How to Turn the Tide

Below is the speech given by Geert Wilders last night (March 25) at the Annual Lecture of the Magna Carta Foundation in Rome.



The Failure of Multiculturalism and How to Turn the Tide

Speech by Geert Wilders, Rome, 25 March 2011

Signore e signori, ladies and gentlemen, dear friends of the Magna Carta Foundation, molte grazie. Thank you for inviting me to Rome. It is great to be here in this beautiful city which for many centuries was the capital and the centre of Europe’s Judeo-Christian culture.

Together with Jerusalem and Athens, Rome is the cradle of our Western civilization — the most advanced and superior civilization the world has ever known.

As Westerners, we share the same Judeo-Christian culture. I am from the Netherlands and you are from Italy. Our national cultures are branches of the same tree. We do not belong to multiple cultures, but to different branches of one single culture. This is why when we come to Rome, we all come home in a sense. We belong here, as we also belong in Athens and in Jerusalem.

It is important that we know where our roots are. If we lose them we become deracinated. We become men and women without a culture.

I am here today to talk about multiculturalism. This term has a number of different meanings. I use the term to refer to a specific political ideology. It advocates that all cultures are equal. If they are equal it follows that the state is not allowed to promote any specific cultural values as central and dominant. In other words: multiculturalism holds that the state should not promote a leitkultur, which immigrants have to accept if they want to live in our midst.

It is this ideology of cultural relativism which the German Chancellor Angela Merkel recently referred to when she said that multiculturalism has proved “an absolute failure.”

My friends, I dare say that we have known this all along. Indeed, the premise of the multiculturalist ideology is wrong. Cultures are not equal. They are different, because their roots are different. That is why the multiculturalists try to destroy our roots.

Rome is a very appropriate place to address these issues. There is an old saying which people of our Western culture are all familiar with. “When in Rome, do as the Romans do,” it says. This is an obvious truth: If you move somewhere, you must adapt to the laws and customs of the land.

The multicultural society has undermined this rule of common sense and decency. The multicultural society tells the newcomers who settle in our cities and villages: You are free to behave contrary to our norms and values. Because your norms and values are just as good, perhaps even better, than ours.

It is, indeed, appropriate to discuss these matters here in Rome, because the history of Rome also serves as a warning.

Will Durant, the famous 20th century American historian, wrote that “A great civilization cannot be destroyed from outside if it has not already destroyed itself from within.” This is exactly what happened here, in Rome, 16 centuries ago.

In the 5th century, the Roman Empire fell to the Germanic Barbarians. There is no doubt that the Roman civilization was far superior to that of the Barbarians. And yet, Rome fell. Rome fell because it had suffered a loss of belief in its own civilization. It had lost the will to stand up and fight for survival.

Rome did not fall overnight. Rome fell gradually. The Romans scarcely noticed what was happening. They did not perceive the immigration of the Barbarians as a threat until it was too late. For decades, Germanic Barbarians, attracted by the prosperity of the Empire, had been crossing the border.

At first, the attraction of the Empire on newcomers could be seen as a sign of the cultural, political and economic superiority of Rome. People came to find a better life which their own culture could not provide. But then, on December 31st in the year 406, the Rhine froze and tens of thousands of Germanic Barbarians, crossed the river, flooded the Empire and went on a rampage, destroying every city they passed. In 410, Rome was sacked.

The fall of Rome was a traumatic experience. Numerous books have been written about the cataclysmal event and Europeans were warned not to make the same mistake again. In 1899, in his book ‘The River War,’ Winston Churchill warned that Islam is threatening Europe in the same way as the Barbarians once threatened Rome. “Mohammedanism,” Churchill wrote — I quote — “is a militant and proselytizing faith. No stronger retrograde force exists in the World. […] The civilization of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilization of ancient Rome.” End of quote.

Churchill is right. However, if Europe falls, it will fall because, like ancient Rome, it no longer believes in the superiority of its own civilization. It will fall because it foolishly believes that all cultures are equal and that, consequently, there is no reason why we should fight for our own culture in order to preserve it.

This failure to defend our own culture has turned immigration into the most dangerous threat that can be used against the West. Multiculturalism has made us so tolerant that we tolerate the intolerant.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: Our opponents are keenly aware of our weakness. They realize that the pattern which led to the fall of Rome, is at play today in the West. They are keenly aware of the importance of Rome as a symbol of the West. Over and over again they hint at the fall of Rome. Rome is constantly on their minds.

  • The former Turkish Prime Minister Erbakan said — I quote: “The whole of Europe will become Islamic. We will conquer Rome”.
  • Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas cleric and member of the Palestinian Parliament said — I quote: “Very soon Rome will be conquered.”
  • Ali Al-Faqir, the former Jordanian Minister of Religion, stated that — I quote: “Islam will conquer Rome.”
  • Sheikh Muhammad al-Arifi, imam of the mosque of the Saudi Defence Academy, said — I quote: “We will control Rome and introduce Islam in it.”

Our opponents are hoping for an event that is akin to the freezing of the Rhine in 406, when thousands of immigrants will be given an easy opportunity to cross massively into the West.

  • In a 1974 speech to the UN, the Algerian President Houari Boumédienne, said — I quote: “One day, millions of men will leave the Southern Hemisphere to go to the Northern Hemisphere. And they will not go there as friends. Because they will go there to conquer it. And they will conquer it with their sons. The wombs of our women will give us victory.” End of quote.
  • Libyan dictator Kadhafi said, I quote: “There are tens of millions of Muslims in the European continent today and their number is on the increase. This is the clear indication that the European continent will be converted into Islam. Europe will one day soon be a Muslim continent.” End of quote.

Our opponents are aiming for a repetition of the fall of Rome in the 5th century and want to use exactly the same methods. “The strategy of exporting human beings and having them breed in abundance is the simplest way to take possession of a territory,” warned the famous Italian author Oriana Fallaci.

However, the situation today could be worse than it was when the Roman Empire fell. The Germanic Barbarians who overran Rome were not driven by an ideology. After having sacked Rome, they eventually adopted the Judeo-Christian civilization of Rome. They destroyed Rome because they wanted its riches, but they realized and recognized that Roman civilization was superior to their own Barbaric culture.

Having destroyed Rome, the Germanic tribes eventually tried to rebuild it. In 800, the Frankish leader Charlemagne had himself crowned Roman Emperor. Three hundred years later, the Franks and the other Europeans would go on the Crusades in defence of their Christian culture. The Crusades were as Oriana Fallaci wrote — I quote — a “counter-offensive designed to stem Islamic expansionism in Europe.” Rome had fallen, but like a phoenix it had risen again.

Contrary to the Barbarians which confronted Rome, the followers of Muhammad are driven by an ideology which they want to impose on us.

Islam is a totalitarian ideology. Islamic Shariah law supervises every detail of life. Islam is not compatible with our Western way of life. Islam is a threat to our values. Respect for people who think otherwise, the equality of men and women, the equality of homosexuals and heterosexuals, respect for Christians, Jews, unbelievers and apostates, the separation of church and state, freedom of speech, they are all under pressure because of islamization.

Europe is islamizing at a rapid pace. Many European cities have large islamic concentrations. In some neighbourhoods, Islamic regulations are already being enforced. Women’s rights are being trampled. We are confronted with headscarves and burqa’s, polygamy, female genital mutilation, honour-killings. “In each one of our cities” says Oriana Fallaci, “there is a second city, a state within the state, a government within the government. A Muslim city, a city ruled by the Koran.” — End of quote.

Ladies and gentlemen, make no mistake: The multiculturalist Left is facilitating islamization. Leftist multiculturalists are cheering for every new shariah bank, for every new islamic school, for every new mosque. Multiculturalists consider Islam as being equal to our own culture. Shariah law or democracy? Islam or freedom? It doesn’t really matter to them. But it does matter to us. The entire leftist elite is guilty of practising cultural relativism. Universities, churches, trade unions, the media, politicians. They are all betraying our hard-won liberties.

Ladies and gentlemen, what is happening in Europe today has to some extent been deliberately planned

In October 2009, Andrew Neather, the former advisor of British Prime Minister Tony Blair, confirmed that the British Government had deliberately organized mass immigration as part of a social engineering project. The Blair Government wanted to — I quote — “make the UK truly multicultural.” To achieve this end, 2.3 million foreigners were allowed to enter Britain between 2000 and 2009. Neather says this policy has “enriched” Britain.

