A few things about Islam that should be blatantly obvious

Also published at Gates of Vienna

I watched a TV debate on Islam the other day. It was one of those standard discussions where the Muslim panellist blamed everyone but Islam and its adherents for the massive problems that exist wherever Islam has a noticeable presence, while the non-Muslim counterpart offered very tepid arguments to try to refute those claims.

Whenever I watch debates like this, it always amazes me that the non-Muslims have such difficulties in delivering clear and concise arguments describing the true nature of Islam. They are unable to do so in a manner that completely annihilates the insidious arguments offered by the supporters of Islam. Because it should be a pretty straightforward process for those who possess more than a basic knowledge of Islam to verbally eviscerate this pernicious ideology, to show how absurd it is to worship such a deviant philosophy and how absolutely outrageous it is for its followers to insist that their ideology is worthy of anyone’s respect

Hence, I have decided to highlight some of the arguments that I believe opponents of Islam should be focusing on whenever they venture into a debate on Islam with Muslims and individuals who have gone a couple of rounds through the politically correct wringer.

Criticism of Islam should be as basic as possible. It should not try to rely on scholarly critiques, which ordinary Non-Muslims still in the dark about the viciousness of the religion only find confusing. The best strategy is to keep it as simple as possible, go for the jugular and ram the message home until it sticks. What follows are a few basic points that ought to be self-evident, irrespective of one’s knowledge of Islamic doctrine.

The first point that I would like to make is that it should be blatantly obvious to any rational person that there is something seriously wrong with Islam, based solely on the poor state of democracy and human rights wherever Islam is the dominant force. Certain alarm bells should go off when reading or watching MSM reports about people in the Islamic world who are routinely executed by stoning, decapitation or simply being hanged from mobile cranes in public squares for having violated some of Islam’s strict codes. A normal sane ideology would never call for punishments of such a nature, and people who commit violent acts of a similar kind are rightly treated as psychopaths in most parts of the Western world.

The second point is this: It should be equally obvious that there is something wrong with Islam based on the countless terrorist attacks that are carried out in its name. To maintain that these attacks are perpetrated exclusively by extremists who do not represent true Islam should, from a purely rational point of view, be dismissed — given the frequencies of the attacks, the fact that they are carried out on practically every continent (Antarctica coming soon!), and that Muslims from all over the world voluntarily and proudly partake in them.

A question that should be asked when listening to claims about “extremists” is this: What are Islam’s views on violence and terror when so many of its adherents, both rich and poor, get the impression that such behaviour is acceptable, and actually believe that it gets them a free ticket to paradise?

My third point is that it should be glaringly evident that Islam has serious democratic deficiencies, considering that outspoken critics of this ideology are routinely targeted both verbally and physically by Muslims all over the world. It is simply intellectual laziness to accept the dishonest claim that these attacks are carried out by a few radicals who misuse their religion. If it had been one or two isolated incidents, then perhaps this claim could be considered, but these episodes occur on a daily basis, and they occur all over the world.

In other words, it’s a systematic tactic used to silence criticism of Islam. Thus, it is part and parcel of Islam’s overall strategy to implement its policies wherever it has a noticeable presence. What other conclusions can be drawn when reading about authors, politicians and activists who have had to go into hiding, or who live under 24 hour police protection for speaking out against this religion, let alone the numerous individuals who have been killed for doing so? It should be clear to anyone that these individuals are being subjected to methods that are otherwise only used by mafia groups. Any organization that utilizes such tactics would in any other circumstances rightfully be labelled as a criminal entity and be dealt with accordingly.

The fourth point that I would like to make is that the claim that ISIS is misusing Islam and that its members aren’t true Muslims can be dismissed purely on logical grounds. In fact, it is a ludicrous argument, given the number of devout Muslims from all corners of the globe that voluntarily flock to join its ranks. And we’re not talking about a few handfuls here and there, but tens of thousands of individuals. Statistical data also corroborate this widespread support for ISIS among Muslim communities all over the world, so the idea that ISIS is un-Islamic falls by its own logic.

Thus, from a rational perspective, ISIS cannot be dismissed as having nothing to do with Islam. If that were the case, then devout Muslims would not migrate to the Caliphate in such large numbers. In fact, that would be just as unlikely as seeing tens of thousands of US conservatives move to Venezuela because they believed that the political system of that particular country was pure capitalism.

My fifth point concerns an aspect that is very obvious, but which many people for some strange reason still seem to have immense difficulties wrapping their heads around. The point is as follows: Muslims who insist on following Islamic law, regardless to what extent, and who advocate the covering up of females in burkas and hijabs, are never going to integrate into our societies. Nor are they going to embrace Western liberal values.

What logical conclusions can be deduced from this little nugget of information? Well, in plain English it means that they reject our laws and our way of life. It means that they do not value freedom of speech and democracy. It could not be made any clearer unless they started holding up big placards stating as much (which they often do). This is of course a very troubling thought, and it should cause some warning lights to flash, because this invariably puts a huge strain on these values, and over time as the Muslim population grows in the West the same values will start to erode rapidly.

The above observations are just a few of the most obvious points that should be self-evident even to people who have no knowledge of Islamic doctrine. When adding everything up, and doing so without tainting the bottom line with politically correct bias, people should be led to the realization that Islam has some serious issues with Western concepts such as freedom of speech, equality and democracy. That again should lead people to the realization that Islam is a dangerous and totalitarian ideology.

When taking all of these aspects into consideration it becomes very clear that Islam has a whole lot more to do with Saudi Arabia and ISIS than it has to do with secular Western democracies, or the sugarcoated picture that the so-called moderate Muslim representatives are trying to paint. Looking at the religion and the countries where Islam is practiced through unbiased eyes makes one realize that this ideology is nothing that one wishes to foist upon any society. Islam evolved 1400 years ago, and to be quite honest, that is where it belongs.

