| FrontPageMag.com | By Robert Spencer | By Hugh Fitzgerald | Books | Jihad Watch | Robert Spencer | Islam 101 | Qur'an Blog |  |
|
|
||||||||||
|
|
The always insightful Fjordman's latest essay:
As a non-religious person, but still one that acknowledges and respects the impact of Judeo-Christian thinking on Western culture, I have warned against naïve Christian compassion related to Muslim immigration, as well as a disturbing tendency among too many Christian organizations to ally themselves with Muslims, for "religious values" and against Israel. But frankly, the most useful allies Muslims have in the West more often than not tend to be found among the non-religious crowd.A number of executives and star presenters at the British Broadcasting Corporation admitted what critics already knew: The BBC is dominated by Left-leaning liberals who are anti-American and biased against Christianity, but sensitive to the feelings of Muslims. Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a very senior news executive about the BBC's pro-Multicultural stance, but was given the reply: "The BBC is not neutral in Multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it."
The anti-Christian element seems to be a trait shared by Multiculturalists in all Western countries. Thomas Hylland Eriksen is a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo. He has written many books and is a frequent contributor of newspaper essays. He is also leading a major project for studying the Multicultural society in Norway.
Hylland Eriksen has proclaimed the death of nations as if he took pleasure in it, and has stated that the Nidaros Cathedral (Nidarosdomen), the most significant church in the country, should no longer serve as a national symbol in our Multicultural society. Mr. Eriksen has recently clashed with two brothers named Anfindsen, who run the bilingual website HonestThinking.org.
According to Hylland Eriksen, "Cosmopolites insist on a world comprising of more colors than black and white. In such a world, the problems presented by Ole-Jørgen Anfindsen are not just petty, but irrelevant."What are the problems presented by Mr. Anfindsen? Well, he has published numbers indicating that if the current immigration continues, native Norwegians will be a minority in their own country within a couple of generations. And a large proportion of the new population will be Muslims.
Given the fact that ethnic groups who become minorities in their own lands usually have a hard time, and virtually always get persecuted
when the newcomers are Muslims, one would assume that this would be interesting information. But for self-proclaimed "Multicultural cosmopolites" such as Thomas Hylland Eriksen, it is "petty and irrelevant" to even consider that this could represent a problem.Eriksen calls Anfindsen "stupid and ignorant," and hints that "Maybe Anfindsen's agenda is inspired by a kind of perverted Christianity (he has a Christian background)."
"He has a Christian background." Is that supposed to be an insult, and disqualify a person from worrying about whether his grandchildren will be persecuted? In a newspaper essay co-authored by Eriksen, he states that: "Is he [Anfindsen] asking us to once again repeat the obvious in that the murder of Theo van Gogh, various acts of terrorism and death threats against newspaper editors have nothing to do with Islam?"
Nothing to do with Islam? Really?
Mohammed Bouyeri, born in Amsterdam of Moroccan parents, killed Theo van Gogh as he was cycling in Amsterdam on Nov. 2, 2004, shooting and stabbing before slashing his throat and pinning a note to his body with a knife. "I did what I did purely out my beliefs," he told judges while clutching a Koran. "I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan," but because he believed van Gogh insulted Islam in his film criticizing the treatment of Muslim women.
So a peaceful Christian is accused of having a dark, secret agenda, while a Muslim murderer who brags openly about his Islamic motivations has nothing to do with Islam? Needless to say, Mr. Hylland Eriksen is also rather anti-Israeli. Christians and Jews are bad, Muslims are "misunderstood." This confirms my thesis that Political Correctness is a hate ideology disguised as "tolerance." It is based upon hate against anything considered Western and a desire to eradicate this.The First Commandment of Multiculturalism is: Thou shalt hate Christianity and Judaism. Multiculturalists also hate nation states,
and they even hate the Enlightenment, by insisting that non-Western cultures should be above scrutiny.It is sometimes claimed that Islam is a "European" or Western religion. Ironically, we can test this by using "cosmopolitan Multiculturalists" such as Mr. Hylland Eriksen. They hate everything that's seen as Western and they like Islam, precisely because it's anti-Western.