Ordinary people, however, do not consider the decline of societal cohesion, the rise of crime, the transformation of their old neighborhoods into no-go zones, to be an “enrichment.”

Ordinary people are well aware that they are witnessing a population replacement phenomenon. Ordinary people feel attached to the civilization which their ancestors created. They do not want it to be replaced by a multicultural society where the values of the immigrants are considered as good as their own. It is not xenophobia or islamophobia to consider our Western culture as superior to other cultures — it is plain common sense.

Fortunately, we are still living in a democracy. The opinion of ordinary people still matters. I am the leader of the Dutch Party of Freedom which aims to halt the Islamization process and defend the traditional values and liberties in the Netherlands. The Party of Freedom is the fastest growing party in the Netherlands.

Because the message of my party is so important, I support initiatives to establish similar parties in other countries, such as Germany, France and the United Kingdom, where they do not yet exist. Last month, a poll in Britain showed that a staggering 48 percent of the British would consider supporting a non-fascist and non-violent party that vows to crack down on immigration and Islamic extremists and restrict the building of mosques. In October last year, I was in Berlin where I gave a keynote speech at a meeting of Die Freiheit, a newly established party led by René Stadtkewitz, a former Christian-Democrat. German polls indicate that such a party has a potential of 20 percent of the electorate.

My speech, in which I urged the Germans to stop feeling ashamed about their German identity drew a lot of media attention. Two weeks later, German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that multiculturalism is “an absolute failure.” Horst Seehofer, the leader of the Bavarian Christian-Democrats, was even more outspoken. “Multiculturalism is dead,” he said.

Last month, French President Nicolas Sarkozy said: “We have been too concerned about the identity of the immigrant and not enough about the identity of the country that was receiving him.” — End of quote.

Five weeks ago, British Prime Minister David Cameron blamed multiculturalism for Islamic extremism. “We have allowed the weakening of our collective identity,” he said. “Under the doctrine of state multiculturalism, we have encouraged different cultures to live […] apart from the mainstream.” — End of quote.

In his speech, David Cameron still makes a distinction between the Islamist ideology, which he calls extremist and dangerous, and Islam, which he says is peaceful religion. I do not share this view, and neither did Cameron’s great predecessor Winston Churchill. Stating that Islam is peaceful is a multiculturalist dogma which is contrary to the truth.

Politicians such as Merkel. Sarkozy and Cameron still do not seem to have understood what the problem really is. Nevertheless, the fact that they feel compelled to distance themselves from multiculturalism is a clear indication that they realize they need to pay lip-service to what the majority of their populations have long understood. Namely that the massive influx of immigrants from Islamic countries is the most negative development that Europe has known in the past 50 years.

Yesterday, a prestigious poll in the Netherlands revealed that 50 percent of the Dutch are of the opinion that Islam and democracy are not compatible, while 42 percent think they are. Even two thirds of the voters of the Liberal Party and of the Christian-Democrat Party are convinced that Islam and democracy are not compatible.

This, then, is the political legacy of multiculturalism. While the parties of the Left have found themselves a new electorate, the establishment parties of the Right still harbour their belief that Islam is a religion of peace on a par with peaceful religions such as Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and others.

The problem with multiculturalism is a refusal to see reality. The reality that our civilization is superior, and the reality that Islam is a dangerous ideology.

Today, we are confronted with political unrest in the Arab countries. Autocratic regimes, such as that of Ben Ali in Tunisia, Mubarak in Egypt, Kadhafi in Libya, the Khalifa dynasty in Bahrain, and others, have been toppled or are under attack. The Arab peoples long for freedom. This is only natural. However, the ideology and culture of Islam is so deeply entrenched in these countries that real freedom is simply impossible. As long as Islam remains dominant there can be no real freedom.

Let us face reality. On March 8, the International Women’s Day, 300 women demonstrated on Cairo’s Tahrir Square in post-Mubarak Egypt. Within minutes, the women were charged by a group of bearded men, who beat them up and dragged them away. Some were even sexually assaulted. The police did not interfere. This is the new Egypt: On Monday, people demonstrate for freedom; on Tuesday, the same people beat up women because they, too, demand freedom.

I fear that in Islamic countries, democracy will not lead to real freedom. A survey by the American Pew Center found that 59 percent of Egyptians prefer democracy to any other form of government. However, 85 percent say that Islam’s influence on politics is good, 82 percent believe that adulterers should be stoned, 84 percent want the death penalty for apostates, and 77 percent say that thieves should be flogged or have their hands cut off.

Ronald Reagan was right when he called Kadhafi a “mad dog.” However, we should not harbor the illusion that there can be real freedom and real democracy in a country where Islam is dominant. There is no doubt that the results of the Pew survey in Egypt apply in Libya, too. It is not in our interest to bring the Muslim Brotherhood to power in Tripoli and install a khalifate in Libya.

Of course, the world has to stop Kadhafi from killing his own people. However, as UN Resolution 1973 stated last week, this is primarily the responsibility of — I quote — “in particular [the] States of the region.” End of quote. Why does a country like the Netherlands have to contribute six F16 fighter jets to enforce the arms embargo in Libya, while Saudi Arabia does not contribute a single plane from its fleet of nearly 300 fighter jets? Arabs are dying, but the Arab countries are shirking their responsibilities.

And one of the major threats of the current crisis is not even addressed by our leaders: How are we going to prevent that thousands of economic fugitives and fortune seekers cross the Mediterranean and arrive at place like Lampedusa? Now that Tunisia is liberated, young Tunisians should help to rebuild their country instead of leaving for Lampedusa. Europe cannot afford another influx of thousands of refugees.

Ladies and gentlemen,

It is time to wake up. We need to confront reality and we need to speak the truth. The truth is that Islam is evil, and the reality is that Islam is a threat to us.

Before I continue I want to make clear, however, that I do not have a problem with Muslims as such. There are many moderate Muslims. That is why I always make a clear distinction between the people and the ideology, between Muslims and Islam. There are many moderate Muslims, but there is no such thing as a moderate Islam.

Islam strives for world domination. The koran commands Muslims to exercise jihad and impose shariah law.

Telling the truth about immigration and warning that Islam might not be as benevolent as the ruling elite says, has been made a hate speech crime in several EU member states. As you probably know, I have been brought to court on charges of hate speech. That is the paradox of the multicultural society. It claims to be pluralistic, but allows only one point of view of world affairs, namely that all cultures are equal and that they are all good.

The fact that we are treated as criminals for telling the truth must not, however, deter us. The truth that Islam is evil has always been obvious to our ancestors. That is why they fought. It was very clear to them that our civilization was far superior to Islam.

It is not difficult to understand why our culture is far better than Islam. We Europeans, whether we be Christians, Jews, agnostics or atheists, believe in reason. We have always known that nothing good could be expected from Islam.

While our culture is rooted in Jerusalem, Athens and Rome, Islam’s roots are the desert and the brain of Muhammad. Our ancestors understood the consequences very well. The Koran, wrote the historian Theophanes, who lived in the second half of the 8th century, is based on hallucinations.

“Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new and there you will find things only evil and inhuman,” the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II said in 1391, adding: “God is not pleased by blood — and not acting reasonable is contrary to God’s nature.”

For 1,400 years, Westerners have been criticizing Islam and its founder because they recognized evil when they saw it. But then, suddenly, in the last decades of the past century, especially from the 1970s onwards, Western intellectuals stopped doing so.

The moral and cultural relativism of Marxism led the West’s political and intellectual elites to adopt a utopian belief in a universal brotherhood of mankind.

Multiculturalism is a culture of repudiation of Europe’s heritage and freedoms. It weakens the West day by day. It leads to the self-censorship of the media and academia, the collapse of the education system, the emasculation of the churches, the subversion of the nation-state, the break-down of our free society.

While today — at last — our leaders seem to realize what a disastrous failure multiculturalism has been, multiculturalism is not dead yet. More is needed to defeat multiculturalism than the simple proclamations that it has been an “absolute failure.” What is needed is that we turn the tide of Islamization.

There are a few things which we can do in this regard.