Why the term “moderate Muslim” is an oxymoron

Also published at Gates of Vienna

Why has Islam been able to grow at such an unprecedented pace in Europe, and why has it been allowed to do so practically unchallenged? There are many reasons for this, but one contributing factor that has facilitated this rapid growth has been the decision to artificially divide the religion into two opposing philosophies with completely different goals and values, which has transformed it into an ideological version of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. By firmly dividing its adherents (Muslims) into two distinct camps — the extremists who are alleged to be misusing their religion and who only constitute a tiny minority, and the moderates who ostensibly represent the majority and who strongly opposes the extremists — Islam has managed to establish a defence that is almost impenetrable, and that has fostered an environment in which meaningless terms such as Islamophobia are actually given credence.

This clever distinction, which has in effect divided Islam into a moderate and an extreme form, has ensured that it can continue to grow unabated and without being properly challenged, as any terrorist attack committed by its members can be blamed on the extremists and thus also used as an argument to exonerate the moderates. It’s a form of classification or “branding taqiyya” that has served the religion well, and given it a solid argument that it can rely upon no matter what type of hurdle or obstacle that is being thrown in its way.

The mainstream media and the political classes have deliberately failed to call Islam by its proper name and actively undermined any serious attempts to scrutinize and expose the ideology for what it really is. As a result, the majority of the blame for the very precarious situation that Europe finds itself in these days has to be put squarely on their shoulders. These two powerful groups have been able to control public discourse and sway public opinion through the extensive use of lies and propaganda. Crucial facts that could have altered the course have been deliberately downplayed, and in many cases outright ignored. Unpalatable events have been omitted. The job responsibilities of the MSM and the politicians have largely been transformed into those of campaigners who pay lip service to such things as truth and accuracy — values that actually used to matter in the past. The absence of an in-depth analysis of Islam’s doctrines, its history and its stated goals for the future have left ordinary people blissfully unaware of the dangers that this ideology represents, and only now when Islam has seriously started to flex its muscles are they beginning to wake up from their political-correctness-induced slumber.

 

This essay will focus on the rebranding of Islam that has turned it into something unrecognizable and innocuous — namely a predominantly moderate and peaceful religion — and offer a valid and thorough explanation as to why this is not the case. It will show that this artificial rebranding is false, that it is unscientific and utterly dishonest, and demonstrate by the use of critical analysis that the opposite is true. This assignment has not been undertaken to further cement the convictions of those who have already reached this conclusion of their own accord, but rather to serve as a wakeup call to those who are still in the dark and have failed to grasp what should have been obvious all along.

The first step in this process is to demonstrate that one cannot logically divide Islam into two distinct camps; one that preaches war and hatred, and the other that preaches love and tolerance. It is an absurd claim to make, given that both camps are reading from the same script. This is made obvious by the fact that a large portion of Islamic doctrine is dedicated to the advocacy of hatred and animosity against non-Muslims. However, before we can start to immerse ourselves in the subject at hand and initiate our investigation, we have to obtain some definitions that will allow us to describe the religion and the points that we are trying to make. The words that we are interested in here are “Islam”, “Muslim”, “moderate”, “extreme” and “extremist”.

A quick Google search gives us the Merriam-Webster’s English dictionary’s classification of the word “extremist”:

“Advocacy of extreme measures or views.”

The word “extreme” is defined by the same dictionary as:

“Very far from agreeing with the opinions of most people: not moderate”.

The word “moderate” is glossed as:

“Professing or characterized by political or social beliefs that are not extreme.”

Furthermore, it is important to correctly identify the term “Muslim”, as the purpose of this essay is to establish whether a Muslim should be classified as an extremist or as a moderate based on the choice of his or her religious convictions. According to the same source a “Muslim” is defined as:

“A person whose religion is Islam: a follower of Islam”

Islam is defined as:

 

“The religion which teaches that there is only one God and that Muhammad is God’s prophet : the religion of Muslims”

These are basic definitions which could be elaborated upon in great detail, but which will have to do for the purposes of this essay. The only thing that we are going to add is that a Muslim is a person who embraces Islamic doctrine, i.e. the teachings of the Quran, the Hadith and the Sira (the official Islamic doctrine). The Quran being the word of Allah as recited to Muhammad, Islam’s first and last prophet, by the angel Gabriel. The hadith, which encompasses the traditions of Muhammad (a supplement to the Quran). The Sira, which is the official biography of Muhammad. The Sunnah (doctrine) is a term that encompasses the Hadith and the Sira.

Now that we have sorted out the correct definitions we can move on to the next step in the process, which is to place practitioners of Islam on either the moderate end of the scale, the extremist end of it, or somewhere in between. A prerequisite in order to achieve this task is to be equipped with a basic knowledge of Islam. It should be evident that it is impossible to refute the claim on a purely scientific basis without having a basic understanding of the ideology. As with anything in life, in order to make an informed decision one has to be in possession of the relevant facts. It is also imperative that we clarify what constitutes moderate behaviour in order to prevent undue confusion. We have already offered a definition of this word, but we still have not assigned what type of behaviour falls into this category. Normal behaviour is also to a certain degree a relative concept, as different countries and different cultures operate with different definitions of what constitutes normal behaviour. What is considered normal behaviour in Saudi Arabia is not necessarily normal behaviour in a country such as Canada, and vice versa. The best way to overcome this issue is to use the UN’s declaration of human rights as a template and gauge various behaviours and ideologies against this document in order to ascertain on which side of the scale they belong.[1]

It should also be pointed out that normal behaviour could quite easily be classified as extreme if it occurs in a society that has descended into anarchy or chosen to adopt fascism or any other anti-democratic forms of governing. In order for any ideology or political system to be classified as moderate, in this context, it is thus imperative that it does not violate the basic principles of the UN’s declaration of human rights, and by no means can it be found to be in gross violation of this declaration. Hence in order for Islam to be classified as a moderate religion, it is essential that it can be categorically established that it accepts and respects the overall principles found in this document.

We are now going to take a closer look at certain aspects of Islamic doctrine and bring attention to some of the more disturbing incidents of Muhammad’s life, which will put the claim that Islam is a moderate religion into serious question. We are not going to detail every single event or analyse every single passage of its holy books with a magnifying glass, but rather take a closer look at some of the characteristics that makes it impossible to classify it as a moderate religion.