Is religion a necessary component of society? Catholic historian Christopher Dawson wrote in his book "Progress and religion" from 1929:
"It is the religious impulse which supplies the cohesive force which unifies a society and a culture. The great civilizations of the world do not produce the great religions as a kind of cultural by-product; in a very real sense the great religions are the foundations on which the great civilizations rest. A society which has lost its religion becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture"
Alexis de Tocqueville, the French 19th-century political thinker, stated in Democracy in America:
"Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion – for who can search the human heart? – but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of
republican institutions."Lee Harris is the author of Civilization and Its Enemies and The Suicide of Reason. According to him, Christian Europe was a fusion of diverse elements: The Hebrew tradition, Christianity, the Roman genius for law and the Germanic barbarians' love of freedom, among others. What created the communities of reasonable men that eventually made modern reason possible? This was the question taken up by Johann Herder:
"What were the necessary conditions of the European Enlightenment? What kind of culture was necessary in order to produce a critical thinker like Immanuel Kant himself? When Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, methodically demolished all the traditional proofs for the existence of God, why wasn't he torn limb from limb in the streets of Königsburg by outraged believers, instead of being hailed as one of the greatest philosophers of all time?"
For Herder, modern scientific reason was the product of European cultures of reason, the world-historical encounter between Biblical
faith and Greek philosophical inquiry, "with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage."The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer was an atheist. Yet according to him, it was the Christian idea of God that permitted Europeans to believe that the universe was a rational cosmos.
As Harris points out, "Human beings will have their gods--and modern reason cannot alter this. Can even the most committed atheist be completely indifferent to the imaginary gods that the other members of his community continue to worship?"
And if modern reason required a pre-existing community of reasonable men before it could emerge in the West, maybe modern reason "must recognize that its own existence and survival demand both an ethical postulate and a religious postulate. The ethical postulate is: Do whatever is possible to create a community of reasonable men who abstain from violence, and who prefer to use reason. The religious postulate is: If you are given a choice between religions, always prefer the religion that is most conducive to creating a community of reasonable men, even if you don't believe in it yourself."
According to Theodore Dalrymple, the underlying problem in Western Europe in particular is a lack of purpose, which gives rise to a large amount of social pathology:
"Quite a large proportion of the population does not derive any self-respect from having to work for a living because some people are no better off if they work than if they do not work [due to the welfare state]." They "do not feel they belong to any larger project than their private lives. (…) I am not myself religious. However, I am not anti-religious. I am pro-religion provided that it is not theocratic, so long as there is still a division between church and state."
Dalrymple also believes that "Discipline without freedom leads to misery, but freedom without discipline leads to chaos, shallowness, and misery of another kind," alluding to the total lack of freedom in Islam, but also to the seeming lack of direction in the West.
I agree with Harris and Dalrymple: As long as there is separation between religion and state, those of us who don't have any religious
belief should prefer religions which tend to create reasonable and prosperous communities. Our traditional Judeo-Christian religions have proven this capability. Islam never has, and probably never will. As Australia's Cardinal George Pell says, "some seculars are so deeply anti-Christian, that anyone opposed to Christianity is seen as their ally. That could be one of the most spectacularly disastrous miscalculations in history."Indeed it could. Maybe if Western Multiculturalists get their will, and Islam does conquer parts of the West, they will discover that the new religion is infinitely worse than the old one. Of course, by then it will be too late.
Posted by Robert at October 23, 2006 8:51 AM
Print this entry
| Email this entry
| Digg this
| del.icio.us
Multicultural cosmopolite Hylland Erickson sounds a lot like John Esposito or Karen Armstrong. Each Westeren nation needs to have one of these cosmopolites to lead the sheep to slaughter.
Posted by: John Sobieski![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.jihadwatch.org/dhimmiwatch/nav-commenters.gif)
at October 23, 2006 9:31 AM
Judaism has a saying: "those who are kind to the cruel, become, in time cruel to the kind."
The hatred of Western Values and the love of Islamic fascism expressed by today's self-professed "liberals" (and I use that term cautiously) illustrates the truth of this saying perfectly.
Posted by: Tziona at October 23, 2006 9:36 AM
According to Theodore Dalrymple, the underlying problem in Western Europe in particular is a lack of purpose...
