oyvindstrommen.be traktningar

Sissel har skrevet en bloggpost om syltynne modeller og foreldreansvar som er verdt å lese.

Jeg ønsker ikke å være med på å sykeliggjøre tynne kvinner på samme måte som tykke kvinner har blitt sykeliggjort gjennom årevis. Jeg ønsker ikke at normalt syltynne kvinner skal bli latterliggjort og skult på, like lite som jeg ønsker at de skal bli utsatt for tilsynelatende velmenende folk som stikker diagnoser opp i halsen på dem hver gang de beveger seg utendørs.

Selv synes jeg man burde tenke et par hakk lenger. Det ekstreme fokuset på kropp, tykk eller tynn, er i seg selv et sykdomstrekk. Det er ikke de tynne modellene som er problemet. De som mener at det er body mass index-nivået på kattevabben som må reguleres aksepterer rimelig skitne spilleregler.

Problemene på kattevabben er små. Det er problemene utenfor vi bør tenke over.

Jeg har ikke tenkt å gjøre det til noen vane å dedikere bloggposter, men denne dedikerer jeg til Morgan Tsvangirai. Som slagord i presidentvalget i Zimbabwe i 2002 hadde han slagordet: “Together we will complete the change”, men dessverre har ikke Morgan fått sjansen til å forandre Zimbabwe til et bedre land. I stedet har han blant annet blitt banket opp og torturert.

Torbjørn Røe Isaksen har startet en bloggkampanje til støtte for Morgan Tsvangirai og andre politiske fanger i Zimbabwe. Selv om han kanskje trekker retorikken litt langt (blogginnlegget heter Afrikas Hitler, iallfall i adressefeltet – og det er tittelen også Heidi Nordby Lunde bruker), er det et prisverdig initiativ.

Jeg vil derfor også oppfordre mine lesere til å lese Amnestys rapport om de siste arrestasjonene i Zimbabwe her og til å sende en protest til landets ambassade i Sverige på epost: mbuya@stockholm.mail.telia.com.

Her er en eksempeltekst:

To Her Excellency Ms Mary Sibusisiwe MUBI
Ambassador Extra-ordinary and Plenipotentiary,
I am deeply concerned about the latest news from Zimbabwe about the mistreatment of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and other activists. Other leaders, including Tendai Biti, the Secretary General of the Tsvangirai-led MDC; Grace Kwinje, the Party’s Deputy Secretary for International Relations; and Nelson Chamisa, spokesperson for the MDC, have according to reports also sustained severe injuries while in police custody.
I call for all detainees who engaged in non-violent protest to be released immediately. I also call for an investigation into the killing of Gift Tandare.

Samtidig vil jeg oppfordre lesere og medbloggere til å sjekke ut Håvard Simensens bloggpost om en annen sak som også fortjener oppmerksomhet.

Tiande mars kunne nettsida HonestThinking fortelja at franske myndigheiter «har måtta gje opp i alle fall delar av sin autoritet over ikkje mindre enn 750 urbane område». Ser ein nærare på denne påstanden er det underleg at nokon som helst kan ta nettsida, eller redaktør Ole Jørgen Anfindsen alvorleg i debatten om innvandring og integrering.

Strengt teke er Frankrike ikkje lenger nokon stat, heiter det i epistelen, og vidare vert det slått fast at dei som meiner Hallgrim Berg teiknar eit for negativt bilete av utviklinga i Europa «kunne ha godt over å filosofera litt over situasjonen i Frankrike». For å liksom villa understreka poenget legg Anfindsen ut ei lenkje til ei nettside som gjev ein oversikt over områda han hevdar Frankrike har gjeve opp kontrollen av, dei såkalla zones urbaines sensibles.

Problemet hans er at det han fortel ikkje er ærleg tenking i det heile, men blank løgn.

ZUS-sonene er byområde som har vorte definert som politiske satsingsområde, område ein ynskjer å fremma økonomisk utvikling i. Mange av stadene på lista er innvandrarstrøk, men ikkje alle.

Det dei har til felles er gjerne høgare arbeidsløyse, lågare utdanningsnivå og dårlege bustadforhold. Og sjølvsagt: at franske myndigheiter i alle fall på papiret tek problema alvorleg og freistar å gjera noko med dei.