 

The first hurdle that anyone who wishes to exonerate Islam and label it as a moderate ideology encounters is the existence of a unique judicial system (Shariah) which is a 7th century justice system based upon the Quran and various instructions and commandments made by Muhammad throughout his life.[2] To say that it conforms with the UN declaration on human rights would be a gross misrepresentation of the truth, as it quite clearly violates both the spirit of this document and pretty much every single paragraph listed within it. The most egregious example is probably the Sharia’s view on apostasy, i.e. members who wish to leave the religion, a transgression which according to the Sharia is punishable by death. Similar punishments are meted out for blasphemy, homosexuality and marital infidelity, which according to the Sharia stipulates that the offending individual be stoned to death, just to name a few examples.

The fact that these laws have been practiced since the inception of Islam and that they are still being practiced in various Muslim nations today makes Islam come across as a rather extreme ideology straight off the bat, and it certainly makes it very difficult to see why anyone would choose to classify the Sharia or any system that resembles it as moderate, or claim that it has undeservedly been awarded the classification “extreme” To justify killing individuals who don’t share your personal religious or political views is an extreme act, and it certainly runs counter to the UN’s declaration of human rights, as do the other issues highlighted in this paragraph. The only logical conclusion that can be deduced from this information is that the Sharia is extreme.

The second hurdle that the proponents of Islam encounter when they wish to classify Islam as a moderate religion is the Quran, the holy book of the Muslims. It’s a book that Muslims cherish and treat with the utmost respect, and which they believe was dictated to their prophet Muhammad verbatim by their God, Allah. The book is an integral part of Islam, and its content gives us a good indication to the exact nature of the religion. The proponents of the “moderate Islam” theory will be swift to point out that the Quran contains many peaceful passages, and consequently cannot in good faith be viewed as extreme. However, that does not change the fact that the Quran also contains a staggering 109 verses that actively advocates violence against non-believers, verses that condone violence against women, the subjugation of non-Muslims and verses that justifies slavery.[3] Any of these acts can in their own right justifiably be referred to as extreme by anyone’s definition, and most certainly by pitting it against the UN’s declaration on human rights. Some may interject that the Quran should be viewed in a historical context, and maintain that the practices advocated in this book were commonplace and accepted when it was written. That may be a valid argument, but is still fails to explain why people living in the 21st century show so much reverence for a book that advocates so much hatred and violence, and why they would wish to live in accordance with the principles found in such a book. Based on the numerous passages that promote violence against non-Muslims which can be found in the Quran one is left with no choice but to categorize it as an extreme book that advocates violence.

The third hurdle that proponents of Islam encounter in their quest to exonerate their religion is the first prophet of Islam, Muhammad and his life story, and in particular the later stages of his life which were dominated by violence and brutal warfare. What sets Muhammad apart from other significant religious figures such as Jesus and the Buddha, who were known pacifists and advocated a philosophy of turning the other cheek, is the fact that Muhammad was a warlord who killed, robbed, raped and had people who disagreed with him assassinated.[4] According to Islam’s own sources, Muhammad personally ordered the execution of 600-900 male Jews during the invasion of Banu Qurayza and took their women and children as slaves.[5] He also had numerous people who mocked or disagreed with him killed, and even admitted towards the end of his life that he had been made victorious through a reign of terror.[6] Furthermore, after his death his followers colonised and spread the religion of Islam by force to large areas of the known world by following his personal example. Some estimates indicate that this brutal colonization resulted in the loss of up to 270 million lives.[7]

The most troubling aspect of Muhammad’s life is, however, not that he committed all these atrocious acts, but rather the fact that so many people continue to worship him and show him so much reverence. Even today Muslims consider Muhammad to be the perfect human being whose behaviour should be emulated in every aspect of life. So great is the respect for Muhammad that the overwhelming majority of Muslims are violently opposed to even having visual representations made of their prophet, such as drawings, paintings etc. Whenever such visual representations materialise, riots and violence are often the outcome.

Having looked at the three main aspects of Islamic doctrine, the Quran, the Sunnah and the Sharia, and highlighted the problematic issues found within these, it’s not unreasonable to classify the contents as largely extreme. We have shown that all the three major parts that make up Islam advocate violence, and reject basic human rights and opinions that are not consistent with official Islamic doctrine. Such views can obviously not by categorized as moderate ones; given that moderate is by definition the absence of extremism, and they certainly cannot be viewed as moderate if we compare them with the UN’s declaration of human rights. That Islamic doctrine also contains elements that are moderate does not change the fact that there is an overabundance of elements that clearly are extreme in nature, and which can be found throughout its holy texts, giving us no other choice than to label the religion as a whole as extreme.

This invariably leads us to the last section and the original goal of this essay, which is to show that Muslims who embrace Islamic doctrine thus cannot logically be labelled as moderates, given that the ideology they have embraced is an extreme one.

We have already offered a very basic definition of the term Muslim, as classified by Merriam-Webster’s English dictionary. For our purpose in this essay — which is to establish whether it is reasonable to categorize Muslims as both extremists and moderates — it is important to specify whom we have chosen to designate as Muslims, given that the term is often loosely applied, and are on some occasions used to include individuals who are born Muslims in predominantly Muslim nations, but who don’t necessarily identify as Muslims. The term Muslim as it has been applied in this case refers to practicing Muslims; in other words, individuals who identify as Muslims, who believe in the Quran and who live their lives according to Islamic principles. It does not include what some would choose to refer to as cultural Muslims, non-practicing Muslims, reformers or individuals who choose to identify as Muslims out of concern for their own safety, of whom there are plenty given, Islam’s highly controversial view on apostasy.

 

It’s also necessary to make a logical assumption: to accept that most people who follow a specific ideology, regardless of which one it may be, have at least a basic understanding of its official doctrines and stated goals. This means that a devout communist has at least a minimum of knowledge of official communist literature, and that a fervent Christian has at least a basic knowledge of Christian principles, etc. Thus we should assume that a practicing Muslim has a basic knowledge of Islam’s holy texts, and that he is familiar with its official policies on a wide range of issues. It is therefore also safe to conclude — if we accept these criteria — that a practicing Muslim has a basic understanding of Islam’s views on unbelievers, apostates, sharia law and the life of Muhammad. In other words, a practicing Muslim is familiar with the undemocratic nature of Islam, but nevertheless still chooses to identify as a Muslim.

