the LORD of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Ephesians 5
25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
Ephesians 5
28In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
Good scripture references, Vickie ...
But he is probably pointing to Paul's directive in Ephesians that wives submit to their own husband. But note that this is incumbent upon a WIFE to act upon, not for the husband to force his wife to carry out.
The passage in Ephesians is clear: "wives submit to your own husband" ...it DOES NOT say, "husband get your wife to submit to you". Big dif!
Yeah the husband's directive in Ephesians is to love his wife sacrificially. Again, great comment.
It looks like this guy (Pfeiffer) is not a critical thinker therefore his study, though used a large sample (45000) has been a waste of German tax dollar. I had problems as follows-
"A new German study shows that boys growing up in pious Muslim families are more likely to be violent."- why waste tax dollar, that kind of information is available throughout the Islamic countries (check out Pakiland news regularly) - compare Christian youth to Islamic youth behavior;
"This led him to conclude that there was not a direct link between Islamic belief and violence, but an indirect one." - this is 100% horse scheiss! There is absolute direct link between Islamic belief and violence - I guess he never heard mandate to Jihad for every MohSlum, written in Kodachrome black&white in Quran.
"There were some positive correlations too he said, noting that young religious Muslims were much less likely than their non-Muslim counterparts to drink alcohol" .... why should he consider drinking is negative? Germans enjoy drinking, They are well behaved even after several masses (mass=1L) of beer - try Oktoberfest in Munich. Alcohol is forbidden in Islam, hence they don't drink! Being abusive after drinking can be considered negative - not many Germans are abusive after drinking (cf that with his Islamic brothers who do not drink!).
" - or to steal from shops. " Then he says "They were also more likely to be using violent computer games and have criminal friends." - lets see he says they will be less likely to steal but they most likely to have criminal friend. Mr. Pfeiffer is amazing not using the direct and blatant correlation to its conclusion and should state they become hard criminals (that includes stealing)!
"Added to that, the more religious Muslim boys felt the least integrated into German society" - wow Mr. Pfeiffer didn't kill many neurons if any to conclude that! Who the f... wants to hang around with Islamic religious nut jobs in a country like Germany other than the mohamedians, huh? HALLO INTEGRATION???
In my view the guy is scared sh.tless and doesn't have the balls to conclude the obvious - the Muslims are the most rapists in the world, he has abundance of data to bring the issue on the table, they never learn to discuss things without heavy arguments or direct threats or use hard core profane language that I never heard from a German. They ALL (100%) believe Quaran has Allah's words directed via Mohd in it!! - There is no room for discussion.
Mr. Pfeiffer should learn the hard facts about Islam that will jolt him into reality. His piece leaves out hard correlations such as rapes; sexual abuse is lot greater amongst Moslum population and by the Moslum male than any other groups; sexual harassment by Moslum male (youth and old) is way beyond the norm of non-Islamic cultures.
" pj - In other news Pope confirms he's Catholic."
Actually Benedict IS Catholic and to tell you the truth, after 40 years of the wholesale destruction of my church that IS news.
He's headed for UK now (the Pope) and lots of 'pious' Muslims from 'pious' homes have sworn to kill him.
Just a word to the wise: As Ray Ibrahim and others have pointed out many times, the violence in the Jewish and Christian Bibles are historical, limited in time and space, whereas the violent passages of the Islamic scriptures are hortatory and read like the commands of a sermon.
Herr Pfeiffer was quoted as stating:
He concluded that Germans should reconsider how they treat Muslims, noting that there had been a damaging loss of trust since the September 11 attacks in 2001....
That's it! The victim is to blaim. This reminds me of the mothers I have seen who publicly coddle their rude and disruptive children, promising them all kinds of rewards if they just stop.
Herr Christian Pfeiffer was further quoted as stating:
ooooooooooops..............did not mean to click that one.
Pfeiffer draws the faulty comparison with Christianity. This reminds me of those who, when confronted with the oppression of minorities under Islam TODAY, retort with "Well, what about the Crusades?" or "Well, what about what the Jews did to the Amelakites or Canaanites?" none of which applies today in any way.
There is NOTHING in Jewish or Christian texts that could be used to justify a man physically abusing his wife. The proof texts for this position in Rabbinic and Christian texts are too voluminous to post here.
