28
sep
Seneste opdatering: 28/9-11 kl. 1829
22 kommentarer - Tryk for at kommentere!


På papiret så gæsten i Ateistisk Selskab Maryam Namazie, talsperson for Women’s Discrimination in Iran og One Law for All, ud som en rimelig interessant aften i byen, men den skulle blive interessant af delvist helt andre grunde.

Hendes kritik af islamister i Europa, hendes kritik af venstrefløjens uvidenhed og angst for at blive kaldt racister, sad lige i skuffen. Men det skulle snart vise sig, at hun ikke uden grund er medlem af det iranske kommunistpartis centralkomité. Al religion røg i samme kasse, kristendommen er lige så slem som islam, ud med alt skidtet. Hendes egentlige viden om Europa og kristendommens historiske betydning var ganske rudimentær. “De, der ikke er som os, de gode, feministiske, humanistiske, ateistiske, antiislamistiske,” er “far right”. English Defence League, som læsere af denne blog har et nogenlunde grundigt indtryk af, er “racistiske, voldelige og far right,” uden nogen videre eksemplificering. Endvidere lod hun til at tro, at islam har befundet sig i Nordeuropa i århundreder og at alle indvandrere fra muslimske lande i Europa, er politiske flygtninge, og er lige som hendes egen elite af veluddannede iranere. Gid det var så vel.

Da en informeret tilhører i forsamlingen tilsidst havde fem konkrete indvendinger som civiliseret stillede spørgsmål – bla. om forskellen på kristendom og islam, og indvandringens bidrag til islamiseringen af Europa og EDL, løb følelserne helt af med hende, og hendes militante mangel på debatkultur brød ud i lys lue. Det var ikke nok at være delvist enig med hende, et ret kendt fænomen fra de gamle venstrefløj. Spørgsmålstilleren var tydeligvis “far right,” ved overhovedet at udtrykke dissens. Det er det man ser hende reagere på på video to.

Hvis Maryam Namazie halvvejs er den del af løsningen på militant islam i Europa, er hun også halvvejs en del af problemet, for hvordan skal den ene totalitarist bekæmpe den anden? Man ved hvordan det gik, da hendes slags selv bragte Khomeiny til magten i 1979. Det udmærkede Ateistiske Selskab havde inviteret en uligevægtig, antiintellektuel hystade, der sikkert ufrivilligt kom til at levere et meget interessant billede af sin egen ekstremistiske beton-venstrefløj. (Det var en kvindelig tilhører, der kaldte hende “kvindeligt hysterisk og uligevægtig,” det kunne jeg aldrig finde på at skrive selv…) Mentalt befandt hun sig i Teheran anno 1978, tretten år inden Sovjetunionens opløsning. Selskabet må kunne invitere en, der faktisk ved, hvad Europa er. Det havde været interessant med en borgerlig iraner som Farshad Kholghi i salen, en intellektuel der har indoptaget Europa, men måske var han blevet advaret om hende i forvejen. Man kan lige leve med, at indvandrere ikke forstår den kultur de er kommet til, men det er svært at affinde sig med det, når de i bedste DKP-stil stiller sig op og prædiker og ikke behersker elementær, demokratisk debatskik. – Oplægget hed: Maryam Namazie Sharia Law, Universal Rights and Secularism

.
En profeti for Europas fremtid?

Jacques Audiard film Un prophète fra 2009, fik de fornemmeste anmeldelser i Danmark da den kom, her i P1 og i Politiken, og den fik fornemme priser i Cannes og i USA. I Danmark spillede den i Grand, Øst for Paradis i Århus og Café Biografen i Odense. Det er en subtil fransk gangster- og fængselsfilm, der har et ekstra lag, der (med vilje?) blev overset dengang, nemlig fængslet som et mikrokosmos af Europa og hovedpersonen araberen Malik El Djebena som personificeringen af en ung muslimsk overtagelse af det gamle, langsomt opfattende Europa. Korsikanere og arabere i fængslet, der hader hinanden, er henholdsvis de gamle og de nye herrer i huset. Den læsning fremgår af denne anmeldelse, vi tilfældigvis fik i posten forleden. Den er amerikansk og skrevet den 27 september 2011, ingen i Europa har turdet se den vinkel. Der medvirker blandt andet den danske skuespiller Niels Arestrup. Anmeldelsen begynder med at prise filmens kvaliteter og med et handlingsreferat, og fortsætter så:

The subtext of this story should be easy to read without much analysis. If we view the prison as a microcosm of Europe, Cesar and the Corsicans represent the White European establishment, while Malik and the other Muslims represent the disenfranchised immigrants. Malik suffers repeated humiliation at the hands of the Whites, and even does their dirty work, but he is really just biding his time. He slowly builds his power base, and after he gains their trust, he uses it against them, and manages to displace them in the prison that formerly belonged to them.

There is even a giveaway line in the middle of the film, when Cesar remarks to Malik that at one time the Whites were in the majority in the prison, but that they are rapidly becoming outnumbered by the Muslims. Indeed, if present trends continue, the story of A Prophet is very likely going to be the story of Europe in the twenty-first century. Muslim immigrants will tolerate the system as long as they have to, but as soon as they have the strength and are in a position to do so, they will surely shove their hosts aside and suck whatever remains of Europe dry, leaving the descendants of the original inhabitants of Europe to simply watch and mourn while it happens – those who don’t switch sides, that is.

As Greg Johnson has expressed it, the new masters of Islamic Europe will be like teenagers who steal a car: they’ll take it for a joy ride, drive it until it crashes, and then move on to the next car. Why? Because, fundamentally, it’s not theirs. Why should they be concerned with what happens to the culture of Homer, Goethe, and Baudelaire?

While it is very possible that this tale was born from the imaginations of ethnomasochistic French liberals, I don’t find much in this parable with which to disagree. Whatever their motivations, the filmmakers have caught the essential truth of what is happening in Europe today.

It is worth noting that one of the measures of Malik’s success is his screwing of White whores, and there is also a quick shot of a White woman embracing a Black man on a Paris street during one of Malik’s leaves. The ability of non-Whites to dominate White women through sex, thus robbing us of future progeny which we can call our own, is among the trophies of their success, as we’ve been seeing for a long time in our own country.

And, interestingly, it is not any of the Muslims who deliver the death blow to the White power base in the prison. Rather, the Whites do themselves in, rather as we have seen continuously among the European nations over the past century. Non-Whites will just need to step in once the Whites have finished killing themselves off.

Similarly, in the film, the process begins when Cesar admits an outsider to serve his own purposes, believing that he can keep him under control, just as the elites of the United States and Europe began to admit non-White immigrants in large numbers out of economic expediency and with little thought that the future might bring something altogether different from what they imagined. So, again, I challenge Audiard’s claim that his film has nothing to say about European society. Furthermore, this film could easily be remade in America with a Latino in the main role, and the message would remain the same.

One criticism the film has received from some quarters is in its treatment of Islam, and in particular the references to Malik as a prophet. I myself, given the film’s title, had assumed that eventually, Malik was going to undergo some sort of religious awakening, but it never happens. At no point in the film does he evince any interest whatsoever in his Muslim heritage.

We get occasional glimpses of more devout Muslim inmates in the background, and at one point Malik brings some of his hashish profits to a mosque (only because he didn’t think it was worth the risk to keep it himself, we learn). On another occasion, high on heroin, he sees another inmate spinning in the style of the whirling dervishes and chanting the names of Allah, and imitates him, working himself into ecstasy. But it never goes beyond this, and Malik’s actions could hardly be described as those of a good Muslim.

Still, the film draws a number of deliberate parallels between Malik and the lives of the Prophets of Islam. Malik, we learn, is illiterate, just as Muhammad was. Malik is kept in solitary confinement for forty days and nights, just as Moses and Jesus had fasted and prayed for the same length of time in isolation before being granted divine revelations. Muhammad also received many revelations through dreams, and Malik himself has a dream of deer running across a road. When he is in a car driving through a forest with a Muslim gang leader, he recognizes the area from his dream and warns the driver seconds before he hits a deer, henceforth becoming known as “a prophet.”