This is a very significant fact, and one that has to be given the utmost attention when trying to determine on which side of the “extremist” scale practicing Muslims should be positioned. It is absolutely crucial to take political or religious views into consideration when endeavouring to establish whether a person is an extremist or not, and it is certainly an approach that is being used extensively by the media and the political classes when it comes to classifying non-Muslims with whom they disagree politically as “extremists”. The latest people to be labelled as “extremists” by the use of such methods are US Presidential candidate Donald Trump and his supporters, who have been given this classification based solely on their political views and not based on their actions or behaviours. It should also be noted that the views that have earned them this label are fairly innocuous, given that they have not called for the extermination of political opponents, the introduction of a fascist state, or advocacy for an authoritarian judicial system — concepts that practicing Muslims do embrace wholeheartedly without being stigmatized as extremists by the same MSM.

Now the question that should present itself when taking these things into consideration, and in particularly bearing in mind the issues raised previously pertaining to the undemocratic and violent nature of Islamic doctrine, is this: can a practicing Muslim’s belief in such concepts be interpreted as anything but a tacit acceptance of such views? And can such an individual be classified as anything but an extremist?

Most people would probably agree that it is not a sign of moderate behaviour to endorse and condone violence and anti-democratic activities; on the contrary, such behaviour is part and parcel of the mentality of an extremist. To use a popular saying, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, it is more than likely a duck. One could of course apply this to Muslims and Islam and say that if the Quran advocates undemocratic values it’s more than likely that a practicing Muslim believes in and condones these views and the he wishes to live in a society governed by them. It’s certainly a natural conclusion to make when looking at the facts in a rational manner.

It’s equally natural to conclude that a moderate individual would by definition reject Islamic doctrine, or any other violent and undemocratic ideology based solely on the given ideology’s level of extremism and its antagonism against those who seek to question and challenge its authority. From this it follows that a truly moderate Muslim would reject Islam, based on its general violent message. In effect he would become an apostate, i.e. a non-Muslim. One could of course attempt to make the case that a moderate Muslim could discard the violent and extreme parts of Islam and focus solely on its peaceful verses, and still be a Muslim, but this is an unrealistic assumption that fails to recognize the dominant position that violence and jihad enjoy in Islamic doctrine. Moreover, it would render the teachings of Muhammad completely meaningless, and severely question his judgment and authority.

We know that the MSM and the political classes base their definition of extremism — excluding Muslims, that is — exclusively on political beliefs, and label individuals with whom they disagree as “extremists” on a much flimsier basis. Why is it then that practicing Muslims with views that are evidently more extreme are being categorized as moderates? An honest approach would be to treat Muslims in the same manner that other groups are treated, and scrutinize and define them in a similar fashion. To have two opposing classifications systems, and use them selectively for political purposes, can only be described as intellectual dishonesty at best. The outcome of such an inquiry is of no real value, as it has been obtained by the use of faulty methods. Thus the term moderate as it is applied today by the Western elites to describe the majority of practicing Muslims is a dishonest and erroneous description of reality.

It should also be obvious that it is unreasonable to classify a practicing Muslim as a moderate or as an extremist based solely on the violent acts that this individual has or has not committed, or on the amount of extreme viewpoints promulgated by said individual, or the lack thereof. Most people would agree that extremism isn’t exclusively synonymous with violence, but that it can also be applied to those who embrace extreme political and ideological ideas, and who disseminate such. Nevertheless, this unreasonable classification system is the one that the MSM and the political classes have chosen to adopt.

If we accept that a truly moderate individual would reject Islamic doctrine based on its overall violent principles, then the only logical conclusion to make is that an individual who continues to publicly praise and Islam and worship Allah and Muhammad, and criticize those who question this ideology, must be viewed as an extremist, based on this individual’s espousal of extremist ideas.

The next question to ask, then, is this: Is it reasonable to assume that a person who condones Islam’s theological message of jihad is sincere whenever this person’s offers a condemnation of jihadi attacks in the MSM? It’s a scenario that we are able to witness every time an Islamic terrorist attacks occur, and whenever the MSM are pretending to do their job by pretending to confront members of the Islamic community. The answer has to be a resounding “NO” from a purely logical standpoint. It’s also a conclusion that is in line with what we have seen on numerous occasions when so-called moderate Muslims say one thing when interviewed by media people, and express diametrically different and opposing views when captured on hidden cameras.

All things considered, it’s exceptionally difficult to label practicing Muslims as anything but “extremists”, given their acceptance of the overabundance of extreme views that are found within Islamic doctrine, and their reluctance to distance themselves from these principles.

Looking at it from an honest perspective, the methodology that has been highlighted in this essay is the only sensible way to ascertain whether practicing Muslims are extremists or moderates, and the methodology of this essay is the only truly objective way to make sense of Islam and practicing Muslims.

The conclusion is that practicing Muslims cannot possibly be classified as anything but extremists, given the religious and political views that they espouse. It may not be what people wish to hear, but it is a conclusion that has been reached by employing a rational and honest method, and from now on the conclusion should be treated as fact.

Notes:

1.		www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
2.		en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia
3.		www.thereligionofpeace.com/pages/quran/violence.aspx
4.		wikiislam.net/wiki/List_of_Killings_Ordered_or_Supported_by_Muhammad
5.		en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza
6.		www.quranexplorer.com/Hadith/English/Hadith/bukhari/004.052.220.html
7.		www.politicalislam.com/tears-of-jihad/

 

 

Zimbabwe on the Rhine

Also published at Gates of Vienna

One of the first things that comes to mind when observing current events in Europe today — and especially since Angela Merkel and the rest of the top echelon of the EU decided to go all out and demolish the already leaking floodgates that were originally put in place to keep Europe safe from aggressive third world Lebensraum jihad — is this: how far is a leader allowed to go in destroying his or her country before someone finally steps in and says “Enough is enough”? Are there any limits as to what they can and cannot do?