Pfeiffer at least acknowledges the part that Islam plays in the problems Germans are today facing with their immigrant population: Imams! He fails to recognize though that Islam plays a role, even when he covertly states just that elsewhere. That's nothing but transparent intellectual dishonesty.
German society is indeed responsible for much of what it is currently being subjected to because their was a massive failure to take into account the issues attendent upon facilitating this massive in-migration of people whose thoughts and way of life are so at odds with traditional Western values.
Also, truth be told, German society is, generally, somewhat hostile to people of other races, cultures, religions, etc.
They often do speak of multiculturalism while making no provision for in practice. Indeed, the very society of most European countries makes movement across different social strata virtually impossible.
I know another German named Christian Pfeiffer. He can do this:
http://www.youtube.com/user/BMW#p/u/70/-gLknpv9Ksc
Now, that's the only German Christian Pfeiffer I know who can say anything to me that's worth listening to.
Some satire relating to the rampant phenomenon of denial:
http://www.youtube.com/user/BMW#p/u/70/-gLknpv9Ksc
The Pope was considered to be a liberal back in the 1950s and 1960s. Interestingly, he is now considered a conservative even though he hasn't changed his views since then. God Bless Pope Benedict and keep him safe on his trip to England.
“New German study”
Not really. This study was first published in March of 2009 in Zeitschrift für Jugendkriminalrecht und Jugendhilfe:
Baier, D., Pfeiffer, C., Simonson, J. & Rabold, S.: Jugendliche in Deutschland als Opfer und Täter von Gewalt – Erkenntnisse einer deutschlandweiten Repräsentativbefragung. (S. 112)
http://www.dvjj.de/artikel.php?ebene=2,306&artikel=1193
When Süddeutsche Zeitung first reported on this study, the headline stated that one in seven German students was very violent towards foreigners:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/studie-jeder-siebte-schueler-ist-sehr-auslaenderfeindlich-1.388432
It took right wing extremists a year and a half to spin this study as saying that it shows that Muslims are violent because of their religion. If anything in the study actually does suggest this, it may well be connected to the real finding; that German students are hostile to foreigners. Guess what foreign group is probably at the top of that list? Muslims? So Muslims fight back.
The study was subsequently reported by Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen. Here is the report:
http://www.kfn.de/versions/kfn/assets/fb107.pdf
Show me where it says that Muslims are violent because of their religion.
Nitwits.
If Germans are hostile to foreigners, then why do you think their government is doing this to them? Bringing in millions of people who are also "hostile to foreigners" in the countries they come from but have gone to Germany for the material benefits?
Why is it so wrong to not want to be overrun by people who are vastly different to you?
I don't really get this outraged, huffy anti-racism business. Truly, in the end how do we benefit from this overcrowding, from hearing foreign accents everywhere we go, loss of countryside, etc: we are even supposed to be happy with a degree of abuse, hatred, the odd bombing attack...in history, do people normally love being overrun by hostile foreigners?
Dave wrote:
Show me where it says that Muslims are violent because of their religion.
It's called "Al Quran," Dave. It's called "The Hadith."They are called "news reports." Read them.
Thanks for the clarification about Pfeiffer's reports, and the links.
The study said there was an indirect not direct link to the Islamic religion and violence. Robert merely pointed out the obvious direct link between Islam and violence and that being the Koran. Who's the nitwit?
Spot on, Jewdog ...
The result of a Danish study/inquiry has been published only recently. It tells us that bilingual - "bilingual" is a PC expression often used here - that bilingual children feel more insecure than other children in Denmark. In particular children of Turkish and Pakistani origins are mentioned.
Also they are more often harassed than other children.
As to reasons for this malaise we find the usual blaming of ethnic Danes:
The children complain that the Danish school is not a place for them, they have learned they are second-class pupils: "Danes do not like us, they think immigrants are aggressive and stupid".
PJg:
"how do we benefit"
At least when people enter the country legally, we get the smartest people from other countries to work here. I work in pharmaceutical research, and my cowrokers are from England, France, Bangladesh, Africa, Iran, Mexico, etc. These people are doing research on new drugs that may save your racist life someday. I like being around people from other countries. They are much more interesting than the stupid, fat Americans.