One thing which we should do is to oppose the introduction of Sharia or Islamic law in our countries. In about a dozen states in the United States, legislation is currently being introduced to prevent the introduction of Sharia. In early May, I will be travelling to the U.S. to express my support to these initiatives. We should consider similar measures in Europe.

Another thing which we should do is support Muslims who want to leave Islam. An International Women’s Day is useless in the Arab world if there is no International Leave Islam Day. I propose the introduction of such a day in which we can honor the courageous men and women who want to leave Islam. Perhaps we can pick a symbolic date for such a day and establish an annual prize for an individual who has turned his back on Islam or an organization which helps people to liberate themselves from Islam. It is very easy to become a Muslim. All one has to do is to pronounce the Shahada, the Islamic creed, which says — I quote “There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is the messenger of Allah.” It should be equally easy to leave Islam by pronouncing a counter-Shahada, which says “I leave Islam and join humankind.”

A third measure to turn the tide of Islamization is to reemphasize the sovereignty of the nation-state. The peoples of the free world will only be able to fight back against Islam if they can rally around a flag with which they can identify. This flag, symbolizing pre-political loyalty, can only be the flag of our nation. In the West, our freedoms are embodied in our nation-states. This is why the multiculturalists are hostile to the nation-state and aim to destroy it.

National identity is an inclusive identity: It welcomes everyone, whatever his religion or race, who is willing to assimilate into a nation by sharing the fate and future of a people. It ties the individual to an inheritance, a tradition, a loyalty, and a culture.

I want to elaborate a bit on this since we are gathered here today in Rome. Again, it is appropriate that we are in Rome. In this city, in 1957, and — what an ironic coincidence — on this very day, the 25th of March, the Treaty of Rome was signed. This Treaty obliges the member states of the European Union to aim for “an ever closer union.”

Unfortunately, this union, like other multinational organizations, has become one of the vehicles for the promotion of multiculturalism. The EU has fallen in the hands of a multiculturalist elite who by undermining national sovereignty destroy the capacity of the peoples of Europe to democratically decide their own future.

The new government in my country, which is supported by my party, wants to restrict immigration. That is what our voters want. But we are confronted by the fact that our policies have to a large extent been outsourced to “Europe” and that our voters no longer have a direct say over their own future.

On account of international treaties, EU legislation prevails over national legislation and cannot be reversed by national parliaments. Indeed, in 2008, the European Court of Justice, the highest court in the EU, annulled both Irish and Danish immigration legislation. The Court stated that national law is subordinate to whatever is ruled on the European level. In March 2010, the European Court of Justice annulled Dutch legislation restricting family reunification for immigrants on welfare.

The ease with which Europe’s political elite conducts an immigration policy aimed at the deracination of Europe shows the insensitivity of this elite. It willingly sacrifices its own people to its political goal, without any consideration for the people involved.

Lower class blue-collar people have been driven from their neighborhoods. There is no respect for their democratic vote. On the contrary, people who do not agree with the multiculturalist schemes are considered to be racists and xenophobes, while the undefined offence of “racism and xenophobia” has been made central to all moral pronouncements by the European Union, the Council of Europe, the United Nations, and other supra-national organizations. This represents a systematic assault by the elite on the ordinary feelings of national loyalty.

In 2008, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe stated that the member-states must — I quote — “condemn and combat Islamophobia” and ensure “that school textbooks do not portray Islam as a hostile or threatening religion.” — end of quote.

In March 2010, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution criminalizing so-called “defamation of religions.” The resolution, authored by Pakistan, mentions only one religion by name: Islam. With its 57 member states the Organization of the Islamic Conference systematically uses its voting power in the UN to subvert the concept of freedom and human rights. In 1990, the OIC rejected the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and replaced it by the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, which states in articles 24 that — I quote — “All the rights and freedoms stipulated in this Declaration are subject to the Islamic Sharia.” — end of quote.

This “human rights” charade has to stop if Western civilization wants to survive. Human rights exist for the protection of individuals, not religions and ideologies.

The EU’s aim, meanwhile, seems to be to destroy the old sovereign nations and replace them by new provincial identities, which are all clones of each other. Britanistan will not differ from Netherlandistan, nor Germanistan from Italiastan, or any other province of the European superstate in the making.

We must reclaim Europe. We can only do so by giving political power back to the nation-state. By defending the nation-states which we love, we defend our own identity. By defending our identity, we defend who we are and what we are against those who want to deracinate us. Against those who want to cut us from our roots, so that our culture withers away and dies.

My friends,

Twenty years after the ordinary people, Europe’s mainstream conservative leaders, such as Merkel, Sarkozy and Cameron, have finally — better late than never — come to the obvious conclusion, namely that multiculturalism is a failure. However, they do not have a plan to remedy the situation.

Ladies and gentlemen, it is time for change. We must make haste. Time is running out. Ronald Reagan said: “We need to act today, to preserve tomorrow”. That is why I propose the following measures in order to preserve our freedom:

First, we will have to defend freedom of speech. It is the most important of our liberties. If we are free to speak, we will be able to tell people the truth and they will realize what is at stake.

Second, we will have to end cultural relativism. To the multiculturalists, we must proudly proclaim: Our Western culture is far superior to the Islamic culture. Only when we are convinced of that, we will be willing to fight for our own identity.

Third, we will have to stop Islamization. Because more Islam means less freedom. We must stop immigration from Islamic countries, we must expel criminal immigrants, we must forbid the construction of new mosques. There is enough Islam in Europe already. Immigrants must assimilate and adapt to our values: When in Rome, do as the Romans do.

Fourth, we must restore the supremacy and sovereignty of the nation-state. Because we are citizens of these states, we can take pride in them. We love our nation because they are our home, because they are the legacy which our fathers bestowed on us and which we want to bestow on our children. We are not multiculturalists, we are patriots. And because we are patriots, we are willing to fight for freedom.

Let me end with a final — and a positive — remark: Though the situation is bad and multiculturalism is still predominant, we are in better shape than the Roman Empire was before its fall.

The Roman Empire was not a democracy. The Romans did not have freedom of speech. We are the free men of the West. We do not fight for an Empire, we fight for ourselves. We fight for our national republics. You fight for Italy, I fight for the Netherlands, others fight for France, Germany, Britain, Denmark or Spain. Together we stand. Together we represent the nations of Europe.

I am confident that if we can safeguard freedom of speech and democracy, our civilization will be able to survive. Europe will not fall. We, Europe’s patriots, will not allow it.

Thank you very much.

Gates of Vienna News Feed 3/25/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 3/25/2011NATO forces led by the United States today bombed tanks manned by forces loyal to Col. Mommar al-Gaddafi near the town of Ajdabiya, which had at one point been in rebel hands and was later captured by Libyan government forces. After the bombing, there were reports that rebel forces had re-entered the town.

Meanwhile, Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh said that he will hand over power to an opposition group, provided that they are responsible people — what he called “safe hands”. Violent protests continue in Syria, and more demonstrators have been killed as the protests spread to Damascus. Demonstrators in Jordan were confronted by police in a public square in Amman. In Oman, protestors have organized popular forums in three cities.

In other news, the efforts to stabilize the six reactors at the Fukushima Nuclear plant in Japan have run into a setback. Pools of water in the basements of two reactor buildings were found to have exceedingly high radiation levels, and two workers were hospitalized with radiation burns. The high radiation levels could mean that the containment structures for the reactors have been breached, but any further meltdowns are considered very unlikely at this point.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to AC, C. Cantoni, Caroline Glick, Erick Stakelbeck, Fjordman, Freedom Fighter, Insubria, JD, JP, Salome, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Sharia Rules for All

Cultural Enrichment News


In a Vienna hospital, the gender-segregation rules demanded by Muslims are applied to everyone, Muslim or otherwise. The parents of a little girl undergoing heart surgery were dismayed to find that they had no choice but to follow the sharia rules.

Many thanks to JLH for this translation from Politically Incorrect:

No Night Vigil Allowed — The New Dominant Culture in Austria

by Thorsten M.

In physics the process is quite simple: If there is a vacuum somewhere, and the body which contains it springs a leak, it fills up with whatever is outside the body (if the state of matter is appropriate). That is to say: someone who has no culture of his own need not be surprised if another, newer one suddenly spreads out over his living space.