Judging by the mass insanity that seems to have gripped the continent and the daily destruction and irreparable damage caused to nations and societies that date back several thousands years the answer has to be a resounding NO! There are no limits, only the leader’s imagination or the lack thereof determines the degree of destruction and treason that he or she is allowed to inflict upon their nations.

Because we have to be honest and call things by their proper names, and what is going on in Europe at the moment can only be referred to as cold hard treason. There is no other way to describe it and still expect to be taken seriously by any rational individual. If you do a quick Google search of the “The legal definition of treason” you get this:

“The betrayal of one’s own country by waging war against it or by consciously or purposely acting to aid its enemies”.

As the above example shows, the term “treason” isn’t difficult to explain, nor is it hard to put into words. One doesn’t have to be a lawyer or well-versed in the legal jargon of the judicial system to understand its significance. It is very straightforward, and it can be condensed down into a sentence of merely twenty-one words, which of course means that no individual can justify their treason by maintaining that they didn’t fully comprehend the legal definition of their crime.

Any action that is carried out purposely and which will cause damage to or severely weaken a nation’s ability to maintain its national security must be considered treasonous, that is if it is carried out and condoned by one of its own citizens. The motivation behind the actions that leads to such an outcome is completely irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether it was done for humanitarian purposes, whether it was done in the belief that it would somehow benefit the nation in the long run or whether it was simply done out of sheer incompetence and ignorance. The only thing that matters is the end result. The only thing that matters is the treason itself.

It’s hard not to draw parallels between the current situation in Europe and what has happened to Zimbabwe under the leadership of African dictator Robert Mugabe. When Mr. Mugabe assumed office in the late 1970s the African nation was one of the wealthiest country on the continent. Now, more than thirty-five years later, it is one of the poorest. Zimbabwe has been on a steady decline towards rock bottom, due to political incompetence, sheer stupidity and an insatiable hatred of traditional Western values. One can of course describe Zimbabwe’s transformation by slightly tweaking Norwegian anthropologist Thomas Hylland Erikson’s infamous quote about white majority nations in Europe:

“Zimbabwe has successfully deconstructed its white majority business sector, and done it so properly that it can never be called a majority again.”

No one can accuse Mugabe of not having deconstructed Zimbabwe and not having done so in a spectacular fashion. The only problem is that it plunged the country into hyperinflation and severe poverty in the process. The changes took place according to the book, and probably according to Mugabe’s own wishes, but the policies were a complete failure which is often the case with radical political visions proposed by politicians who have big egos but very little common sense.

Angela Merkel and her cronies in the EU are European versions of Robert Mugabe, and just like the African dictator they have nothing but contempt for democratic principles and people who oppose their insane visions for the future. They are dangerous people with big egos who despise their cultural heritage. They have a treasure chest filled to the brim with bad political ideas just waiting to be implemented, and when they are, they will cause tremendous and irreparable damage for their fellow citizens. Robert Mugabe gained notoriety for evicting white farmers from their land and by allowing poor uneducated Africans to move in and take their place. Merkel and several other leaders in the EU are following his example by incentivising private landlords to evict their less affluent compatriots from their rented accommodations to free up housing for newly arrived “refugees” that Merkel so arrogantly, and without any legal backing, took it upon herself to invite to Europe.

And it didn’t take long for the disastrous effects of this megalomania to manifest itself. Prosperous nations such as Sweden, Germany and Austria are already starting to see signs of rapid deterioration due to the stress associated with allowing thousands of “refugees” to pour in across its borders every single day.

Private businesses such as hotels and boarding schools, to name just two, have been converted into reception centres for “asylum seekers”. Local councils are pushed to their limits with unrealistic “refugee” quotas that they cannot possibly cope with, set by authorities who have shown absolutely no inclination whatsoever to impose effective measures that will stem the flow of human beings who will end up as permanent strains on future public budgets. Cosy little towns and cities that are heavily dependent on tourism are inundated with aggressive young males from the Third World, especially the Middle East, ensuring that businesses that rely on tourism will take serious financial hits, which again will substantially affect the local economies of these communities. Crime will increase and the local residents will start to get despondent and look for greener pastures elsewhere, as was the case with the people of European extraction in Zimbabwe when things began to go belly up in that country.

And just like Mugabe, Merkel and her cronies are contemplating introducing even more stringent restrictions on those who disagree with them. Politicians in Germany are advocating using legal action to hurt organizations who oppose Islam, private companies have stated that they will start firing anyone who might be tempted to voice unfavourable comments about the policies of Merkel and Company, and state-subsidized left-wing newspapers are ready to finish the job of kicking the living crap out of anyone with “deviant political views”, people who in many cases are already lying on the ground after having being verbally roughed up by the politically correct goons of the Left. Bad policies are not allowed to be questioned or ridiculed, and those who transgress will have to face the music.

And all of this is happening while Europe is slowly being transformed into a European version of Zimbabwe. A continent of white banana republics where successful institutions are being demolished at breakneck speed to facilitate the visions of the mentally disturbed multiculturalist elites who show no regard for the damage that their project will cause to millions of Europeans and their descendants. And hardly anyone in power is taking a step forward and saying, hey this is insanity and it has to stop. No one is standing up and calling it for what it is, namely the greatest act of treason that Europe has seen in modern times.

How far is a leader allowed to go in destroying his or her country before someone finally steps in and says “Enough is enough”?

Well, in modern-day Western societies, leaders can do pretty much whatever they like. They can jeopardize national security, remove national borders, give shelter to terrorists and give tax dollars to foreign born welfare scroungers. They can go against the wishes of the people and imprison political dissidents. They can destroy their own nations and turn them into unrecognizable ruins of what were once great societies.

They can do all this because today traitors are not imprisoned and dealt with accordingly. Today traitors are at the head of the tables in the halls and corridors of power and political influence. Today the traitors are calling the shots. Today the traitor has taken the place of the patriot. Today the patriot is imprisoned and the traitor is lauded.