I always wonder: what do people have against foreigners. You bring up "accents" and a "loss of countryside"? Are you kidding?
We are, of course, a nation made up of foreigners. I wonder how native Americans enjoyed being "overrrun by foreigners."
"Racist" is much used these days to describe anyone who refuses to accept that anything goes. It is assertion, accusation, proof and conviction all in one, and it´s BAD. The accused is supposed to bend over backwards and has become tainted for ever and ever.
Shock treatment is needed.
Maybe someone in Germany can send Mr Pfeiffer copies of the following two items:
the frontpage interview with Danish psychologist Nicolai Sennels, 'Among Criminal Muslims' (and one must remember, Sennels' job brought him into contact with plenty of non-Muslim criminal youngsters, too; he knows whereof he speaks)
http://frontpagemag.com/2010/05/05/among-criminal-muslims/
'Among Criminal Muslims'
and an article by Sennels:
http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/27326
Muslims and Westerners: The Psychological Differences
by Nicolai Sennels (May 2010).
The sooner Sennels' book 'Among Criminal Muslims' can be translated out of Danish into English, French, German, Italian, and a slew of other relevant languages, and read not only by our politicians and diplomats but by our prison administrators, school principals, beat police, army, and journalists, the better.
dumbledorsarmy:
"Maybe someone in Germany can send Mr Pfeiffer copies of the following two items"
Dr. Pfeiffer is a serious researcher. I doubt that he reads blogs.
"I like being around people from other countries. They are much more interesting than the stupid, fat Americans."
That honesty is actually quite refreshing. Most of the liberal multiculturalists are savvy enough to try to hide this preference, but dave 742 is very open about his contempt for average Americans, and that the idea of replacing them with people of a different ethnicity/nationality is very appealing to him. This desire is obviously shared by many of the PCMCs in most countries of the industrialized West, and it's at least nice to see it presented out in the open.
"I always wonder: what do people have against foreigners. You bring up "accents" and a "loss of countryside"? Are you kidding?
We are, of course, a nation made up of foreigners. I wonder how native Americans enjoyed being "overrrun by foreigners."
I'm not quite following the logic here. So then, native Americans who opposed European immigration were really intolerant racists, who had nothing to fear from the Europeans? Or is the argument that since native Americans were mistreated and displaced, then Americans today deserve the same fate and should accept it?
BTP:
"That honesty is actually quite refreshing."
Everyone is racist. Anyone that takes an implicist bias test will realize this. Yes, I am racist, and my racism is directed towards my own in-group. The key to dealing with racism, which is universal, is admitting that you are racist, and then consciously trying to correct for it. I do this. My initial reaction when meeting a fat American is to assume that he/she is stupid/ignorant/racist/xenophobic/narcissistic/etc. However, I try to hold this feeling at bay until the person shows my that he/she does or does not fit the stereotype.
"I'm not quite following the logic here."
Native Americans were overrun by people wishing to take their land. People moving here from other countries are simply working and living their lives. You probably disagree with this, but you probably also fit the stereotype I mention in the previous parragraph.
You still haven't answered my question, Dave, so I'll repeat it here. Are you a "Truther?"
Yes or no?
My mistake: I meant languages, not accents.
Apart from that, well...I know your wife is Asian. Big deal. So is my husband. Neither he nor I are stupid or fat, neither do we look at fellow Australians in such a narrow way. But it looks as if you are "racist" about Americans, or Westerners generally, from your elevated status of being an expatriate. Married to a Muslim too...wow, how exotic. Good on you.
It seems to me that "racism" has been elevated into a special type of crime, more heinous than any other, so that no matter what qualities a person might have, how generous they might be, if they have doubts about losing their culture to immigrants they are guilty of this ghastliness of "racism", the worst crime ever, a real show-stopper.
I like being around people from other countries too, mainly in THEIR countries. I like to think there will always be an India, there will always be a China, a Kenya, whatever. But will there always be an England, a Holland? Apparently not. The notion of "self-determination" only applies to the "ethnic" people you love so much.
And please don't tell me that medicine etc would collapse without immigration of other races. How absurd.
By the way, should we be poaching "smart" people away from their countries which have educated them?