But if he’s not a religious leader, in what way is Malik a prophet? Is it really just a tasteless joke, as some critics have claimed?

I would say no, and the reasons for this have to do with my own views on Muslim immigration into Europe, and not Muslim immigration into the United States, I hasten to add, which I do not view as a threat of the same order. Many Rightists conflate Muslim immigration into Europe and America as if they are the same thing, but the fact is, they are not. The truth is that Muslims in the United States comprise less than 1% of the population, while Hispanics account for over 16%, and they are coming into the country at a much faster rate, both legally and illegally, than Muslim immigrants are. This is beside the fact that the majority of Muslims in Europe are poor and uneducated, while Muslims generally come to the United States to receive education and enter the middle class. The situations are simply not comparable. So, personally, I think those who believe that we have to protect ourselves from shariah law before it overtakes America, and who are trying to pass legislation to this effect, are wasting their time. The threat of immigration to America is real, but comes from different sources.

As a traditionalist, I respect Islam in its genuine forms, primarily Sufism, as a manifestation of the supreme, metaphysical truth. Unlike many of my political colleagues, my own problem with Muslim immigration has little to do with the religion itself, and I think A Prophet successfully illustrates my own thoughts on the matter.

There are some traditionalists, particularly followers of the teachings of René Guénon or Frithjof Schuon who have converted to Islam themselves, who view Muslim immigration into Europe as a positive thing, since they believe that Europe, having lost its own sacred traditions, will be resacralized by being reintegrated into a spiritual culture, regardless of the fact that it is a foreign tradition.

Even Ahmed Huber, the Swiss German banker who, rather like Malik, occupied a unique place where the worlds of Islamic fundamentalism and the European Right met, contended that, eventually, Muslim immigration into Europe would give rise to a unique form of “European Islam.” Muslim scholars, including the Scots convert Shaykh Abdalqadir as-Sufi and the Swiss Egyptian Tariq Ramadan, have likewise predicted the rise of such a thing.

On the surface, this might seem like a good idea, since it is undeniable that Europe is in desperate need of a return to spirituality. Unlike Guénon or Schuon, however, I believe that a religion has to be connected to one’s racial and cultural makeup, and the mere fact of a system of beliefs being associated with the Primordial Tradition is insufficient by itself. A “European” Islam would remain as inherently anti-European, no matter how many concessions it makes, as Christianity has always been, and surely its impact would be just as destructive as the last attempt to alter the spiritual foundations of our people was.

However, even this is not the main issue for me. The fact is, as we see in A Prophet, the culture of the majority of Muslims in Europe is not the high-minded Sufi Islam of Martin Lings or Seyyed Hossein Nasr (two prominent contemporary traditionalists). Mostly, it does not even rise to the purely exoteric, black-and-white level of political Islamism.

The culture of Muslims in Europe is a ghetto culture, a culture of the lowest form of materialism, which is the only thing that can emerge from generation after generation of poverty, ignorance, resentment, and petty violence, all the while being encouraged in this by their cheerleaders among the ethnomasochistic liberal elites. It is no more “Islamic” in the true sense than the culture of urban Blacks in America is reflective of African culture.

There will be no restoration of spirituality or traditional values, European or Muslim. What I imagine would emerge from their triumph would be something like the city of Detroit over the past half-century, in which the underclass came to power only to set about stripping down and selling off anything of value with no thought for the future, quickly reducing the entire area into a depressing wasteland that is beyond recovery, and bearing only the faintest traces of having once been something better.

This is the true prophecy that Malik offers us: a vision of the brutal rise of a criminal-minded underclass which is interested in nothing but its own survival and material enrichment, and one which will have little regard for the welfare of its former overlords. I do not blame immigrant populations for being this way. They come to the West to seek a better life, which is only natural, and it cannot be denied that their lives here have been rough and humiliating.

However, we cannot let understanding of their plight to any degree lessen our resolve to protect what is rightfully ours. As John Michell once wrote, every people is given a space in which to realize itself. Europe, at least for the time being, still has its space, and the Muslims have theirs (apart from Palestine). There should be no shame in asserting ourselves, even though many of us, under the influence of negative and culture-destroying ideologies, have come to feel shame about it.