 

The Swedish media and the “New Swedes”

Also published at Gates of Vienna

The humanistic Übermenschen (journalists and politicians) who are working tirelessly on transforming Sweden into Western Europe’s first failed state must have been in a state of absolute panic when the first reports about the deranged Trollhättan school killer started trickling into the politically correct Swedish newsrooms recently. No doubt they hoped with all their hearts that the sword wielding maniac who had donned the intergalactic version of the Burqa, a sinister looking black Darth Vader outfit, before going on a mad killing spree at a local school wasn’t a “new Swede”, and in particular not one who was in any way shape or form affiliated with a certain “religion that only wants to bring peace and harmony to the world”.

Maybe the Übermenschen of Sweden even went over possible angles and ways to describe the incident while it was still being played out. In their minds, that would at least lessen the significance of the perpetrator’s ethnicity, send out a crystal-clear message to any Swedes who might be tempted to make an issue out of the killer’s cultural background, and last but not least severely tone down or completely ignore the killer’s motivations should it turn out that he didn’t have Klingon as a native tongue, but rather spoke an archaic desert language and followed an earthly religion that condones stoning of women, killing of apostates and the severing of limbs, just to name a few juicy details.

Trollhättan is a small town situated on the western coast, not far away from Sweden’s second city Gothenburg, which has the dubious honour of having sent more fighters to ISIS that any other region of Sweden. Thus the Übermenschen who secretly feared that it could be the work of a “New Swede” were certainly not unjustified in suspecting that it could have something to do with ISIS and that it was perhaps just a case of the “war being brought back home to Sweden”. After all, it was only a couple of weeks ago that hard-core Muslims in Gothenburg showed their brazenness and demanded that Christian Assyrians in the city convert or die. The Arabic letter for Christian was even painted on the wall of a restaurant owned by an Assyrian Christian family, so one can understand the Übermenschen’s fears in that regard.

It must then have been very satisfying for them to learn that their suspicions had been completely unfounded and that the mental duress that they had had to go through was in vain. The sudden explosion of endorphins and other happy chemicals must have resulted in lots of mental “high-fives” and heartfelt sighs of relief when the identity of the killer was finally announced, and it turned out that he was a white ethnic Swede. And not only that, the killer was also an evil racist who had clicked on like buttons of video clips praising Adolf Hitler on YouTube just as assiduously as they themselves click on the delete button in the editor’s window of the readers’ comments section of their politically correct newspapers.

Nor could they believe their luck when it turned out that the killer was a big fan of the Sweden Democrats, which meant that their prayers had finally been heard and that they at last had been given what they had been waiting for for so long, namely Sweden’s own version of Anders Behring Breivik. This one-in-a-million type of event is the equivalent of being dealt a Royal Flush in poker — it’s a hand so potent that it is capable of silencing any rational and lucid argument that would otherwise have to be countered with an unconvincing and feeble accusation of xenophobia, Islamophobia or racism. Now all the Übermenschen of Sweden have to do is to utter the word Anton Lundin Petterson a few times and people will soon get the drift and think twice before they voice an alternative opinion.

This latest incident is worth as much to a Swedish multiculturalist as 100 dead kids at a school campus in the US are worth to hard-core anti-gun campaigners, or a couple of dead black criminals are to the “black lives matter” campaign. The method is the same, the hatred is the same and the dishonesty is the same. The only difference is the agenda, and in Sweden the agenda is to silence any criticism of the new multicultural Sweden.

This is of course something that the Übermenschen of Sweden realized immediately when they heard the Swedish-sounding name of the perpetrator for the first time, which must have been sweet music to their ears. It meant they could throw away the self-imposed ideological restraints that they normally rely upon to present a watered-down version of what passes for news in Sweden these days, and put a hard-hitting pro-multicultural spin on the story. It must have been a very welcome and an unexpected treat for them, considering that they live in a country where they have to work exceptionally hard to suppress the negative consequences of the policies that they themselves defend so vociferously.

To the multiculturalist there are only two types of crime being perpetrated in Sweden: (1) The crimes that affect the indigenous population, which are simply swept under the rug and where the perpetrators on occasions are given fake Swedish names to obscure their immigrant backgrounds; and (2) the type that affects the newcomers, and which must be presented with indignant fat bold headlines on the front pages of every single national newspaper. And that is why the MSM in Sweden had a collective ideological orgasm when they covered the Trollhättan case. It is the reason why they wrote extensively about the perpetrator’s political views, his ethnicity, his hatred of immigrants, his disdain of the established political parties, and his love of Hitler and the Sweden Democrats. It is why they warn of the perils of allowing the racists, Islamophobes and all the other haters of the hard right to be a part of civilized public discourse in Sweden. No stone was left unturned and no fact was deemed too insignificant for the MSM. Anything that was considered to be beneficial in combatting “xenophobia” was put on the table and considered fair game.

Compare that to another incident of senseless knife violence that took place in August when a failed asylum seeker went “Swede-hunting” at a local Ikea store and managed to kill a middle-aged mother and her son with a kitchen knife, nearly succeeding in decapitating the poor woman before he was finally subdued. In that case the media showed “great restraint” and did not brand it as a racist crime, despite the fact that the asylum seeker had hinted beforehand that he was looking for Swedes to unleash his anger upon. In fact, the media didn’t focus too much on the perpetrator’s political motives, other than pointing out that he was unhappy with his asylum application. They focused even less on his ethnicity and they certainly did not deem it necessary to encourage the immigrant community in Sweden to combat Swede-o-phobia, which is clearly widespread in certain circles. Nor did the media encourage the immigrant community to take a long hard look at itself and suggest that they should feel ashamed about how evil they are, despise their racist cultural “baggage” and embrace traditional Swedishness.

The two cases are almost identical, but the only one that ordinary Swedes are allowed to feel angry about is the one involving the white Swedish killer. It is sad, it is highly dishonest, and it really tells you all you need to know about the MSM in Sweden.

Lastly, it’s also worth pointing out the shocking double standards of the Swedish authorities when it comes to dealing with similar incidents perpetrated by Swedish citizens abroad. Given the two incidents mentioned above and the way the authorities dealt with them at the time, which is of course what you would expect of a First-World nation, it’s rather peculiar that they don’t crack down on returning ISIS fighters, many of whom have committed horrendous crimes that make the two aforementioned cases pale in comparison. The consequence of the current Swedish practice in this regard is that both perpetrators, the IKEA killer and the Trollhättan killer would have been able to return to Sweden without fear of being prosecuted had they carried out their atrocities in Syria or some other Islamic hellhole, and provided that they had taken the proper measures to disguise their true identities.