Your comment about how native Americans might not have liked being overrun by foreigners is exactly what I meant: I daresay they did not: but the English who arrived were few, weren't they? Nothing wrong with a few foreigners arriving on your shores, is there? Unless they are white people? Is that your logic?
PJG:
"Apart from that, well...I know your wife is Asian. Big deal. So is my husband. Neither he nor I are stupid or fat, neither do we look at fellow Australians in such a narrow way. But it looks as if you are "racist" about Americans, or Westerners generally, from your elevated status of being an expatriate. Married to a Muslim too...wow, how exotic. Good on you"
What the hell are you talking about? Are you insane? Where did I say my wife is an Asian Muslim, or that I am an expatriate?
"Neither he nor I are stupid"
Really?
"My initial reaction when meeting a fat American is to assume that he/she is stupid/ignorant/racist/xenophobic/narcissistic/etc. However, I try to hold this feeling at bay until the person shows my that he/she does or does not fit the stereotype."
I dispute the fact that everyone is racist, or at least to the degree that you are. I certainly don't look upon anyone of another race with the vile preconceptions that you attribute to Americans. Islam is not a race and not an ethnicity. It's a belief system and a worldview which can be chosen, discarded, denied, changed or embraced. It's perfectly reasonable to have negative preconceptions about someone who self-identifies with a belief system, as they've already declared allegiance to that set of values. I don't lose sleep at night because I prejudge Nazis, Communists and KKK supporters to be people I don't want around me, and who I would oppose immigrating to the US in large numbers, as their values would permeate society and negatively influence it. As would Islam. But the warped, deranged combination of self-loathing and xenophilia that is modern Multiculturalism--which you apparrently support--is a recipe for embracing the repression of women, the violent intimidation of artists and intellectuals, violence against gays and vile anti-semitism. These practices are rife in the Muslim world, and it's sheer idiocy to imagine that immigrants from those cultures won't bring those values to the US. But the Holy Church of Multiculturalism declares that people like me, who raise these concerns, are blasphemers and heretics, and must be shouted down.
Dave742
quit sneering.
Nicolai Sennels is not a 'blogger'. He is a qualified and practising psychologist who has just *written a book*; a book *based on his practical experience, as a psychologist, with Muslim and non-Muslim delinquents, the non-Muslims being of both native Danish and immigrant background, in Denmark.
He is, quite precisely, Dr Pfeiffer's equal. He has academic qualifications and first-hand practical face-to-face experience - in Danish prisons and in those institutions that deal with 'troubled youth'.
But he is, of course, consistently and intelligently critical of Muslims and of what islam does to them; and we all know, by now, those of us who have read your postings here, over a long period, that you tend to automatically dismiss anything that you think makes Islam look bad.
This is simply empirical evidence supporting what Tom Kratman nailed in his (not much longer) fictional novel "Caliphate."
A common denominator for converts seems to be that they cannot cope with the surroundings they were brought up into. They need something to assure them that they are big and important being in a big and important group, also there´s the hope for revenge and being seen as big and important by those who allegedly looked down on them ...the fat bastards!
The more primitive of male converts have a hope for an arranged marriage that´ll give them an outlet to their sexual frustration too.
We see the converts acquiring a new name, they dress differently, they behave differently, they acquire totally different attitudes in order to fit in: it is easily done once you have decided to follow the intricate orders laid out by an imaginary god and his puppet master. On Youtube we see only the top of the iceberg when they discuss all the nitpicking details of muslim daily life, the hatred towards Jews, their mad fantasies on Western daily life, and we see how these are passed on to other muslims, probably to score a few points in the new group. Imagine what is being said off camera! But that is the wonder of the Religion of Peace™: denunciations are perfectly legitimate for you are RIGHT, the Qurans says so and the Quran says that the Quran is always right.
dumbledoresarmy:
"He is, quite precisely, Dr Pfeiffer's equal. He has academic qualifications"
No he does not. He is not an author of any publications (I did a search of every academic databse I have access to), and he has no degree in anything as far as I can tell. He is a blogger, and is not Pfeiffer's equal.
As comparison, here is Pfeiffer's CV:
http://www.kfn.de/Staff/Research/Christian_Pfeiffer.htm?lang=en
yadayada,
"So Pfeiffer sees imams as "responsible for the macho culture"....but expects non-Muslims to "prevent" the problem and "reconsider" their behavior?"