Det er få i fransk opinion som deler dette fantastiske biletet av ZUS, av den enkle grunnen at det er idiotisk. Sjølv ikkje Le Pens Front National snakkar om dei som område som Frankrike har gjeve opp, men klager i staden over at det vert brukt så mykje pengar på områda, og at det utgjer «positiv diskriminering». Ideen om okkuperte område i Frankrike trivst imidlertid godt på enkelte amerikanske og nokre få europeiske nettsider som elles er prega av høgst unyansert og stereotyp islamkritikk, og i blant også av eit heller velutvikla hatforhold ovanfor alt fransk.

Det burde vera openbart at ein kvar som freistar å gjera ei liste med 750 område definert som viktige for byutvikling om til ei liste som viser at Frankrike ikkje lenger er ein stat rett og slett er vanskeleg å stola på.

Tre dagar seinare har brørne Anfindsen høyrd frå ein lesar som meiner dei har vorte villeia av kjelda. Ein merknad vert lagt til under overskrifta «Adieu, France»: «Vi undersøker nå saken, og vil komme tilbake til den i løpet av noen dager», står det. I merknaden kjem det nemleg også fram kven kjelda for påstanden er, nemleg den belgiske nettjournalen Brussels Journal, drifta av påstått konservative Paul Belien.

Det kan vera verdt å reflektera over eit par ting Belien har skrive. I etterkant av eit rovdrap i Brüssel, som både media, politikarar og politi meinte var utført av ungdommar av nordafrikansk opphav (to polske ungdommare vart seinare pågripe), skreiv han:

Rovdyra har tenner og klør. Rovdyra har knivar. Alt frå dei er små lærer dei i sine årlege offerritual korleis ein skjer over halsen på varmbloda husdyr. Me vert kvalme av å sjå blod, men det vert ikkje dei. Dei har trening og dei er væpna. Me kan ikkje ein gong gå med pepperspray i lommene. Dei har springknivar og slakteknivar og dei veit korleis dei skal bruka dei.

Artikkelen var kalla «Gje oss våpen». I ein annan snakkar han om «valdtekta av Europa», og slår fast:

‘Dersom trua kollapsar så kollapsar også sivilisasjonen’. Det er den eigentleg årsaken til at Europa sin sivilisasjon vert stengt ned. Islamisering er berre ein konsekvens. Sjølve ordet islam tyder «underkasting» og sekularistane har allereie underkasta seg. Mange europearar har allereie vorte muslimar, sjølv om dei ikkje skjøner det og sjølv om dei ikkje vil vedgå det.

Det er den same Belien som har skrive artikkelen brørne Anfindsen bruker som kjelde for si «ærlege tenkning» – og tilhøyrande blanke løgn – om Frankrike. Påstanden som har vorte henta ut utgjer ein liten del av ein større artikkel som eigentleg handlar om Nederland.

På HonestThinking har dei ikkje berre slukt han rått, utan å stilla eit einaste kritisk spørsmål, men har også lagt til si eiga tolking: «På litt lengre sikt vil Frankrike enten bli delt i flere stater, eller det må dramatiske endringer til for å gjenopprette statens autoritet». Kanskje dei burde byrja å “undersøkja saka” får dei brakte slike bodskaper? Kanskje dei burde meditera over ordet “kjeldekritikk”?

Og kanskje både ein og hin også burde stilla seg meir kritisk ovanfor Anfindsens ideologiske tenkning?

Depesjer publiserer i kveld ein artikkel eg har omsett, skrive av den britiske forfattaren og tenkjaren Timothy Garton Ash. Artikkelen tek EU-debatten, bokstaveleg talt, eit steg vidare, og utfordrar slik eg ser det både norske EU-tilhengjarar og EU-motstandarar.

Sjølv synest eg Ash her leverer noko av det mest interessante av ideologisk tenking eg har sett på ei stund.

Det er sjølvsagt mange ting Ash ikkje tek opp, som eg gjerne skulle ynskja han gjorde; både når det gjeld økologi, når det gjeld utfordringar frå totalitære krefter (både radikal islamisme og eurofascisme) og når det gjeld korleis den nye europeiske forteljinga skal inkludera nye europearar i tiåra som kjem. Det er også ting eg er ueinig med han i. Men mykje av det han skriv synest eg er materiale som burde gje gjenklang både på høgre- og venstresida. Garton Ash si bok Free World er også verd å lesa.