Known Swedish ISIS fighters can today freely return to Sweden from Syria without fear of being arrested and prosecuted for their crimes. A few of them have even returned to Sweden for free hospital treatment after being injured on the battlefield. But don’t worry; you’re not going to read any outraged articles about it penned by the people who vented their anger on Swedish society by pushing the Trollhättan killer in front of them. They are only interested in exposing “Swedish” racism, not in “stigmatizing” “peaceful” Muslims.

The road to hell is paved with petrodollars

Also published at Gates of Vienna

Most people learn from an early age that money doesn’t grow on trees. And nowhere is that more true when it comes to paying for cultural enrichment, which is a lesson that Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg learned the hard way the other day when she had to inform the Norwegian Parliament that the estimated costs of processing the enormous influx of so-called “asylum seekers” would reach a staggering US $6 billion over the next five years.

And to add to Mrs Solberg’s woes, this is occurring at a time when Norwegian oil revenues have taken a severe blow, resulting in tens of thousands of Norwegians losing their lavishly-paid jobs in the Norwegian oil industry. More and more young Norwegians have been joining the ranks of the unemployed, and have to rely on social handouts from the government to get by.

What could possibly be better then than to spend billions of dollars on hordes of people from the Third World — mostly Muslims — who are borderline illiterates, who have no intention of contributing to society and who are only looking for a rich and gullible sugar-daddy nation in the West that they and their extended clan can scrounge off?

Well, according to the Left, nothing could be better, because they are literally walking on sunshine these days. They are enthusiastically encouraging Norwegians to join in what has colloquially been dubbed a “working bee” by the MSM, to ensure that the influx of future welfare recipients is dealt with as proficiently and smoothly as possible. The prospects of importing hundreds if not thousands of hard-core terrorists who could destabilize the country and cause serious mayhem doesn’t seem to faze them in the slightest. In fact, they are much more concerned that the police in Norway are now carrying firearms at all times, a safety measure that was introduced late last year due to the increased threat level, and a direct consequence of by the Left’s aggressive pursuit of a multicultural society.

Hardly a day goes by when there isn’t a frenzied reference in the MSM by a left-wing diehard about the outrageousness of an armed police force and the possibility that a member of the police could actually shoot and harm a violent criminal who took it upon himself to go berserk on a crowded street with a samurai sword, a box cutter or some other exotic type of bowel-slicer. But then again, these are the people that were outraged over suggestions that Anders Behring Breivik should have been taken out by a sniper’s bullet when he went on his mad killing spree on Utøya Island in 2011, so what else can you really expect?

“Cultural enrichment” is, of course, a term coined to mock the multiculturalists’ outrageous claim that importing hordes of people with diametrically opposing views and values is a smart and decent thing to do. And no, we’re not talking about importing people who think that capitalism is superior to Norwegian social democracy, or people who prefer football over cross-country skiing, but rather individuals from “exciting” cultures where it’s considered completely acceptable to stone women to death and hang gays from mobile cranes. To kill people who decide to leave Islam or who have the temerity to offend the prophet Muhammad’s honour.

If you look at it from a completely rational point of view, you’ll find that today’s cultural enrichment is just as beneficial as the Black Death was in 14th century Europe. The reality is that this enrichment is slowly destroying our culture and our way of life, and just like the Black Death it is spreading like a malignant cancer, which the decision-makers are doing their utmost to ignore.

The whole Western world was in an uproar when ISIS blew up relics from the ancient Greco-Roman civilization in Palmyra earlier this year, but when Norwegian and European leaders destroy a living and highly vibrant civilization, and do it just as effectively as the powerful explosives used by ISIS, no one even bats an eyelid. The political classes in the west are more interested in preserving memories of a long since extinguished civilization than trying to save the one that is under attack at the moment. And, sadly, the cultural enrichment has picked up some serious momentum in the last few months and it has now shifted into high gear. People all over the European Union have begun in earnest to discover what the term “cultural enrichment” really means.

That is also the case in Norway, where a kindergarten recently had to close down due the sudden arrival of a reception centre for asylum seekers next door. The straw that finally broke the camel’s back for the parents of the children was a bloody fistfight between two of the residents staying at the reception centre just outside the perimeter of the kindergarten. This was an incident that was witnessed by several of the children. Prior to that there had been incidents of asylum seekers wandering onto the grounds of the kindergarten during operating hours. So what did the local council do upon learning about this? Well, they decided to close down the kindergarten, of course! The children just had to toughen up and deal with it. After all, they can always find new friends at a new kindergarten; and besides, what’s the big deal if the parents have to spend another hour or so each day dropping off and picking up their children from kindy?

These might sound like cruel arguments, but apparently they made perfect sense for the members of the local council.

Likewise parents are becoming increasingly worried about sending their children off on organized school trips to various campsites around the country, something which is an established Norwegian tradition and something that hundreds of thousands of Norwegian kids have done in the past and have fond memories of. A recent newspaper article highlighted some parents’ reluctance to send their children to a camp after they learned that twenty asylum seekers were living in buildings on the campgrounds. As one parent put it, they are worried because they have absolutely no idea about who these people really are, what their mental state is like and what they may be capable of doing when the kids arrive. And the concerned parents have a very strong case, to put it mildly. Why should they feel at ease when the authorities themselves have absolutely zero idea about the real identities of the “asylum seekers”? Figures show that 90% of asylum seekers who apply for political asylum in Norway do not have any identification papers. For all we know the camp could be the new home of senior members of ISIS or Al Qaida. It is also worth pointing out that the two newspaper articles describing the aforementioned cases were written in such a way that the reader might question the motives of the parents, and not the authorities.

The increased pace of cultural enrichment in Norway these days has also prompted the political Left to intensify its mass-intimidation campaigns, in which leftists actively go after those who dare to speak out against the official policies, with the intention of silencing and shaming them. The more obvious it becomes that the policies of the Left are failing, the more important it becomes to keep the situation under tight “control”, that is, to make sure that the critics keep their opinions to themselves and don’t rock the boat. Long-time readers of GoV should be very familiar with the methods employed by the Norwegian inquisitors, their tenacity and the unbridled pleasure they take in destroying the reputations of decent people whose only crime is to have opposing political views.