That's the Wilsonianism I was referring to in my comment a few comments above yours. This is the Wilsonianism shared by Westerners all over the spectrum -- from Bush, to Obama, to General McChrystal, to Jamie Glazov, to Pam Geller, to... Geert Wilders. These people only differ in the degree to which they recognize the centrality of Islam as the factor causing the problem which they feel the West must solve for the Muslims.
A more realistic assessment, in my estimation, involves this two-step epiphany:
1) The problem of Islam cannot be solved by Muslims.
2) The West must solve the problem of the problem -- i.e., the problem presented by the fact that Muslims cannot reform. Such a solution would no longer rely on the idealistic hope that sufficient numbers of Muslims will reform, or will free themselves from the yoke of that dastardly tiny elite of clerics and thugs who are allegedly forcing them against their will to be "victims" of Islam: such a solution would treat all Muslims as the problem, and figure out a way to deal with it. Logically, this would entail ending all Muslim immigration, then deporting all extant Muslims from the West.
Nicolai Sennels, 1976, Authorized Psychologist, at present School Psychologist and candidate for parliament. He does practical work and what he writes is in Danish for Danes.
No long CV or titles? Oh dear.
sTEFFEN:
"Authorized Psychologist"
What does that mean? He is a blogger.
"Authorized" as in educated as and therefore being allowed to practice as a psychologist. He has the necessary exams and papers to show for it, he is no fraud, he was and is officially employed by officialdom. As a psychologist.
Is "Licensed Psychologist" a better translation?
Steffen Larsen:
""Authorized" as in educated"
You can have a Bachelors degree and be an "suthorized psychologist". This is not the same level as Pfeiffer.
Authorized means he/she is qualified + experienced and respected member of the club! - why the heck do you want to debate about nonsense. Get on with the issue on hand, I repeat it is called "New German study: boys growing up in pious Muslim families are more likely to be violent"- which is a fact related to Islamic Verses.
Do you wanna debate that with me? Lets get on with it...
Blue Raven:
"Authorized means he/she is qualified + experienced and respected member of the club!"
My wife has a PhD in psychology and does academic research. She does not consider some nitwit with possibly a Bachelors degree along with some certificate part of her "club."
As for the subject of the thread, I have linked to the actual report, and I have asked people to show me where it discusses the issue of Muslims growing up in pious families being more violent. If you can show me where it discusses this issue, I would be happy to discuss it with you. Until you show me this, there is no subject to discuss.
It´s news to me that truth is decided by whoever has the highest degree.
Larsen:
"It´s news to me that truth is decided by whoever has the highest degree."
Of course, I never said that. Someone here claimed that a blogger with a Bachelors degree (if that) is equal to a person with a PhD. That is not true. A PhD has extensive training. A PhD means something. I am sure you want your physician to have a medical degree, right? If so, you know what I am talking about.
Two points:
One: having had dealings with small boys raised in muslim households, I can say that the more the mother succumbs to the domination of her husband, the more violent the child is toward his mother. Being violent toward his mother, with the father's approval leads to violence against others. I didn't need to read of this German study to know this.
Second: as for comparing violence of Christian men toward their wives, some good comments have been made (i.e.: Eph.;Paul's directions, etc.) so I will not duplicate those. If a man hits his wife, mistreats her, he dishonors himself for 'whoever hated his own soul?'
So here is the second point:(USING an Illustration here): When two people are having a disagreement such as, "You left your dirty clothes all over the floor and you said you wouldn't." The reply: "WELL, you didn't put the cap back on the toothpaste."
Whereas, the subject of the dirty clothes should be addressed and the toothpaste subject left for another time, this is also the case with someone reporting on islam's effects on persons and bringing in a comparison of someone bending Christianity to their own will. Those who do not want to fully recognize the impact of islam on people's actions will always make an unfair comparison. IF they wrote of Christianity, islam would not be used as an excuse for bending the Bible's directions to the will of the bender.
For what it's worth, *I* have a PhD, from a major Australian university.
I used the term 'equal' loosely, in that I saw both Sennels and Pfeiffer as university graduates. Yes, one has a higher degree than the other, but they have both been trained and a bachelor's degree is not negligible.