I samband med at artikkelen vert publisert på norsk har eg også ei utfordring til norske bloggarar som er interessert i europeisk politikk; ta opp heile eller delar av Timothy Garton Ash sin artikkel til diskusjon. Me tek gjerne imot bidrag både til borgerjournalistene.org og depesjer

In the Telegraph of India, Mukul Kesavan makes a number of very valid points.

As pundit after Western pundit from the left, right and centre tells us why Iraq can’t be a democracy or even a nation because it’s too poor or too fractious or too various, you suddenly realize that if India didn’t exist, no one would have the imagination to invent it. And even if they did, they wouldn’t have the inclination to because in the absence of India, the prejudices about the non-West that Anglo-American policy-makers and opinion-mongers peddle for a living, would pass for wisdom.

Many of those pundits are probably too busy writing on their latest book “Snappy Title: How I Expanded a Moderately Original Idea Into 300 Pages of Misleading Anecdotes“(*) to bother reading mr. Kesavans article. Too bad. Kesavan claims that India is the most important country in the world today. That might be an Indian variant of the European eurocentrism, of course, but it might also be true. India is special. In 1947, Kesavan writes, this desperately poor subcontinental polity born out of genocidal violence, freighted with more religious communities, language groups and cultural differences than any other part of the world set off to be a democratic, pluralist nation-state. And sixty years later, India is still a democratic, pluralist nation-state.

Now we’re the elephant in the room when Western commentators invoke the Free World or reach once more for that mythical beast, the Judaeo-Christian past of democratic peoples. It’s not merely that we’re free and not Western, democratic and conspicuously not Judaeo-Christian, though both these things are important in a world made claustrophobic by the self-congratulatory narcissism of the Anglo-American West. It is also that we are these things without being occupied by MacArthur, protected by CENTO or bailed out by the Marshall Plan. And what’s more, we’ve taken the West’s largest claim to political liberalism, the separation of church and state, or secularism, and turned it into a many-petalled pluralist flower.

And perhaps most importantly, Kesavan’s points are not merely valid, they are increasingly valid:

So when Holland, that bastion of ‘tolerance’ and ‘multiculturalism’ commits itself to banning the burqa because the practice of a hundred Muslim women subverts the foundations of Western democracy, when English politicians vie with each other to steal the white constituencies of the British National Party and when every leader in Europe from Romano Prodi to Ségolène Royal to Tony Blair feels free to publicly tell Europe’s Muslims that they need to behave, amid this hysteria, India stands out as a model of balance and sanity.

Despite a long history of communal riots and pogroms, despite secessionism, terrorist attacks on parliament and elsewhere, India still isn’t in the business of banning burqas or ordering Sikhs to present themselves for haircuts. No one should underestimate the occasional cruelty of the Indian state or the discrimination many minority populations face in India, but equally, Indians should take great pride in the country’s pluralist equilibrium, its remarkable poise. So when we hear a complacent Western voice divide the world into the civilized West and the unwashed Rest, we should raise our trunk and swish our tail and having made our enormous presence felt, politely ask if he could say that again.

Read the rest here.

^{(*) I have stolen that snappy title from an email I received from fellow Norwegian blogger Bjørn Stærk. I hope he does not mind too much.}

- It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims.

Abdel Rahman al-Rashed, manager for the al-Arabiya tv channel, wrote this in the Arab newspaper al-Sharq al-Awsat in september 2004, in an article where he argued the necessity of confronting radical Muslim leader figures such as Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

Little did al-Rashed know that he was to be used as an alibi for a thoroughly anti-Islamic view in a Danish school book for fifth-graders (10-11 year olds), “Os and kristendom” (We and Christianity). In this book for use in the classes on religion the pupils meet the second largest religion off the world in one chapter and one chapter only. That chapter is called “Terrorism”. And in that chapter, the pupils only meet Muslim terrorists. For, as they can see quoted in their schoolbook, “even if all Muslims are not terrorists, all terrorists are Muslim”. The sentence is not contradicted. The chapter does not mention the ETA, it does not say anything about Irish republican nationalists, it does not talk of extreme movements in Latin America, does not spare a word for the Red Army Fraction and says nothing on Christian separatists in Indian Nagaland.

But are all terrorists really Muslims? Not quite.