One of those unlucky individuals who ended up in the crosshairs of the political left recently is Hege Storhaug, a long-time critic of Islam and a vocal opponent of the Norwegian authorities’ head-in-the sand approach when it comes to dealing with multiculturalism and Islam. She is one of the co-founders of the Norwegian think tank Human Rights Service, and is thus frequently in the media discussing reports written by HRS, talking about surveys commissioned by the organization, or just commenting on issues dealing with multiculturalism and Islam. In this capacity, she has stepped on quite a few toes, and the MSM have finally decided that it is payback time.

It came in the form of an extremely vile hit piece published in Itromso a few weeks ago, where the author of the editorial even went so far as to compare HRS and Hege Storhaug with Norwegian wartime collaborators, Jew haters and Nazis during WW2 in German-occupied Norway.

The piece ended with a cryptic remark about the fact that many Norwegian wartime collaborators were shot at the end of the war for their treason.

This prompted Kjetil Rolness, a Norwegian sociologist and a social commentator to pen an op-ed entitled “The hatred directed at Hege Storhaug” in which he described in great detail the venomous vitriol that is constantly being hurled at her by members of the political Left, the cowardly guilt-by-association tactics that they use, and the fact that no one can refute the facts and figures that are presented by Storhaug and HRS in the reports that they publish. Rolness also correctly pointed out that this hatred will make ordinary people afraid of talking positively about Storhaug, and make them think twice about liking any of her articles posted on social media. The Left has in essence succeeded in making her name synonymous with the bogeyman, which of course was the ultimate goal and the sole motive behind the intimidation campaign. Rolness’ op-ed was published a few days after the hit piece appeared in iTromso, and it has generated massive ripples in the MSM and on social media in Norway. It is still being hotly debated today, with the usual “racist”, “Islamophobe” and “hater” epithets thrown in for free by Rolness’ and Storhaug’s detractors.

It is also worth mentioning that until recently HRS have received yearly state subsidies from the authorities that have allowed them to keep the organization afloat (pretty much every Norwegian organization receives some type of subsidies, and this is governed by law). HRS’s subsidies, however, look set to be revoked after massive political pressure from powerful forces on the left. One Norwegian politician from the Socialist Left, Audun Lysbakken, actually broke protocol a few years ago and ordered the subsidies of the think tank cut in half.

This prompted the leadership of HRS to contact the well-known FrP politician (Progress Party) Carl I Hagen, whose party at the time held the power of balance in the Oslo City Council. Hagen consequently made it a condition that HRS subsidies be reinstated in full in return for continued FrP support for the annual Council budgets in the capital.

However, after the recent local elections in Norway, where FrP lost support in the city of Oslo, and the left made considerable gains, proposals have yet again surfaced to revoke HRS’s financial support, which of course is crystal-clear proof that the official subsidies in Norway are political in nature. It clearly shows that any organization that dares to oppose the official line on certain issues stand to lose its funding at any moment.

This is a good reason to scrap the entire system and abolish state subsidies altogether which, would guarantee the independence of these organizations and kill any questions of political meddling. Nevertheless, that is irrelevant in this particular context.

Another person who has involuntarily ended up in the media recently is Hanne Tolg, a Norwegian British-based writer for the Norwegian conservative website Document.no. This website and its founder Hans Rustad became famous after the 22/7 attacks due to the fact that Breivik had posted a couple of dozen non-violent and completely ordinary comments in their discussion section. For this Document.no was absolutely trashed in the MSM in the months following the attacks. The fact that ABB had also written dozens of comments in the MSM was quickly swept under the rug, because there is no reason to “get caught up in details”. Anyway, the reason why Hanne Tolg ended up in the MSM was that she was literally pressured to resign from her job in Wales after someone requested information about her employer and justified this by referring to the Freedom of Information Act, and used Tolg’s name as the reason.

This subsequently led to suspicion and additional investigation by her employer, who soon discovered that she had been writing articles for Document.no. The articles that Tolg had penned were average, ordinary conservative articles of the type you would expect to find in a run-of-the-mill conservative British or American magazine. However, this had no bearing on her case, nor did the fact that she had never encouraged violence, illegality, etc. The thing that became the focus of attention was that Document.no “had been ABB’s favourite website and one where he had posted several comments”. This is apparently what kick-started the official investigation by her employer, a local fire station in a small town in rural Wales where she had been working in admin for thirteen years. What followed was a process that can only be described as a protracted witch-hunt that lasted for several months and that eventually drained her of her strength, and which finally made her cave in and resign.

The fact that everything was written in Norwegian obviously complicated the process, as her British employers were forced to rely on Google translate and Tolg’s own translations and clarifications. In the end Tolg was never told about who requested the information about her employer and used her name as the reason why, and she still does not know who that person is. It is not unreasonable to suspect, however, that that individual is a Norwegian, given the language of the articles in question and the fact that Document.no is a Norwegian website. It could even be a prominent person working in the Norwegian MSM or in the Norwegian academia, but we will probably never find out. One thing for sure, though, is that there have been several cases in Norway where people who disagree political with others have contacted the person’s employer over things that he/she has said or written with the intention of causing difficulties for the target.

Admittedly Hanne Tolg wasn’t “forced” from her job by a Norwegian employer, but the list of Norwegians who have lost their jobs for daring to state their political views has grown fairly long, and more names will be added to it now that the official estimates of “refugees” arriving in Norway by the end of 2016 have been raised to 60,000.

This is a far cry from the 8,000 Syrians that the Norwegian government so generously pledged to accept a few months ago, before the local elections and after a massive media campaign orchestrated by the Left urging the government to do so. There are still many people in Norway who dare to oppose the official policies of the Left, and there are still many who are unafraid to write under their real names. It would not at all be that surprising if some of these were made an example out of, for example by terminating them from their jobs and making them unpalatable for any future employers. After all, we’re talking about “nice cosy Norway” here.