Two Austrian parents had this experience when the father intended to spend the night by the hospital bed of his six year-old daughter after a planned-for operation. From the very start, at registration in Vienna Medical Center East, the parents had to agree in writing that the mother — and definitely not the father — would take the night vigil.

The Austrian Kronen Zeitung reports:

How much political correctness is too much? the following incident is reported from Vienna Medical Center East: A father wanted to spend the night in the hospital after his daughter’s operation. But that won’t do. Muslim fathers will not allow a non-Muslim man near their children.

“Since September, 2010, my six year-old daughter has already had her seventh incident of angina,” says the mother, who wishes to remain anonymous. “We have an operation date for this month and, in the preliminary interview, I had to sign an agreement that I — as the mother — would stay with my daughter at night, because my husband is not allowed!”

Not allowed? Why is that? The doctors’ explanation at the time: “If a Muslim mother should stay overnight in the hospital with her sick child, Muslim fathers will not allow a non-Muslim man to be in the same room,” The family is astonished. “What if a man is a single parent? Couldn’t he stay with his daughter?” the girl’s mother asked.

A spokeswoman for the hospital association: “Usually the operation dates are arranged so that only mamas or only papas, regardless of religion, spend the night together in a hospital room with their children.”

That is to say, the Austrians (it could just as easily be the Germans) are allowing themselves to be dictated to by backward, envious immigrants about what rules will apply in Austrian hospitals in the future. Similar things are happening in schools and swimming pools.

Once more it is demonstrated that a constitution and legal system are absolutely insufficient as a dominant culture, since they both only gain traction when the legal process must be used. 99% of the daily interchange between people is shaped by customs and practices.



For a complete listing of previous enrichment news, see The Cultural Enrichment Archives.

The Long Arm of Iran

In the video below, Erick Stakelbeck of CBN News interviews Israeli Vice Prime Minister Moshe Yaalon about the recent increase in terror attacks on Israel, and the rocket launches from Gaza. Mr. Yaalon believes most of the recent attacks — which differ in important ways from previous terror operations against Israel — are being carried out by Iranian proxies.

Many thanks to Vlad Tepes for YouTubing this clip:



For more information, see the accompanying article at CBN.

Free Speech as an Extension of Property Rights

Our Perth correspondent Anne-Kit sends this translation from Sappho’s newsletter. She says, “I’m not sure I agree with everything he says, but I found it thought provoking enough to translate, and it might spark some discussion among Gates of Vienna readers.”

Torben Mark Pedersen’s opinion piece overlaps some of the themes that were discussed on Tuesday’s open discussion thread.



Freedom of expression does not exist
by Torben Mark Pedersen

23 March 2011

Torben Mark Pedersen clears up the definition of freedom of expression: Freedom of expression is not a ‘right’, private property rights are. Without private property rights, there can be no freedom of expression.

No right

Freedom of expression does not exist. And this statement is not just a pessimistic declaration on the state of the world.

No, it is more fundamental than that. In spite of various human rights declarations, bills and constitutions, it makes no sense talking about freedom of expression as a human right.

In fact it should be quite obvious:

I have neither the right, nor can I demand to have my letters to the editor printed in the newspapers, or have my points of view aired on radio or TV; I have no right to take to the Speaker’s chair in Parliament, or go on stage at the Royal Theatre to state my candid opinion on cultural subsidies.

I am not allowed to make political speeches in the Supreme Court, I do not have permission to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre; I would not be popular if I slandered my friends’ girlfriends in their own homes; I doubt if I’d be allowed to make speeches about the crimes of socialism at the Socialist People’s Party headquarters, unless they invited me to do so.

I may not publish naked photos of my ex-girlfriends on the internet; I am not even allowed to put a naked photo of myself on Facebook. I cannot express my artistic calling by painting graffiti on the walls of apartments and public buildings.

Why not?

We enjoy private property rights, not freedom of expression

Because freedom of expression is not a ‘right’. Private property rights, on the other hand, are.

All liberties originate in private property rights; fundamentally in self-ownership: The moral assertion that every man owns himself and the use of his own abilities — physical as well as mental.

Self-ownership is the determining factor in being a free human being, for if one is owned by others one is a slave; if one is owned by no-one it would lead to the absurd state of affairs that one cannot determine the use of one’s own body (it is the opinion of certain feminists that this applies to women if they choose to use their bodies for purposes (sex for money) which they (the feminists) do not approve of).

The right to use your physique, to work, to enjoy the fruits of your own labour, to trade with others and to buy and sell rightfully acquired property, to give away your property and to destroy it, to travel, to practice your religion, write, draw and say what you want, as long as none of this violates the corresponding rights of others: All of this is grounded in self-ownership and private property rights.

But as far as all these derivative rights are concerned the question begs: Where do we have the right to write, say or draw what we want? Where do we have the right to work? To trade with others? To practice our religion?

And the answer is: Inside or on your own private property, or where a rightful owner of the property gives you permission to do so.

The notion of freedom of expression as a property right solves all problems of defining freedom of expression

If we speak of freedom of expression as a right in itself we run into all sorts of problems explaining why we cannot express ourselves freely in all of the above examples.

Any property owner has the right to put his property at the disposal of others to express themselves, but he also has the right to impose any conditions or to exact any price for the privilege. A newspaper is free to print letters to the editor, but also to reject them on any grounds or even without grounds.

The same is true for Facebook, which has unlimited rights as a property owner to remove undesirable material or profiles. This has nothing to do with censorship but everything to do with the exercise of private property rights, in exactly the same way that you or I have the right to throw out a guest who harasses us in our own home.

In the same vein it is illegal for me to shout “fire” in a crowded theatre, not because it might create panic, for it would create (at least) as much panic if there really were a fire, but in that situation it would not be illegal.

It is illegal because it violates private property rights: The rights of the spectators to enjoy the performance they paid for, and the rights of the owner to make a profit from putting on a theatrical performance without having his business disrupted.

Problems with defining freedom of expression

Nearly all problems related to the definition of freedom of expression stem from an imprecise definition of property rights. This applies particularly in the public sphere, where it is unclear exactly what (property) rights citizens enjoy. In certain areas the state acts as a private property rights holder, excluding “unauthorised persons” from expressing themselves.

This holds true in DR [state owned radio/TV broadcaster], in Parliament, in the Supreme Court and in government buildings and institutions as a whole. In public places like streets and squares the lines are less defined, because fundamentally the citizens have the right to move about and speak freely in the street. However, as the public space represents a scarce resource there is a need for a rationing mechanism.

There is not an unlimited amount of space for buskers; traffic and demonstrations may compete for access to the same thoroughfares, streets and squares, and in certain cases traffic will be limited in order to benefit the citizens’ right to demonstrate, but traffic considerations demand that this right is limited in both time and space.

The point is that this is not a matter of limiting the freedom of expression, but of rationing scarce resources.

It should be self-evident that neither religions nor “races” have private property rights. Only individuals have property rights; therefore only the rights of individuals should be protected and no collective groups should enjoy any other protection than that which applies to individuals of that same group, in relation to their individual private property rights.

Thus the Racism and Blasphemy Clause [the infamous § 266b of the Danish Penal Code] conflicts with the notion of freedom of expression as a private property right.

What about defamation?

Each individual owns himself but not others’ opinion of him, so how can defamation laws ever be justified?

There are liberalists who think that defamation laws can never be justified, precisely because no-one has ownership of other people’s opinions of them.

I do not agree.

Defamation and slander may violate someone’s private property rights in the sense that it can destroy their human capital. For example if someone spreads false paedophilia rumours about a teacher, of if someone spreads false rumours that a bank employee embezzled his previous employer.

Likewise, if someone spreads false rumours that an academic falsified his credentials, or that a solicitor leaked confidential information or misappropriated client funds, it is likely to ruin his earnings and career opportunities and would destroy his human capital.

This constitutes a violation of his private property rights and should not be allowed.

We could extend this notion so that if someone spreads false rumours that a named person used to beat up his ex-girlfriends, then that person should be able to claim damages for his ruined prospects on the matrimonial market.

It goes without saying that it would be harder to put a price on the value of this loss, but there can be no doubt that false accusations can impose financial an non-financial losses on an innocent person, and that consequently his private property rights are violated.

Commercial enterprises habitually put a price on their “goodwill” in their annual reports, and scandals invariably lead to substantial downgrading of the value of that ”goodwill”, so the notion that a company’s capital can be destroyed by slander is well known in the commercial world.