Al-Rashed is angry, and feels that his words have been taken out of context, to spread the exact opposite message of his own. He has all reason to be angry, but more people should be. There is something rotten in the Kingdom of Denmark. The chapter on terrorism in “We and Christianity” can not be described in any better way than as sneaky propaganda.

In an atmosphere where things like that can be printed in schoolbooks, it should not surprise anyone that someone places pig heads on a Muslim graveyard. It is no more a surprise than that young Palestinians grow up to be suicide bombers after reading the most horrible things about Jews in their schoolbooks. And, indeed, it should not be a surprise if – sometime soon – it shines like from crystals in the broken glass of immigrant stores in Scandinavian streets. The image of the immigrant as dangerous and threathening has already been created. The dehumanisation process is well underway. The Eternal Muslim is a violent and evil man.

The pictures from the “caricature war” flashes by: angry demonstrators, burning flags, attacks on embassies, bloggers that support freedom of speech, lying imams, murder threats, cowardly Norwegian authorities… but there is a piece missing in the jigsaw and all that is left is this nasty little image that does not seem to fit in: As far as I know, there was only one violent episode in connection with the socalled “caricature war” in Norway. I might be wrong, since this story, too, got little attention except in local media.

Just before midnight on the 4th of February a 35 year old Norwegian citizen of Palestinian background came home from work. He carried with him juice, that he was bringing home. On his way into his house he sees several young people standing outside. They’ve been to a party. One of the men takes the juice away from the 35-year old, who asks to have it back. He is then pushed towards a wall, and – when he asks his attackers to stop the nonsense – he is cut in the throat with a knife. The blood poured from an almost eight centimetres long cut.- You bastard, the guy with the knife says, – burning the Norwegian flag!

From the living room window the nine year old daughter of the Palestinian Norwegian saw what happened. But even she is seen as dangerous in much of what is written about Islam and Muslims today. Reduced to a number, even she is made into the Eternal Muslim, transformed into one of those who are bringing the downfall of Europe. There’s something rotten in many Kingdoms, and if Europe fully rediscovers its past of ethnic and religious hatred we should not forget where the smell first came from.

Alex Harrowell, A Fistful of Euros writes on the upcoming French elections, and – of course – on [Jean-Marie Le Pen]:

A few years ago, it was fashionable for the same liberal-hawk types to worry about the rise of the same politicians on the grounds that they were dangerous anti-semitic swine. Now, we are asked to believe that everyone else is anti-semitic, traitorous, etc and that they are heroic strugglers for Western civilisation. Which happens to be what they think themselves to be. Whether it is wise to take quasi-fascists at their own self-evaluation is left as an exercise to the reader.

Worth checking out in this connection: Jean-Marie Le Pen and the National Front, Jewish Anti-Defamation League

Onkel Henning læser avis (Uncle Henning reads the newspaper) is one of the more interesting Danish blogs around. In a recent post Henning Holm comments on an article in Information. Henning makes some points that deserve a much wider audience than the Danish or Scandinavia blog readers, and I warned him that I would steal some of his points for use on this English-language blog.

The article in Information was a critical response from Frederik Stjernfeldt on Swedish journalist Stefan Jonsson’s analysis of the Danish debate on immigration. Jonsson’s main point was that the Danes have become obsessed with Islam. Stjernfeldt writes:

“The false understanding of constant cultural essences has become one of the premisses of the debate”. This is one of the critical comments on the Danish debate from Stefan Jonsson. Here, I think he is completely correct. Of course, it concerns Islam, and the idea of Islam as a constant cultural essence it thriving both on the right-wing – where Islam is routinely seen as a culture with no hope for improvement, quickly associated with terrorism – and on the left-wing – where Islam is, just as routinely, seen as made up by poor, innocent victims alone, people whose picturesque culture must be protected.

Many on the left would not like to admit it, but this description is more than a caricature. Some left-wingers are drawn from their (often justified) criticism against Western powers (i.e. the United States) to support of anyone who fights against these same powers. Those who struggle against the perceived “imperialist hegemony” are then automatically understood as having noble intentions, simply because they are the enemy of the enemy. In this way, the West is made into an essence and understood as necessarily ‘evil’.

When right-wingers ask ‘do you want Saddam back, then?’ they are mostly discussing against strawmen built by themselves. But amongst that army of strawmen, some real people on the left have also found refugee. Henning Holm mentions Carsten Kofoed. I could think of others, too.