No it is not. They (EU) know their purpose. And that's hedonism under the bless of almighty holy trinity of me, myself and I. Its abominable how large ammount of hypocrisy and unfairness is constantly throw on the back of judeo-christianity. Last sathurday & sunday I was able to see that leftist shit with all its stench on (of course where else) the BBC. It was a story abour sexual malesting of young kids by catholic priests. Not to mention, it was allevil church conspiracy for coverup mageded by noone other but pope Benedict himself (in a time when he was "just" Raicinger).It is fair to be said that certanly there is such a priests, but making the documentary which will seek to builtup paranoia among the parents (just try to raise your kids as christians, and they will end up rapped), was more than grusome. Of course, not a single documentary about sexual malesting among "untouchable and alvays offended" the religion of peace. Not a single story about "noble messenger of allah" and his romantic marriage with 9 year old girl (whom he probably purchase for a glass of water).
Day before: I turnned to History (viasat). Story about Nero burning Rome. Conclusion. It was, after all, christians of jewish origins, who burn the Rome. F..k Tacitus, the roman eyewitness who openly and clearly claim it was Nero augustus. To hell with all other historians who said that christians was wictimased by man who was already declared as pscihopat (even for a standards of the contemporary romans who enjojed themselves in sensless gladiator bloodshed). If we dig a little dipper and consider "this" as "that", we can clearly see that it was christian religious madness mixed with judean patriotism sensitivness that tosted the romans. I'll jump over new facts that Judas, not Christ, was most important person im Gods providance to save mankinde (gospel of judas), and new findings that Jesus actualy was wery warm family man (da vinci code). After all, why not make Christ to look more like muhammad than Christ himself. Not to mention, that was all proofs more for chuch coverup conspiracy.
I could go on and on. It want be surprise that soon I will see on History, BBC, N. Geographic or some other channel new insights, which will explain very reasonably, that Jesus planned anti roman wide spread midle east rebellion, but he failed. So he sent his 9 year old mistress Mary Magdalene to France (or maybe Brussel), to found papacy untill all calm down. Then he set up to judas to die on the cross (as koran and hadith explains), and he die peacefuly on azzurian reviera living happily evermore.
Thats our medias. Thats multiculturalism.
at October 23, 2006 10:43 AM
Tsiyona, I have long believed that the Talmudic saying that you quote was very fitting for our times. [I would, however, translate "m'rahamim" (or "m'rahem") and "rahmanim" as merciful rather than kind --well, just a quibble]. Of course, this saying applies to all the foreign "humanitarians" who come to Israel and say "Let the [so-called] palestinians go through this road without a checkpost." I'm sure you're aware of how many times something like this has happened and the next day or in the next few days Jews get killed because the "humanitarians" removed the checkpost.
Fjordman, I don't think that the Eriksons and all that ilk are so much against Western civilization. They are against civilization Period. So they don't mind Hindus in India and Buddhists in Thailand being slaughtered, any more than they mind Jews being slaughtered. By the way, how come almost no body talks about the hundreds of thousands of Hindus driven out of Kashmir? Isn't that ethnic cleansing? Of course, if Muslims do it, then it's OK.
Now, maybe the reason why the Eriksons and the Ken Livingstons and Giscard d'Estaings love Islam so much is precisely they think that it will help destroy civilization.
Those who are merciful to the cruel, in the end are cruel to the merciful.
Posted by: Eliyahu at October 23, 2006 11:02 AM
The key to Western Civilization surviving the terrible onslaught of Islam in the 21st Century AD, I believe, is the revival of a missing unifying perspective as suggested by Fjordman’s masterful essay and his quotation from Catholic historian Christopher Dawson’s 1929 book "Progress and Religion":
"It is the religious impulse which supplies the cohesive force which unifies a society and a culture. The great civilizations of the world do not produce the great religions as a kind of cultural by-product; in a very real sense the great religions are the foundations on which the great civilizations rest. A society which has lost its religion becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture"
We have indeed lost the ‘cohesive force’ – the Judeo/Christian framework – responsible for our cultural greatness and, unless we come to this fundamental realization in mass, we are doomed to the shackles of sharia and its evil taskmaster, Islam
at October 23, 2006 11:04 AM
Seeing how grateful Islamaniacs are to those who aid them it will be very satisfying to see them behead the likes of Eriksen the Quisling as a token of their thanks. The question is, will any of us be around to enjoy that?
Posted by: ISLAMSFORLOSERS at October 23, 2006 12:33 PM
Fjordman is right on the spot as usual.