This notion of freedom of expression as an exercise of private property rights shows also that we should not defend freedom of expression based on the role it plays in democracy, or indeed based on any other collectivist arguments, but simply and more fundamentally because it is a human right which is insolubly tied to the right to be a free human being.

A Split Personality at National Review

Note: This post has been revised from its earlier version to explain why blasphemy (Asia Bibi’s crime) is considered a form of kufr, or unbelief, under Islamic law.



This job takes up so much of my time that I am chronically unable to do any outside reading. Unless I have to go to the dentist or wait at the DMV, I read very little that doesn’t bear directly on Gates of Vienna or related work.

Last week provided a chance to catch up on some of the backlog: I had to renew my driver’s license, which involved sitting at the Department of Motor Vehicles for an extended period. To add to the pleasure of the occasion, I took along several issues of National Review, which I had been neglecting since before Christmas.

Every issue of NR contains a feature near the front of the magazine called “The Week”, in which the editors collect various noteworthy news stories and add a bit of unsigned commentary to them. The February 7th issue included this item:

Aasia Bibi is a Pakistani Christian under sentence of death for blasphemy against the Prophet Mohammed. She had been working in the fields one day alongside Muslim women, and they apparently set her up. The blasphemy law with its mandatory death sentence dates from the 1980s as part of Pakistan’s growing Islamism and has no Koranic sanction. [emphasis added]

That’s an intriguing assertion, coming from a (presumably) non-Muslim editor of a conservative American political magazine. It reminds me of the blanket statements about “true Islam” that are repeated over and over by the White House, or generals at the Pentagon, or officials at the Department of Homeland Security.

How do they know that something “has no Koranic sanction”? What authorities have they consulted? What texts have they examined?

Do they rely solely on press releases put out by CAIR? Or did they perhaps hear a talking head from ISNA say something about it on CNN?

How much do they know about Islam, and where did they learn it?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


Reliance of the TravellerTo determine whether or not something is sanctioned by the Koran, a good place to start is ’Umdat al-salik wa ’uddat al-nasik, or The reliance of the traveller and tools of the worshipper, by Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri.

The book is commonly referred to as Reliance of the Traveller when cited in English, and is an authoritative source on Sunni Islamic law. We know this because it is certified as such by Al-Azhar University in Cairo, which is recognized by Sunni Muslims as the highest authority on Sunni Islamic doctrine.

To understand the charge lodged against Asia Bibi, let’s take a look at Book O, “Justice”, in Reliance of the Traveller. The book does not actually refer to “blasphemy” — the word is not used in the text to describe a crime. However, the topic is covered by the more general concept of kufr, or “unbelief”.

Section o8.7, “Acts that Entail Leaving Islam”, tells us a bit more about unbelief:

Among the things that entail apostasy from Islam (may Allah protect us from them) are:

(1)   to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction…
(2)   to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future…
(3)   to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,”…
(4)   to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);
(5)   to deny the existence of Allah…

o8.7 continues through fifteen more examples, and concludes: “There are others, for the subject is nearly limitless. May Allah Most High save us and all Muslims from it.”

For our purposes, “blasphemy” is covered by examples (1) through (5).

Example (3) in particular applies to the case of Asia Bibi, who is a Christian — “Allah is the third of three” is the Islamic description of the doctrine of the Trinity, which Muslims consider a dangerous form of unbelief. However, Ms. Bibi was also probably accused of (4), reviling Allah or Mohammed.

So Ms. Bibi is therefore guilty of kufr, and is subject to the same punishment as an apostate — someone who leaves Islam — under Islamic law.

In the header section on “Apostasy from Islam” (o8.0) we read: “Leaving Islam is the ugliest form of unbelief and the worst.” The first subsection (o8.1) is summarized with by topic header: “Whoever Voluntarily Leaves Islam Is Killed.”

And o8.1 itself includes this text:

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

That seems fairly definitive to me. But if Reliance of the Traveller isn’t authoritative enough — National Review did insist on a “Koranic sanction”, after all — we may turn to the Koran itself and a relevant supporting hadith.

It’s important to note that the citations below are from sahih (“authoritative”) sources. This means that they enjoy the “consensus of the scholars”, and are thus undisputed by all Sunni religious authorities.

First, from Koran 4:89 (Sahih International version):

They wish you would disbelieve as they disbelieved so you would be alike. So do not take from among them allies until they emigrate for the cause of Allah. But if they turn away, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them and take not from among them any ally or helper

Is this clear enough? Or is more sanction required?

Just in case the editors still have doubts, the same prescribed punishment is backed by a hadith (also sahih), Bukhari 4.52.260:

Narrated Ikrima:

Ali burnt some people and this news reached Ibn ’Abbas, who said, “Had I been in his place I would not have burnt them, as the Prophet said, ‘Don’t punish (anybody) with Allah’s Punishment.’ No doubt, I would have killed them, for the Prophet said, ‘If somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him.’”

In other words: apostates must be killed, but don’t burn them — the privilege of burning unbelievers is reserved to Allah alone.

So much for the lack of “Koranic sanction”!

The prosecution rests.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


Before you write off National Review entirely, take a look at the following item, also found in “The Week”, from the February 21st issue:

Feisal Rauf, once the public face of the proposed Ground Zero mosque, has been replaced by Abdallah Adhami, a 44-year-old former architect and current cleric born in Georgetown. Rauf had become a drag on the project, thanks to his notoriety. Will Adhami equal him in that regard? Asked last year about sharia and apostasy, he gave a ten-minute answer in which he said, inter alia, that some jurists had prescribed death, though perhaps imprisonment was enough (comforted yet?); private apostasy might incur no sanction (how private?)…

Strangely enough, this time there’s no mention of “Koranic sanction” when examining the question of the death penalty for apostasy. Is this evidence of a split personality within the editorial staff of National Review?

The explanation for this apparent contradiction is obvious: National Review is a diverse publication. The overwhelming majority of its editors are moderates, but there remains a tiny minority of extremists on the editorial staff who demonstrate Islamophobic tendencies. No one should judge the entire magazine by the behavior of a few extremists who have hijacked a great publication.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


The preponderance of “moderates” among the editors at NR is testimony to the fact that the magazine has gradually come to resemble an in-house publication for the Republican Party. As such, one cannot expect it to deviate significantly from the party line of the Republican National Committee.

George W. Bush laid down the party’s doctrine on Islam almost a decade ago. It runs something like this:

  • Islam is a religion of peace.
  • The terrorist threat comes from “Islamists”: deranged extremists who have hijacked a great religion for their evil ends.
  • The evildoers who do horrible things (such as killing apostates) do not represent the true Islam.
  • The vast majority of Muslims are just like you and me. They are fundamentally peaceful people who simply want to live their lives in freedom.

Unfortunately for anyone who wishes there were a substantial difference between the two major American political parties, Republican policy on Islam is pretty much set in stone. The party establishment has drunk deeply of the happy juice, and is unlikely to veer from its chosen course until some catastrophic event intervenes.

There are outliers within the party, of course, including Jim DeMint, Michele Bachmann, and Col. Allen West. However, the establishment Republican position on Islam is almost indistinguishable from that of the Democrats, and National Review generally echoes the Republican establishment.

There’s still a lot of good material in the magazine, so I’m not giving up on it just yet.

But the blatant and unwarranted assumption by the editors that they know what does and does not enjoy “Koranic sanction” — that sticks in my craw.

They don’t feel the need to back up their assertions; they just know. After all, everybody who is anybody “knows” the same things — the RNC, George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Wolf Blitzer, Bill O’Reilly, CAIR, ICNA, MSA, MPAC, ISNA…

Did I leave anybody out?

Gates of Vienna News Feed 3/24/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 3/24/2011While the world’s attention has been focused on the NATO intervention in Libya, violent clashes between protesters and security forces have escalated in Syria. In the city of Deraa, south of Damascus, between 15 and 100 protesters were killed by police and soldiers. An estimated 20,000 people attended the funeral of some of the victims.

Meanwhile, Japan experienced a “yellow rain” scare in the Tokyo area. A number of residents became worried by a rainfall which contained a yellow powder, fearing that the resulting pools of water contained radioactive compounds. Government officials assured the public that the yellow material was pollen, and normal for this time of year. But not everyone was reassured, since officials told people the same thing when radioactive “yellow rain” fell in the then Soviet Union in 1986, after the Chernobyl nuclear accident.