Another aspect, which I see as more important, is the fact that many of Europe’s progressive left-wing parties have shun away from discussing problems surrounding immigration and immigrant communities. Some feminist groups are quick to protest against the opening of a new sex store, connecting sex stores with the porn industry, but are slow to fight against brutal suppression of immigrant women. Some left-wingers, and people on the liberal right, are quick to criticise Christian homophobia, but slow to criticise Muslim homophobia. Seen in that light, the growth of various populist right and even neo-fascist parties is not difficult to explain. They are seen as the only one standing up for Western values; when in fact, they oppose central tenets of a Western democracy.

But then, how should the left wing and the liberal right address these problems? I have stolen Henning Holm’s list and slightly adopted it:

1. Fight against stupid anti-Americanism based on monolithic thinking, just as you would fight against stupid Islamophobia based on the same.

2. Do not set lower standards for immigrants or minorities than for anyone else. This is racism reverted. If someone is spouting Jew-hatred or homophobia, they should be confronted, regardless of their ethnic, cultural or religious background. Also, do not excuse someone’s despicable actions or attitudes because they are in agreement with you on other areas.

3. Do not let the socalled far right define the debate. Opposition to stricter rules on family reunions is not the same as support of forced marriages. Confronting the views of the far right is good, but critique coupled with alternative suggestions to solve actual problems is better.

4. The “big debate” on Islam should be modularised. It is pointless to discuss the Taliban in the same context as youth crime in European ghettos, and stupid to discuss female genital mutilation in the same setting as the Iraq war. The main challenges of integration have little to do with 1960s Egyptian radicalism and even less to do with Ottoman policy in Southern Bulgaria.

5. The debate should be deislamified. The problem with forced marriages is not that they take place in Islamic cultures, but that people are married against their will. The problem with female genital mutilation is not that the tradition is practiced in some Muslim countries, but that the tradition is practiced at all. The problem with al Qa’ida is not that they pray to Allah, but that they are involved in terrorism. These problems should be seen in the most relevant context(s), which often does not include the religious one.

A reader has responded to my post Fisking Mark Steyn and since the response both has little to do with Mark Steyn and is very interesting as a point for further discussion, I have decided to reply in a separate post. I will respond to his post part by part, but let me begin with one of his main points, namely that parties promoting xenophobia are on the rise across Europe because the left has somehow failed.

I am not sure I agree with Iblis, as my reader calls himself, in how the left has failed. I am, however, in full agreement with him in the notion that the left – and for that matter the liberal right – has failed. European integration policies are not extremely successful, and this is the case for a number of reasons. Also, feminist groups, left-wing and right-wing alike have failed to raise to raise the role of women in immigrant communities. I have written quite extensively on this at earlier occassions, in between what Iblis describes as my “whining on the internet”. One example is my article, “Our own madness” where the reluctance of the left to address some central issues is one of my central points.

The (still short) FAQ-section of this page also should serve to give a better understanding of my point-of-view.

Then for my response to Iblis, who writes:

You seem dedicated to “expose the renaissance of hatred”. Exposing racism is a noble cause indeed, if there really is any racism to be exposed. If rising fascism in Europe is a problem, the first step in contering the problem should be to find the causes of the problem, not whine on the internet as you do.

One might say the same thing about another problem, namely the perceived rise of Islamic fundamentalism in Europe. If this is indeed a problem, the first step in countering the problem should be to find the causes of the problem, not whine on the Internet as quite a number of people, including Iblis himself with his blog “Right Wing Revolution”, does. Sadly, the far right seems totally incapable of understanding the root causes of for instance the rebelling youth of mostly immigrant background in France. It does not with a lack of understanding. People who do point out central root causes, and the obvious similarities to for instance the Watts riots, are consistently being ridiculed.

In other words: Iblis should apply the same standards towards what many refer to as Islamic fascism (and perhaps rightly so) as he wants me to apply towards what I refer to as fascists. To quote Starship Troopers: “If you want to kill the bug, you have to understand the bug”.

Personally, I believe the best understanding of the problems France do face and will face comes from people like Fadela Amara who speaks out against both what she refers to as “green fascism”, and against the blatant racism of the far right. If people like Iblis were really concerned about for instance Islamic radicalism or criminal immigrant youth; they would ally with Amara. Of course, that’s difficult for them; she is of immigrant background and she is a Muslim. As Iblis clearly demonstrates in the rest of his comment, that makes her part of the problem, not part of the solution.