I do not look down on my husband and regard him as my inferior, because he has a Bachelor of Science, with honours in Statistics, and I, meanwhile, have a PhD (Arts).
Any bachelor's degree gained from a reputable university anywhere in the West - and I have absolutely no doubt that Mr Sennels has a properly attested and fully earned degree from Copenhagen University, just as he says he has - ought NOT to be treated with the sneering contempt that 'dave742' has been heaping upon it.
dave742 has tried to imply, over and over, that Sennels is an unqualified quack.
The Danish government didn't seem to think so, for, despite the hue and cry resulting from Sennels' having openly broken the taboo about Muslim criminality, Sennels' next job was "as a Military psychologist doing psychological screening of soldiers returning from the war in Afghanistan."
I should have written, 'despite Sennels having openly broken the taboo about mentioning the very high correlation between Islam and criminality'.
My sister got her PhD on some advanced scanning techniques that are way beyond me. It doesn´t help her much stopping a nosebleed, for which perhaps a nurse with practical experience is more useful.
Of course you implied that "truth is decided by whoever has the highest degree." And most superior and sneeringly too. But let it rest.
"For what it's worth, *I* have a PhD, from a major Australian university."
What a wonderful accomplishment, dda! ...Congratulations, dear friend! :)
Dave, you are so wrong, it is almost funny.
First of all, you and your posted links indeed relate to a study was first published in March of 2009, which can be found here:
http://www.kfn.de/versions/kfn/assets/fb107.pdf
(The "KFN" being the "Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen" (Criminal Resarchinstitut Lowersaxony), the "taskmaster" of Christian Pfeiffer)
In that conference, that Pfeiffer and the minister of the interior, Schäuble, gave at that time and was reported on in Süddeutsche Zeitung, Pfeiffer and Schäuble where anxious to not reveal the real outcome of that study, namely, that the german pupils where starting to get more and more critical opposite to muslim pupils. The reason for that being the ever growing violence and criminal careers of muslim pupils, the way german girls where treated and so on.
But there is a new report, which indeed says, that the more religious muslim pupils are, the more violent they are.
http://www.kfn.de/versions/kfn/assets/fob109.pdf
Nicholai Sennels is from danmark, where they have quite different (=better) educating standards as we do have here in Germany.
Whether or not Pfeiffer has a PhD, he is the typical, political correct, socials-democratic, reality-denying "Do-Gooder", and I'm quite sure, that he would have liked to cut his hand of and cut his tongue out, rather than to public his latest study.
http://www.kfn.de/versions/kfn/assets/fob109.pdf
(Dave, this is the one reffering to religion and violence among muslim pupils and students. Whether you like it or not. And no college-degree will save you from the truth.)
Very interesting, Chrischan74. I always assume that dave is incorrect about his claims. Let's see if dave can somehow poke holes in your formidable presentation of evidence -- or whether he will just slink away and hope that this thread will be buried in oblivion and no one will notice.
To be quit honest: I don't mind, what Dave thinks or says. I am from germany and germany is full of jerks like Pfeiffer.
Most of the "decision makers" here are blind appeasers when it comes to muslims and islam. Even the CDU (almost like your GOP, but not conservative anymore since Merkel and her bunch of clowns took government from the socialists and greens) is not willing to stop migration of low-educated muslim lower-classes.
They tell us, that they have to import them for economic reasons (=public pension), as the indigenous germans produce to less babys.
But they deny the fact, that the imported bunch does not produce any money, as mor than 70% of the muslim pupils do not even have a school-leaving qualification, let alone a professional training.
So, we slowly walk to the edge and no one is willing to halt the march....
BTP, Pfeiffer was only showing his ignorance. Christianity is the one religion that specifically forbids domestic violence.
Read I Timothy 3:3. (You have to take it in the context of vv 1-6 to get the full flavour.) The word sometimes translated "not violent" actually means "not a hitter".
A Christian should not hit anyone. A Christian who cannot organise a household without resorting to beating people is unfit for leadership (i.e., is an immature Christian). I know a few Christians who try to justify the corporal punishment of children, but none of them have ever grappled with this passage. It's one that they conveniently ignore.
Yes, Christians commit domestic violence - because they disobey the Bible. And Muslims commit domestic violence too - because they obey Qur'an 4:34. But guess which community is more violent? And guess why?