In other news, the Portuguese prime minister was forced to resign when parliament failed to pass an austerity program to meet the EU’s requirements. Some analysts suspect that a euro-bailout for Portugal may be on the way.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to AC, C. Cantoni, DS, Erick Stakelbeck, Fjordman, heroyalwhyness, Insubria, JD, JP, RE, Takuan Seiyo, Vlad Tepes, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

The Bitter Pill of Islamic Violence

Mark Durie is an Australian author and Anglican priest who swims against the current in his church by speaking out against the violence in Islam. In his public talks he points out that such violence is inherent in Islam, and is in fact mandated by the Koran and the hadith.

The following op-ed by Fr. Durie from today’s (actually tomorrow’s) Sydney Morning Herald addresses this issue forthrightly — or at least as forthrightly as is possible in the MSM:

Muslim violence a fact, not prejudice
by Mark Durie

Those who denounce critics of Islam should allow that, like all global faiths, Islam has its detractors and a religion will be judged on what its followers say and do.

There is a debate going on about Islam. The question being asked is: Does Islam itself — not just poverty or social exclusion — provide ideological fuel for extremism and violence?

It is all too tempting to promote one-dimensional explanations of religious violence. Monash University doctoral candidate Rachel Woodlock said on this page on Wednesday that social exclusion was the root of Islamic radicalism.

On one hand, there are those who, like Woodlock, demand that critics of Islam be stigmatised as ignorant, right-wing racists. On the other hand, Islam’s problems cannot be simplistically reduced to social or economic factors.

Violence in the name of Islam is well-attested in nations in which Muslims are dominant, and it is non-Muslim minorities that suffer the exclusion. It does not do to argue that religion has no relevance to such events.

In Muslim-majority Pakistan on December 3, Pakistani imam Maulana Yousuf Qureshi, in his Friday sermon, offered a $6000 bounty to anyone who would murder Asia Bibi, a Christian woman who has also been accused of ‘‘blaspheming Allah’’. Pakistani minister for minorities Shahbaz Bhatti and Punjab governor Salman Taseer were subsequently assassinated because of their opposition to Pakistan’s blasphemy laws.

These laws are supported by Pakistan’s Islamic elites. The killer of Salman Taseer, Mumtaz Qadri, was praised by religious leaders from mainstream schools of Pakistani Islam, and when he was being led to court on January 6, 400 Muslim lawyers showered him with rose petals, offering him their legal services free of charge.

There has also been a rush of recent assaults on Copts and their places of worship in Egypt, sparked by a wild tirade by a leading Egyptian cleric.

Closer to Australia, there have been well-publicised attacks on Ahmadiyah Muslims in Indonesia, including brutal murders. These were undoubtedly influenced by a theological belief that Ahmadiyah adherents are apostates from true Islam. Although prominent Indonesian leaders were quick to express abhorrence for the attacks, many Indonesian Muslims have called for Ahmadiyahs to be outlawed.

These events demonstrate the ugly effects of stigmatising minorities, and it would be deplorable to simple-mindedly extrapolate the religious views of Pakistani, Egyptian or Indonesian Muslims and apply them to Australia.

However, it is irrational to insist that any and everyone who seeks to expose the religious roots of such hatred must themselves be decried as haters.

All over the world, every religious belief is disliked by someone or other. Christianity has its prominent detractors, too, from Bertrand Russell to Richard Dawkins. A Google search for ‘‘Evils of Christianity’’ yields tens of thousands of hits.

Australians can be thankful for a culture of tolerance, which has been carefully nurtured over decades. Tolerance is strengthened when people are able to debate ideological issues freely — especially those which impact profoundly on human rights — without being shouted down.

Victorian Supreme Court Justice Geoffrey Nettle, in his findings on the case of the Islamic Council of Victoria v Catch the Fire, pointed out that criticism — or even hatred — of a religion should not be conflated with the hatred of people who hold those beliefs. It is one thing to promote tolerance, quite another to mandate it.

Perhaps the most powerful evidence against Woodlock’s thesis — that it is exclusion, and not religion, that drives some Muslims to terrorism — is the fact that across the globe the most diverse religious minorities do not resort to violence, even when persecuted.

There are no Falun Gong terrorists in China, despite all the bitter persecution. The same can be said for persecuted Christians in many nations.

Even in Australia, many ethnic and religious groups have been subjected to disadvantage and exclusion, but none have produced the level of terrorist convictions of our own home-grown Islamic radicals.

It is a bitter pill for the vast majority of Australian Muslims to swallow that their faith has been linked, globally and locally, to religious violence.

Unfortunately, this link cannot be dismissed as the product of media prejudice or ‘‘Islamophobic’’ propaganda. It is in part an issue of some Muslims behaving very badly, and their often strident claim is that they do this in the name of religion.

Taking such claims seriously and debating them publicly must not be equated with stigmatising law-abiding and peaceable Australian Muslims.



Hat tip: DB3.

Organized Crime, Islamic Terrorists, and Canadian Aboriginals

The term “Canadian aboriginals” in the title of this post is somewhat misleading. As the video below makes clear, the Indian tribe in question actually originated in what is now the United States, and not in Canada. However, the criminal Mohawks described in the presentation now live on the Six Nations Reserve just outside of Caledonia, Ontario.

In recent years tribal members have purchased land adjacent to the reservation, and treat it as part of their reservation. They smuggle in and sell contraband cigarettes and engage in other criminal activity within the jurisdiction of the Ontario Provincial Police, but Canadian law enforcement has so far declined to deal with the problem. Local residents protested; the aboriginals attacked the protesters and blockaded a nearby highway. A tense stalemate has been in place since 2007, with no resolution in sight.

What makes this case interesting is that a three-way Demonic Convergence has emerged in the Caledonia area: Organized crime (the Mohawks), lefties (Communists and Anarchists), and Islamic terrorists (Hezbollah and other groups). Watch for the mujahideen in the slide show — you’ll see them in the protests, marching in fraternal solidarity with the Reds and the Redskins.

The Canadian government appears to have implicitly conceded the Indians’ claim by referring to the standoff as a “peacekeeping matter” rather than a law-enforcement issue. There is even talk of sending in the “blue helmets” — that is, the U.N.

On Tuesday night Vlad Tepes attended and recorded a series of presentations on the situation in Caledonia. He says:

Out of over 3000 bands of aboriginal people, all of whom live in peace with the general population of Canada and with varying degrees of success ,only the ‘Six Nations people’ or Mohawk have allied themselves with international terrorists and use their special status to run organized crime with impunity from the police and state, even, on occasion, with their assistance.

Many thanks to Vlad for recording and YouTubing this video, which is placed below the jump:

A video of one of the other Caledonia presentations is available here.

It’s Hard to be Norwegian in Groruddalen

Cultural Enrichment News


Our Norwegian correspondent Vikverjer has translated an interesting article about the ascendancy of cultural enrichment in a formerly Norwegian suburb of Oslo.

The article below was published today in Aftenposten, one of the major Norwegian newspapers:

“It is difficult to be ethnic Norwegian here”

Patrick Åserud has had enough of pressure about salami-free food, blond-hate and horrible language skills.

“I will not let my children grow up here. I do not dare to.”

School in Groruddalen


He has made up his mind. After spending his whole life in Groruddalen [a district of Oslo], the developments of the past year have frightened Patrick Åserud into leaving. In the coming summer he will move with his wife and kindergarten-age daughter from Furuset [in Groruddalen], and out of the city.

He is moving from a local area he thinks is on its way to falling apart due to the heavy weight of failed integration.

Worrying stories

“It has become difficult to be an ethnic Norwegian in Groruddalen. There are huge language problems, and additionally a pressure that we [Norwegians] must adjust to norms that feel completely foreign to us, who have a Western lifestyle and mindset.

“There are kindergartens where almost no children or parents speak Norwegian, and there are schools where children are threatened with beatings if they bring salami with them for their school lunch.

“Girls are bullied for being blond, and they colour their hair dark to avoid it and fit in. It is especially not okay to be gay at the school, nor atheist, and especially not Jewish.