That kind of thinking is not fascist in itself. But when it comes from political parties with provable historical ties to fascist politicians, movements and parties, such as the British National Party, the French Front National or the Flemish Vlaams Belang, you should consider the possibility.

What is the cause of rising fascism in Europe in 2006 (I dont necessary agree with you that critics of muslim immigration can b[l]e labeled fascist, but I will use the word “fascist” for now, because that is your rhetoric)?

I do not agree with “me” that critics of Muslim immigration can be labeled fascist either. I am not saying that all Islam critics or all who oppose or are critical to immigration are fascists. I have never said so. It would be wrong. What I am saying is that there are genuine fascists who are playing political roles on the socalled far right and that there are people who have genuinely fascist ideas. I am also saying that a certain tendency towards fascism is penetrating well into a number of European far right parties, but I have described this as “a touch of madness“, not as “utter madness through-and-through”.

Why is right-wing political parties getting support?

I’m not sure a party like Vlaams Belang is right-wing at all, and I think a number of market liberalists I know have every right to be offended when the party is referred to as far right. But why does for instance Front National get support? There are a number of factors that play a role, including the left’s reluctance to raise some central issues concerning immigration and integration, but also including for instance media coverage and the creation of myths done by the far right itself. Who would have thought, after hearing the propaganda of the far right, that the crime rate in Belgium is considerably lower in 2005 than it was in 2000? Who would have though, listening to bloggers like Iblis, that the murder rate in Norway is lower now than it was in the 1970s? In Oslo, described by Iblis as a “multicultural hellhole”, there had been 10 – ten – murders this year when the last statistics were reported in early October. I would not be surprised if a casual reader of newspapers would guess a number ten or even twenty times higher.

Remember, no one asked the millions of european workingclass people if they really wanted third world immigration in the first place. Now they strike back. How can you ask of them to adapt to the “new Europe” if they dont want it? Working against social phenomenons you dont like is basic politics, and it makes very much sense.

Most Western European countries, with the exception of Spain and Portugal, which was ruled by fascist regimes well after WWII, are and have been democratic countries where people can vote. That, my friend, is basic politics, and it means that the European worker class people you seemingly worry about, have had every chance at voting out the parties supporting immigration. Truly, a number of neo-fascist party try to sell the idea that Europeans have never had a say, blaming the “marxists” (including liberal socialists), or “the left-wing” (including right-wing liberals) or even, in the case of several European far right politicians, the Jews (!) for it. In other words, your pretense is false.

Still, you are of course perfectly entitled to work against “social phenomenons” you do not like. Just do not expect me to agree with you.

To label it “fascism” without trying to understand is just counterproductive, because you push the people even more away from the political establishment.

Agreed. See above.

The demographic factor you seem to downplay also plays a major concern in this. Today almost 40% of Oslos firstgraders are non-european. In twenty years they will make out 40% of Oslos 26 years old. There is not many non-violent ways to change that fact.

I am not at all downplaying the demographic factor (although I am not upscaling it either, as you are when you cleverly add “almost” to a higher number than the actual, and then leave the “almost” out in the following sentence). I am pointing out that the most central demographic development in the world at this time in history is not immigration to Europe, it is the demographic revolution going on in large parts of the socalled developing world, including most Muslim countries. Immigration to Europe is a side-effect.

Mark Steyn’s description is heavily flawed, as he bases his understanding on the Gaza Strip and Yemen, rather than basing it on the majority of Muslim countries. The process going on is, in many ways, very similar to the demographic revolution Europe went through in the 1800s. In the 1860s as many as ten to fifteen per cent left Norway. They were welcomed in the United States, although some of them were also met with xenophobia and prejudices.

One member of the Wisconsin legislative council said, in a time were black people were not exactly treated fairly, that “the negroes here were more intelligent, more civilized, better acquainted with our institutions…” than the Norwegians, whom he “[had seen] living without what any other people would have considered the most absolute necessaries of life, burrowed so to say in holes in the ground, in huts dug in the banks of the earth”. This time around, the new colossus is lifting her lamp besides the Golden Door of Europe – and, of course, Europe will change. The numbers you refer in your article seem accurate enough (of course, good numbers does not make for good conclusions, but that’s another story). Your comment above is more worrying:

There is not many non-violent ways to change that fact.