Therefore it remains to be seen if Europe will actually resign itself to having reached the end of its natural life cycle, or if it still retains enough vitality to bring about a restoration of some sort. But the hour is getting late, and there is much to be done. And Malik and his cohorts are already dreaming of their prophecy with their eyes wide open.

A Prophecy for the Future of Europe

Annoncer fra Danske Partner-Ads:


Donér engangsbeløb?Kan du forpligte dig til fast betaling?

  • Svinet

    Hvad var det hun talte om ???? Vrøvle so.

  • Ole Burde

    Hvis hun så god nok ud “på papieret” , er der nogen som mangler briller…der eksisterer et utal af veluddannede, veldebatterende og enormt modige eksiliranere som altid gerne vil spørges til råds om alt som har med Iran at gøre , som feks Firozeh der blogger på jyllandsposten .

    • Her er så endnu et eksempel på irationel retfærdigørelse.
      Når mange muslimer ikke siger islamisterne imod, skyldes det at alt for få ikke-muslimer gør det… Men.
      Når ikke-muslimer påpeger problemer vedrørende islam er de… Far Right…

      Jeg håber da at hun en dag får opstillet en tese, der kan give lidt mening. Også for os andre.

  • Victor

    Har Illum indført sharia?

    Hørte i går om forbuddet mod ammende kvinder i restauranten; men tænkte ikke specielt meget over det. Bortset fra en stille undren, over at nogen i Danmark kan finde amning anstødeligt.

    I dag er Illums adm. direktør så ude at beklage episoden i Berlingske.

    I samme artikel, er der dog også denne sætning:

    “Det ændrer dog ikke på, at ammende mødre ikke er velkomne i ‘Spisebaren’, hvor indehaver Mikkel Shafi har forbudt babyer og bare bryster.”

    Her præsenterer Mikkel Shafi så sig selv:

    http://www.egocph.dk/da/mikkel-shafi.html

    Nu passer pengene. Og så er man nødt til at spørge:

    Siden hvornår er sexisme tilladt i Danmark?

    • Robin Shadowes

      Hur kan en mohammedan heta Mikkel? Halvblod eller konvertit?

      • Victor

        Robin – så klik da på linket for helvede. Han har palæstinensiske forældre; men er født i DK…

        ellers ved jeg ikke mere end dig. Jeg var der ikke, da han blev født…

  • Tim

    Det er bare den uendelige løkke uden ende når man har muslimer i ens land. Det bliver ved og ved, og man kan aldrig fuldstændig enes. Muslimer er ligeglade, fordi de ved at når tiden går bliver de flere og flere og får mere og mere magt til at etablere sig i landet og dominere.

    Det er venstrefløjen og muslimernes skyld at vi har sharia, koranskoler og ghettoer i dagens Danmark.
    Og de snakker ikke om det, da det er jo bare helt fint.

    Hvorfor er det vi tog mod de mest fremmedgjorte folk sammelignet med os selv?

    • Victor

      “løkke uden ende”…..

  • Tim

    @victor

    Skriv til ham: mikkel@groupshafi.com

    Og spørg om han er stærkt troende. Det skal han da ikke bestemme om de må amme der.
    Det skræmmer da ingen væk.

    • Marit

      I Norge regjerer også det rene vanvidd : Direktør for Domstoladministrasjonen, Tor Langbach, har foreslått å tillate sharia i Norge.
      For de røde og venstreradikale kan islamiseringen ikke gå fort nok.

  • Ole Burde

    Hvorfor ? måske kan det bedst forståes som en form for scizofreni ? begge halvdele af den kollektive personlighed hader og elsker det den anden står for på samme tid….Når derfor venstrehalvdelen elsker muslimerne , er det en STEDFORTRÆDER for sin egen fremmedgjorte halvdel som den egentlig bliver tiltrukket af…..Hmmm….

  • Tim

    Hvad pokker sker der for dem der styrer landene i Europa…hvorfor går de ned på knæfald?

    Hvad pokker sker der? Først sæt grænser på antal muslimer i lande. Derefter smid alt kriminelt og ekstremistisk tilbage til Mellemøsten. vi skal ikke importere problemer. Dernæst forbyd sharia, koranskoler, etc.