“Over the last three years it has been particularly frightening to watch and hear about everything that happens,” says Åserud.

A majority of parents need translator

He has quit his job at the kindergarten. It is especially during his fifteen years as a teacher at the school and kindergarten that he has noticed the changes in the population.

“We had to use a translator in 10 of 18 conversations with parents.

“What kind of possibility does one have to create a good environment and a co-operate with the families, when the situation is like this?” asks Åserud.

Thousands have left

He feels that it is he and his family who must integrate as a minority in their own country.

“I was positive and optimistic earlier. But it has crossed a line when there is a majority that does not speak the language well.

“There are many of us that have strong feelings about this, regardless of the colour on our skin. An Indian family I know are expected [by the muslim immigrants] to live and behave as Muslims, just because they have brown skin colour.”

“Many people will perhaps think you are intolerant and not in line with the ‘New Norway’?”

“If that is the case, then there are very many who are not in line. The reality is that [Norwegian] people move away from this area. And they do so because of experiences they have had,” says Åserud.

Numbers from Statistisk Sentralbyrå back up his statement. 3,000 fewer ethnic Norwegians now live in Groruddalen, compared to only two years earlier. More people are moving away faster then before, but even over a longer time-span the trend is clear: Groruddalen has lost 20,000 ethnic Norwegians the last fifteen years, and still the population continues to grow.

The ethnic Norwegian percentage in Groruddalen has gone from 82% to 56% in fifteen years.

Fears that it will become like Malmø

And this year Åserud will become a part of that statistics. He is moving with his family to [the town] Hamar.

“We have no connections there, but we can’t afford a house in Høybråten, Røa or the other places [my comment: Generally more ‘whiter’ areas populated by the elite politicians who praise ‘multiculturalism’ — translator] where we don’t feel like foreigners when going shopping,” says Åserud.

He has no good recipe for how the development can be turned around.

“I don’t know. I fear that it will start becoming like Rosengård [widely-known immigrant/Muslim area in Malmø in Sweden with heavy crime]. There shots are fired in the streets on a average once every week. I wish the best for this town, but I feel I can’t carry the integration on my shoulders,” says Åserud.

A sidebar on the article:

Last week [the newspaper] Aften revealed that four out of ten parents are trying to move their children away from minority schools [schools where Muslims are usually in the majority].

The principals confirm that the number of minority [Muslims immigrants] students is given as explanation by those who move. School analyst Ivar Morken says that the schools have become like a “social garbage can”, because they are thrown into the demographic problems that schools can’t solve.

Below the article, various Norwegians have left comments. A sample:

Pettern:   It is good to see the reality described by one who stands in it!

This is in strong contrast to the glorified pictures and statements we are handed by naïve politically correct politicians from certain political parties, and from people in immigration-dependent organizations!
 

Tilskuer:   The socialist’s experiment is complete, and they are probably happy with themselves.

Forcibly move Halvorsen, Stoltenberg and Støre [politically correct leaders on the Left] to Groruddalen and let them experience the multicultural joy and blessings on their own body for a couple of years.

Perhaps that will educate them.
 

Futurum:   The day will come when we ethnic Norwegians have become a minority in our own country.

I think even the most left-wing person will cry when they one time in the future discover what they have done to Norway and what kind of life they have left for their children and grandchildren. Today Norway is playing the world’s social-service agency, but we forget our own children and don’t care about our own culture. Unfortunately our oil riches blind us, so we do not see we are digging our own grave. If we really want to help people, then we would help people in a neighbour-country near where they are from. Then we could have given aid to tens of thousands more people for the same amount of money we use to aid a handful of immigrants here home in Norway instead.

The immigration policy is just halo-politics, where the size on the halo is adjusted to how many immigrants you let into the country.

Now it is time that people must soon wake up from the slumber that our oil-riches haves forced us into. Very soon it will be too late.



For a complete listing of previous enrichment news, see The Cultural Enrichment Archives.

The Shadow Knows: Part Five

The Shadow Knows


The Virtual Open University

Synopsis: The concept of the Shadow is a generalization and extension of the practice of forming a “shadow government” in a parliamentary system.

Western Civilization will soon face an existential crisis and may partially or completely collapse. The absolute limiting factor for the onset of the Discontinuity will be the failure of the modern welfare state due to demographic implosion, which will occur within a generation at most. Other factors may speed up the course of events, but there are too many variables to permit a precise prediction of the trajectory of the coming crisis.

To simplify the discussion, I have divided the Shadow up into seven overlapping functions:

1.   Civil administration
2.   Education (primary, secondary, and post-secondary)
3.   The media and mass communications
4.   Manufacturing and commerce
5.   Legislative bodies
6.   Law enforcement
7.   The military

Shadows of each of these functions are already under construction within the distributed non-hierarchical networks now forming among people who are concerned about what lies ahead. I propose a systematic examination of the Shadow in hopes of making it more of a conscious enterprise, and thereby accelerating the trend.



Regular readers are familiar with the range of topics covered by Fjordman in his essays. The link on our sidebar to the “Fjordman Files” leads to articles on Multiculturalism, Islamization, politics, history, archaeology, optics, population genetics, beer, chocolate, climate, astronomy, cosmology, and many other topics. Fjordman’s breadth of knowledge is nothing short of phenomenal.

One of Fjordman’s intentions in digesting and summarizing so much material about Western Civilization is to provide what he calls a “virtual Lindisfarne” — a compendium of general knowledge that can become part of a repository of all that is good and useful and beautiful within our culture. When the lights begin to wink out across the West, we will need the equivalent of the ancient monastic communities to nurture the seeds of a successor civilization. The virtual Lindisfarne may be digital, printed, or hand-copied — depending on how far we fall from our current state — but above all it will require a network of educated people with the expertise and the tools to pass on their knowledge and skills.

One of the reasons that we are facing a Discontinuity is that the educational systems in all Western countries have been systematically degraded since early in the 20th century. The deterioration accelerated after 1975, when the “sixty-eighters” came online in our major cultural institutions. Most children grow up and graduate from today’s universities without obtaining an education that would compare favorably with that of a high school graduate in 1920.

When I was a teenager in the 1960s, modern educational fads had already infected American school systems. Yet Civics was still taught in my junior high school, as was history — real history, not multicultural and gender-normed history. We all had to study a foreign language and read Shakespeare.

A generation earlier, before Dewey and the Progressives had had their way with American education, Latin was part of the standard curriculum in my father’s public high school. Every student who graduated was expected to read Chaucer in Middle English, to learn ancient and modern history, and to be competent in geometry, algebra, trigonometry, and the experimental sciences.

Virtually no remnant of this pedagogical excellence remains in our public school systems. Youngsters who manage to become educated nowadays either attend private schools, or are homeschooled, or follow their own interests and educate themselves in their young adulthood. This last group is well-represented among Gates of Vienna readers — young people often send me emails with comments or questions, and to ask for suggestions for further reading.

So we know that the raw material for a Shadow educational system exists. The problem will be how to organize it and harness it so that it can help transmit the best of Western Civilization to those who survive the Discontinuity.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


Fjordman’s work could serve as a valuable survey course covering the most important achievements of Western Civilization. At one point he jocularly referred to his collected writings as “European Accomplishments: The First 40,000 Years”.

His writings form an archival resource that could be used as a curriculum in an alternative educational system. Other such resources exist, and some of the best are designed to be used by parents with their homeschooled children.

Back in the early 1990s, when the future Baron was six or seven, we bought a big three-volume set called “The Volume Library”, which was designed to be a general reference work and source of course material for homeschoolers. It covered history, literature, geography, and the sciences at the high-school level. Its maps — especially the historical maps — were particularly excellent, and I still use that volume as a reference.

Later on in his homeschooling career, the fB used the Calvert Curriculum, which is one of the best and most well-known homeschooling curricula. It is often used by State Department employees overseas to educate their children when local alternatives are unavailable or inadequate. It has no political agenda, and its content resembles what the public schools used to teach back before they were ruined by progressive fads. It’s expensive, but worth it.

SchoolmarmMany other homeschooling resources are available, and the homeschooling sites (the Headmistress runs one of the best) can help point the way to them. The big question is: how can all this material be leveraged for use when the existing system ceases to function?