Can you explain to me what that actually means? Which non-violent ways are there, and what do you suggest to do if these non-violent means do not work?

You continue:

From my perspective the immigration policy of the socialdemocratic parties in Norway are the very cause of the negative social development in Oslo and Norway. [...] No, I rather cast my vote for those who promise to end insecurity and stop muslim immigration. They may not succed in delivering those promises, but at least they try. The lefts only solution is to make things even worse.

There is one big problem with that logic. The problem is not your notion that the immigration policy of the social-democratic parties is unsuccessful, resulting in negative social developments (which I hope is not simply a codeword for “bloody foreigners”, although I have my suspicions). The problem is your notion that it helps voting for “those who promise to end insecurity and stop Muslim immigration”. In Norway, you will have to look long and hard for any political party giving those promises, of course, but in a number of European countries the people who make those promises come from the same political movement as the guy who wrote this some decades ago:

But, on the other hand, nothing gives better proof of the vital forces of a people [...] than that one day, through a happy decree of Destiny, a man arises who is capable of liberating his people from some great oppression, or of wiping out some bitter distress, or of calming the national soul which had been tormented through its sense of insecurity, and thus fulfilling what had long been the universal yearning of the people.

I think I will leave it up to my readers to guess who that man was. Your final claim, Iblis, is the following:

The political climate in Norway and Europe is really depressive, but it is one thing that is positive. The positive thing is that my view (which you may label “fascist”) is much more common among the young people. My generation seem alot more concerned with muslims and immigration than those who rule today.

In fact, the younger generation is – in general – more positive towards immigration and immigrants than older people. I guess we are not all living in the same bubble. And… I am quite happy I am not sharing a bubble with you.

I have a feeling that Mark Steyn – “the one-man global content provider” – is a smart man. Of course, I’m not a mind reader, but it seems to me that Steyn sure knows what people want, and that he takes care to give it to them. Steyn is loyal to his fans, always quick to say “Europe is doomed!”, “Multiculturalism is evil!” and “The Liberal Party is bad!” in the form on long and seemingly thoughtful articles.

I admire Steyn. He is an excellent propagandist. But I can’t say I admire his fans. I mean: Why is it that these independent thinkers, the politically uncorrect, never actually care to check out Steyn’s stories? Just a tiny little bit? My theory is that they are willing to accept anything as long as it contains the idea of Europe becoming Eurabia. Anything.

But let’s get started with fisking Steyn, shall we? We will take a closer look at one of his recent prophetic articles – “The future belongs to Islam”:

#1 Stupid demography

This is about the seven-eighths below the surface — the larger forces at play in the developed world that have left Europe too enfeebled to resist its remorseless transformation into Eurabia and that call into question the future of much of the rest of the world.

The larger forces. Sounds scary, doesn’ it? It’s the demography, stupid, as Steyn would say. What he is really talking about is sperm. The larger forces threathening Europe, and the rest of the world, is sperm. It’s not just any kind of sperm, of course, it’s Muslim sperm. Here’s the kind of image you should have of Muslim sperm when you read Steyn:

Little dudes with tails. And long beards. And suicide belts. And the collected writings of Sayyid Qutb. Looking for an egg to… well, maybe not blow up, but… you get the idea.

As many of the people telling us that Europe is doomed, Steyn is a hobby demographer. And, as other hobby demographers he has discovered that Europeans have few children, and that Muslims have many. In this specific piece, he gives two – 2 – examples from the Muslim world. The Gaza Strip. And Yemen.

Anyone wonder why he does not take for instance Tunisia and Turkey? Or for that matter the most important current member of the Axis of Evil(TM), Iran?

I’ll tell you why. It’s because they make horrible examples. Turkish women have 1.92 children in average, Tunisian women 1.74. Iranian women? 1.8 children. If you put that together with Steyn’s comment on American women having 2.1 children in average, the whole point of Steyn’s article suddenly seems… well, lacking? Steyn is concerned about the demographic development in Europe, but he has failed to realise one thing. The biggest demographic revolution at this moment of history has little to do with Europe. It is happening in the socalled developing countries. In 1970, a typical woman in one of these countries bore six children. Today, the rate has tumbled to 2.7. This is true in Brazil. It is true in India. It is also true in most Muslim countries (this makes Ahmadinejad sweat – later note: If something makes Ahmadinejad sweat, it´s most likely good news. Except for global warming, that is. Global warming is bad news).