    Hvem tør gå frem og sige dette og lave handling bag?

  • Ja vad är Europa rädda för ?

  • Sune

    Som jeg læser anmeldelsen af The Prophet, er budskabet – Tag jer sammen Europa!
    Og sig hvor skabet skal stå, overfor de tilvandrede muslimer. Vedholdende, vedholdende og vedholdende. Ingen slinger i valsen – overhovedet. Vi skal ganske enkelt have ‘Viljen til magt’ som Nietzsche har formuleret.

    På DR1 – Horisont i denne uge, rejste en ‘Anders’ – tilbage til Irak, hvor han var soldat for syv år siden,
    for at se om de ting de havde bygget op, var blevet vedligeholdt og stadig fungerede.
    Og om det derfor havde været værd, at risikere liv, lemmer eller førlighed for.

    http://www.dr.dk/dr1/horisont#/19019

    Rejsen var en mistrøstig oplevelse for soldaten, kan jeg godt røbe…

    Og som jeg skriver dette meddeler Radioavisen at to soldater i Afghanistan er såret af en
    bombe. For Helvede da..! Lad os se at komme ud af denne meningsløse galskab.

    • Victor

      ” Lad os se at komme ud af denne meningsløse galskab.”

      Måske lyder det som Goodwins law 2.0; men dét forslag er både ahistorisk og hjernedødt.

      Hvad tror du muslimerne vil lære af en vestlig tilbagetrækning i Afghanistan?

      Hvad lærte de af sovjets tilbagetrækning?

      • “Hvad lærte de af sovjets tilbagetrækning?”

        Intet. De forblev muslimer! 😉

        • Og lad mig tilføje, intet er så dumt, så dumt, som vores fortsatte ophold i Afghanistan.

          Det land (egenligt bare et enormt område, en slags sunni-baggård til Iran, beboet af forskellige stammer) har været solgt til stanglakrids lige siden de sidste buddhister blev myrdet eller fordrevet. Islam er dets påtvungne fortid og uopsigelige fremtid indtil boblen brister ved et eller andet sort islamisk nulpunkt, som disse zombier fantastisk nok ikke har nået endnu, trods blodige anstrengelser.

        • Lad mig yderligere tilføje at vi ingen interesse har i at holde låget på gryden i Afghanistan eller andre steder.

          Lad den islamiske revival få vind i sejlene og begå “overreach”, jo før jo bedre.

          Jeg er sikker på at mange hjemlige allahslaver kun mangler lidt mere end den almindelige bravado hjemmefra for at smide taqiyya-sløret!

          Allah mit uns, er og bliver en kreativ indstilling til tilværelsen.

          🙂

      • Sune

        Ja, hvad lærte Sovjet?

        Måske noget i retningen af: ‘You can check out anytime you like, but you can never leave.”
        Nu har Rusland islamister hærgende i deres ‘underbug’.

        Men Europa fik dog bugt med ‘den sorte død’ – i middelalderen – omend, det kostede omkring
        en trediedel af befolkningen livet

        Iøvrigt har BBC en artikel om ‘Hispanics education in crisis’ meget ápropos omtalen af USA’s døje og møje
        med befolkningsgruppen, i anmeldelsen af The Prophet’:

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-15068692

        Hvor er det nu lige, vi har hørt den klagesang før..?

  • Islam = war. Its inevitable now. The only question is when and where in Europe will it begin. As to why we Europeans have become so shy, thats obvious enough, my generation (I was born in 1969) has been taught from day one that we are racist, colonial, misogynists and the blame for all the worlds evils is our inheritence. Even the great social and scientific successes of our culture has been described to us as racist, imperialist and sexist.

    At the same time, as we have never had to fight for anything we have been taught that, despite the obvious lessons of history, fighting is a bad thing and solves nothing. Consequently, as totalitarianism spreads across Europe once again, we wonder how Hitler could ever have come to power.

  • Pingback: Dick Cheney: “9/11 was The Fog of War” « Snaphanen()

  • Pingback: Tahrir: Mob rape of foreign woman « Snaphanen()