One of the books in The Little House on the Prairie series by Laura Ingalls Wilder features the establishment of a schoolhouse in a small farming settlement on the American frontier. When the population grew large enough, the farmers met and decided to set up a school for their children. The men passed the hat to collect enough money to hire a schoolmarm and the necessary basic materials, and then they pooled their resources and built the schoolhouse themselves. The children taught in schoolhouses like this one — both boys and girls — were expected to reach an eighth-grade level of proficiency before leaving to work full-time on the farm.

Does anyone believe that the quality of their education was lower than that received by those $15,000-per-year baggy-pants self-esteem factories that are turned out by our schools today?

How well do you think those eighth-grade farm boys would compare with the average high school graduate ca. 2010?

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


So we can assume that a combination of the homeschool and prairie-school model could carry our Shadow educational system through high school level. But what about university level?

The existing public education system is irremediably broken, right up through grad schools. With few exceptions, the corruption engendered by federal money has penetrated to every level, and even most private institutions are at least partially infected. The accreditation and credentialing regime — both for instructors and institutions — guarantees that no meaningful change can come from within, because no one who could possibly effect real change is allowed to become part of the system.

Yet it’s obvious to anyone who has read Fjordman’s works or those of other talented and well-informed writers on the web that the credentialing and accrediting scam is absolute nonsense. The most brilliant and valuable minds are generally not officially qualified to educate young people.

So we need to think about a new concept, a means of higher education that does an end run around the existing system, with no connection whatsoever to any accredited this or credentialed that. We don’t really need all that meaningless bumf — it’s just a way of slotting compliant drones into the existing system, which is on the verge of falling apart anyway.

That’s what got me thinking about the Virtual Open University.

If I were younger and smarter, I might be able to actually design a structure for it.* But even as it is, I can surmise some of the characteristics that would be needed by an effective replacement for our post-secondary educational system.

First of all, we wouldn’t have any of the “no grades” nonsense. There would need to be a workable system for evaluating the progress of participants and assigning their scores. This is one of the highest hurdles involved, because it is so easy to cheat and game the existing systems — the VOU would have to address this issue.

Fjordman’s works provide a valuable outline of the content needed, but how could that content be imparted to students in a measurable way outside of a traditional university setting?

Who would design course materials? How would instructors be found?

And what about the experimental sciences? How would they be handled?

And the biggest question of all: Who will pay for all this?

It could all be done a lot cheaper than it is now — one assumes a student could get a better education from the VOU than can be had at the most prestigious Ivy League edifice, and at a small fraction of the price — but it would still cost money. Servers, software (much of which already exists, thank goodness), site administrators, course writers, graders, etc. — there would be a lot of infrastructure involved.

But if it could be done properly — if there were a way to impart a real education for a change — eventually the VOU would be greatly in demand, and would develop its own prestige, so that a lack of accreditation under the existing regime would be moot. A “Virtual Open University certificate” would become a coveted sign of accomplishment, much as a summa cum laude from William and Mary or Harvard used to be, back when we actually educated our young people.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *


All of the above is pure speculation. I don’t know enough to be able to begin to design an alternative educational system, nor whether there are enough people of the right caliber available to make it work.

But I know we need it. And we may need an actual face-to-face version of the new University. If we’re going to plan, we should plan on how to do the same thing with nothing but teachers and books and blackboards and pencils and paper. And maybe electric lights, if we’re still lucky enough to have them.

I’m not trying to design the thing itself. I’m trying to stir up thought and conversation about it, so that one day people with minds that are younger and wiser than my own might be able to grab the idea and run with it.

So let’s hear from all interested parties — join the conversation.

It’s virtual. It’s open. And it’s universal.



* Yes, I’m aware that there are many online educational institutions, of varying quality. But is far as I know, there is none that comes anywhere near the Fjordman standard of erudition.

Previous posts about the Shadow:

2011   Mar   15   The Shadow Knows, Part One: The Discontinuity
        16   The Shadow Knows, Part Two: Additional Economic Background
        17   The Shadow Knows, Part Three: Survival Plus
        19   The Shadow Knows, Part Four: Civil Administration

Gates of Vienna News Feed 3/23/2011

Gates of Vienna News Feed 3/23/2011Pastor Terry Jones has finally burned a Koran. A trial was held in a small church in Florida, and the book was found guilty of crimes against humanity. The sentence was carried out by dousing the Koran with kerosene and burning it in a metal pan. Muslim outrage is already pouring in, and Hezbollah says the Obama administration is responsible, since it dared to permit such a blasphemous abomination on American soil.

Meanwhile the war in Libya is going… well, it’s hard to tell how it’s going. The participants are still arguing over a command structure, with the Italians threatening to withdraw the participation of their bases if command is not transferred to NATO. Prime Minister Berlusconi is hedging his bets with Moammar Ghedafi, just in case his old friend the Colonel manages to make it through this difficult period.

In other news, the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa is swamped with new refugees from North Africa. The UN has ordered the Italians to move some of them to other locations, and a group is even now being shipped to a larger facility in Sicily.

To see the headlines and the articles, open the full news post.

Thanks to AC, C. Cantoni, Diana West, DS, Erick Stakelbeck, heroyalwhyness, Insubria, KGS, and all the other tipsters who sent these in.

Commenters are advised to leave their comments at this post (rather than with the news articles) so that they are more easily accessible.

Caveat: Articles in the news feed are posted “as is”. Gates of Vienna cannot vouch for the authenticity or accuracy of the contents of any individual item posted here. We check each entry to make sure it is relatively interesting, not patently offensive, and at least superficially plausible. The link to the original is included with each item’s title. Further research and verification are left to the reader.

Palestina Libre!

The Demonic Convergence, Installment #4,881

Nothing exemplifies the practical merger of the Red Revolution and the Great Jihad better than the issue of “Palestine”. I picked out the images below from various Communist and Anarchist websites, just to give you an idea of the depth of collaboration that goes on between the Left and the Mujahideen.

First, the vanguard of proletarian revolution in Latin America wields his bayonet on behalf of Hamas:

Palestina Libre #1


Next comes an Islamized and cartoonified Che:

Palestina Libre #2


And a detail from Picasso’s Guernica, updated for the great Progressive cause of our time:

Palestina Libre #3

Finally, a sultry-eyed Muslima in full Patty Hearst mode takes up a rifle and a keffiyeh on behalf of her oppressed sisters in Gaza:

Palestina Libre #4


The merger between the Jihad and the Reds is seamless, and will presumably remain that way until the Revolution is finally achieved. After that there will be a bit of a reckoning.

Allah vs. Marx: Who Will Win?

Embracing the Madrassa

Madrassa students in Khasavyurt, Dagestan


Russia is moving towards the establishment of a consolidated state-controlled Islamic education system. Like the sharia court system in the UK, state madrassas in Russia seem to be the government’s way of recognizing an existing trend and controlling the foreign — and possibly subversive — elements that enter the country with the madrassa teachers.

The Russians are experiencing the same dilemma faced by all non-Muslim countries when confronting Islamic infiltration: official recognition of certain elements of sharia law creates a de facto Islamic state, at least in part.

Below is a brief report on the topic from Asia News:

Muslim Leaders Call for an Islamic Education System in Russia

The supreme mufti Talgat Tadzhutddin proposes to introduce a comprehensive network of schools, from madras to academy: so we can attract other Muslims from the West.

Moscow (AsiaNews / Agencies) — Making Russia a centre for Islamic education that will attract Muslim students from the West. This is the proposal of the supreme mufti of the Spiritual Council of Russian Muslims, Talgat Tadzhutddin, who suggests creating a network in the Federation of Islamic institutions, from the madras to the academy through universities.

“This is an important strategic objective because in this way we are no longer dependent on foreign Islamic universities,” said Tadzhutddin during a meeting March 19 in Penza between the spiritual leaders of the Volga region and Grigory Rapota, Special Representative of the Russian President in the area.

As Ria Novosti agency reported, according to the mufti foreign Islamic education has “side effects that are not easy to vanquish and which influence the minds of our youth.” “In the near future – said Tadzhutddin – with state support seven Islamic universities will be built, but it is only the first step.” The country, he said, needs a complete school system, made up of three levels: “madrassas, Islamic universities and academies.” In this way the use of foreign teachers will be reduced only to the teaching of Arabic, excluding religious disciplines. (N.A.)



Hat tip: C. Cantoni.