Notable exceptions? Well, there’s the Gaza Strip. And Yemen. And a couple of other countries in the Arabic peninsula.

That being said: Yes, Europe is changing. In some ways, it is becoming the new America. You remember the poem, don’t you?

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
“Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!” cries she
With silent lips. “Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!”

This is what Europe has to live up to, and I’m not sure it is up to the challenge. Even if it is, it is hardly going to be painfree. Still, closing the borders is not really an alternative, as one look at North Korea should tell you. So, here’s the deal: An increasing number of Europeans will be Muslim. Deal with it.

#2 Muslim + Muslim + Muslim = Eurabia?

Mark Steyn has figured out that Muslims will take over the world soon. Or at least, that is what I think he is saying. Maybe what he is really saying is that we should not let Muslims take over the world. If that’s what he is trying to say, it is not really clear what he wants us to do, though, a striking feature of many of the “Doomed!”-lot.

Anyway, Muslims make up a handy group. You can put everyone in this sack. Take one colonel Gadaffi, with his weird ideological mixture of God-knows-what, and shake him together with one mulla Krekar, the infamous Kurdish islamist living in Norway. Add some “youths” as toppings, even though they probably know more about hash than about hajj.

Steyn’s example – quelle surprise, as he says – is the youths who “stumped” and “kicked” the Belgian train conductor Guido Demoor “to death”:

Three “youths” were arrested, and proved to be — quelle surprise! — of Moroccan origin. The ringleader escaped and, despite police assurances of complete confidentiality, of those 40 passengers only four came forward to speak to investigators.

I would have understood Steyn’s description if it was written months ago. But it isn’t, which makes me wonder… did Steyn even bother to look into the case after reading about it for the first time? Or did he just add it to the notebook called “Good examples for propaganda” and forget about it until retrieving the notebook from under a mountain of books on how alone America is?

No verdict has been passed and many things are not clear about what happened from press reports, but there is a number of things Steyn fail to mention.

First of all, six youths were involved, and all six of them were eventually arrested, though the term “ringleader” does not seem to fit on any of them. Several of these youths have later been released, under various conditions.

Secondly, and more importantly, Belgian media have later reported the incident differently than the initial description Steyn repeats. Here is my translation from an article in De Standaard, a leading Flemish newspaper, from the 29th of September:

[Guido Demoor] asked the youths to act calmer. When they did not listen, he [allegedly] grabbed one of them by the neck, whereupon two of the six suspects hit and kicked the victim. The four others looked upon. The youths then ran away. Demoor did not survice the incident. From the autopsy it was concluded that the victim died of a stroke, caused by agitation in combination with high blood pressure. An experts’ report that was recently added to the case it is said that a connection between the facts [of the incident] and the death can not be ruled out”.

In short, the story is not quite as the story told by Steyn. According to the above variant, mr. Demoor was not simply the victim of aggression, and he was in no way willingly beaten to death. What happened did not last long, giving few people chance to react, and according to some news reports Demoor was still alive and seemingly well when the youths left the bus. Why does Steyn leave all this out? Because it does not fit as well into the myth of the criminal immigrant kid? And allow me to digress, because sometimes I get a feeling that many think, or want to think, that 50% of Europe’s youth of Muslim origin is criminal. That’s all the boys, I assume, since the girls are too busy being suppressed. I sometimes get the feeling that the Europe described at some websites is a Europe where large crowds of Muslim kids shoot bazookas at elderly white ladies. And that it is getting worse. Every year.

I live in a city the local xenophobic party describes as on the way of becoming an Islamic state, and I can’t really relate to their fairytale. Sure, I have experienced noisy sixteen year olds (with an unhealthy interest in literature) on the bus. They were of Moroccan origin, but acted pretty much the same way as I’ve seen noisy sixteen year old Norwegians do in Norway. In fact, the city I live in, while high on Flemish crime statistics, has a relatively small crime problem, and crime is on the decrease. According to statistics the Belgian Federal Police, there are fewer rapes, fewer car thefts, fewer breaking-and-enterings and generally less crime in Belgium now than in 2002.

Don’t expect Steyn to write about that, though. It’s not what people want to hear. People want to hear that Europe is doomed.