Posted by: EliasAlucard at October 23, 2006 12:33 PM
I think the heart of multiculturalism is the concept of moral superiority. If you can tolerate something as vile and disgusting as radical islam and call it a fringe phenomenon, you are truly a better person and morally superior to those narrow-minded bigots that think islam might have something to do with violent acts around the world.
It's easy to show tolerance and good will towards decent people. You can only be truly "cosmopolitan" if you tolerate islam and its extreme intolerance.
The problem with Hylland Eriksen and his kind is the fact that they get a free pass in the media. Nobody challenges their platitudes for the fear of being labeled a racist or a bigot.
Posted by: Saatanan Islam at October 23, 2006 3:16 PM
Tak, Fjordman, Tak. Many thanks.
Tziona, thanks for the quote. Would it be possible to tell us the precise source of it?
Kepha the Christian
Posted by: Kepha at October 23, 2006 4:07 PM
Missing again from Fjordman's otherwise excellent essay is the fact that the PC multiculturalist support of Islam, and denigration of Western Judaeo-Christianity, is based in great part upon a reverse racism, against whites and for non-whites.
Posted by: remote_control at October 23, 2006 8:23 PM
I'm not entirely convinced by all this. Faith in free speech and liberty of the individual, including freedom of conscience, are perfectly adequate ideas to fight and die for. Just because we are dealing with people who believe single-minded, unrelenting fanaticism will prevail does not mean we have to imitate the historical throwbacks.
What is essential is that certain key pieces of knowledge become current in the culture. Once Islamic malevolence, deception and deviousness are plain for all to see, they will be as good as finished.
What it is urgent that the entire population of the western world should accept as proven and unchangeable facts about Islam would include:
1/Islam is fundqmentally inimical to human rights, democracy and toleration
2/Muslims only talk the language of human rights in order to eventually destroy them worldwide.
3/Muslims are forbidden to make fiends with non-believers, despise all non-Muslim culture and regard non-Muslims as unclean. There is no way they will adjust nd integrate into an infidel society.
4/Muslims are only capable of patriotism in a Muslim state or in terms of the ummah.
5/Islam is a suprematist religion that seeks to annihilate all other beliefs, including christianity and judaism. It's ultimate goal is to establish sharia law worldwide.
6/Islam believes in the use of force to expand its domain - the exercise of this force is solely limited by the possibilities (or not) of a localvictory, through the institution of jihad.
7/Muslims lie to and seek to decieve non-believers, almost on principle. They are anxious to conceal he true nature of their religion and its objectives.
8/Muslim law allows one of their sons to marry your daughter, even if she retains her religion, but will not let one of their daughters marry your son unless he converts. Women are usually blamed for cases of rape.This particularly applies to immodestly attired (i.e.all) western women.
9/Muslims are happy to try and terrorise non-Muslims into respecting their religion with the ultimate aim of making them submit to their domination. Very few fanatics are needed to achieve this. The rest can be mere by-standers.
Anyone could complete this list. Forget drawing up complex conspiracy theories about Eurabia or calling for a religious revival or recommending support for ultra-right parties. Just get this information out into the mainstream cnsciousness, by hook or by crook.
Posted by: wallyUK at October 23, 2006 11:00 PM
Hylland Eriksen has proclaimed the death of nations as if he took pleasure in it...
Global government has always been a central goal of Marxism. The sames goes for Islam. This is what we call strategic convergence.
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at October 24, 2006 12:13 AM
A society which has lost its religion becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture
Don't forget that white women take the pill and have abortions. This boosts the arithmetic for the Moslems, big-time.
The self-loathing that characterizes our ruling elites is bad enough. To wit, what Rosie said two weeks ago. No, to wit, that Rosie would even be positioned to be a ruling elite means is disturbing and alarming.
We must implement a law whereby the % of population that is Moslem be strictly limited by force of arms. If we can let the market kill JudeoChristian unborn infants, then the government must apply a balance against the Moslem unborn.
And I'm not an anti-abortion zealot; just a guy who knows that we must manage our infection rate, and closely.
Think of it as T-cell count. Anybody need to be told what "T" stands for?
Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at October 24, 2006 12:24 AM
Great comment svemirko. I think the problem is an even deeper one, however. The west has been infected with a spiritual disease - liberalism. The disease is fairly unique to the west, though I've read reports of Indian readers about a creeping infection there as well. Liberalism is a species of nihilism that always involves self-hatred. A writer by the name of Shrewsbury penned a wonderful, concise description of this disease over at Lawrence Auster's site last month. I quote him here in full:
"Liberalism is a species of nihilism, the denial of meaning in anything outside the self. This explains why the liberal becomes so furious at any religious or patriotic claims upon him, or even any data or event (or rather, at being presented with any data or event) which makes it difficult for him to maintain his (anti-)philosophy. The cases you give are interesting examples of how the liberal simply sectors off vast areas of reality in order to maintain his cozy psychological stability, to make of his mind a kind of intellectual greenhouse.
Worse yet, from the same necessities of nihilism, the liberal instinctively sides with all destructive forces, whether they be atheism, sexual license, or revolutionary movements. But not mere dictators, who tend to retain at least the trappings of patriotism and traditional authority. The political force must have that destructive zing or it don’t mean a thing. The liberal is however instinctively attracted even to totalitarian regimes, whether Communist or Mahometan, which would mean the death of liberalism. So long as the political force promises the destruction of elements in his own society which he finds constricting precisely because they have profound meanings, he will find himself almost subconsciously but powerfully drawn to it. He can never do otherwise than almost tropistically side with the enemies of the West.
- Shrewsbury, at VFR, 9/14/06
This Shrewsbury person is obviously familiar with the magnificent analysis of liberalism presented by the Orthodox Priest Seraphim Rose some 40 years ago. (How on earth did he see it coming back then?) As long as significant numbers of those in the west hold to this evil, nihilistic ideology, there can be no hope of serious resistance against the onslaught of Islam.
Posted by: Carolus at October 24, 2006 1:40 AM
"Those who are merciful to the cruel, in the end are cruel to the merciful."
That's a great analysis, Eliyahu. This is indeed what lies at the heart of the western liberal, whether they reside in Europe, the USA, or in Israel (the youngest Western nation): Nihilism.
Posted by: Carolus at October 24, 2006 1:50 AM
Carolus, the comment of Shrewsbury is good, except for one glaring problem: he should not use the word "Liberalism". The culprit is "Leftism", not Liberalism. Leftism is a perversion of Classical Liberalism (the latter of which exists in our body politic only rarely, both on the Left (Moynihan) and on the Right (William F. Buckley)).
Leftist vs. Liberal
http://hesperado.blogspot.com/2006/07/leftist-vs-liberal.html
at October 24, 2006 4:20 AM
Remote control:
You raise a legitimate point here. The classical liberalism like that of the US founding fathers, whose contemporary adherents would include folks like David Horowitz and Ilana Mercer, two of the most whiggish (classically liberal) pundits around presently, do not fall into the nihilism described so well by Shrewsbury. Sorry for not making the distinction. He's describing modern liberalism here. Classical liberalism, interestingly, acknowledges the importance of non-liberal moral constraints. Here's a marvelous quote from John Adams (a US founding father) that proves this very point.
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." -- John Adams, Oct. 11, 1798
Posted by: Carolus at October 24, 2006 4:34 AM
"Those who are merciful to the cruel, in the end are cruel to the merciful."
A comparable Christian quotation is, "Justice without mercy is cruelty; mercy without justice is the mother of dissolution" (St. Thomas Aquinas). But I get the impression that the hazards of excessive mercy are given considerably less emphasis in Christianity than in Judaism, unfortunately.
Posted by: Mr. Spog at October 24, 2006 6:32 PM
Hatred is Islam's secret weapon. If you know how to use hatred, you can make people do just about anything you want them to do. The imams of Islam have known this for as long as Islam has been around and they have put it to good, evil use. Now, lo and behold, the Islams of Islam are at work trying to wipe us and our civilization out by using the Islamic zombies to attack--killer-zombies which they have created by manipulating the emotion known as hate.
Posted by: pythagoras at October 24, 2006 10:10 PM
Comments are turned off and archived for this entry.
(Note: Comments on articles are unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dhimmi Watch or Robert Spencer. Comments that are off-topic, offensive, slanderous, or otherwise annoying may be summarily deleted. However, the fact that particular comments remain on the site IN NO WAY constitutes an endorsement by Robert Spencer of the views expressed therein.)