10
Feb
Seneste opdatering: 11/2-12 kl. 1037
9 kommentarer - Tryk for at kommentere!

Siden bogen udkom, er det blevet klart for mig, at situationen er endnu værre, end jeg troede. Folk, der i årevis er blevet brutalt angrebet af de nye Quislinger, har fået endnu flere tæsk efter 22. juli. De har nu bestemt sig for, at det er bedst at holde lav profil. Derimod har jeg fået støtte fra almindelige norske borgere i private meldinger.” [..]

Du både kritiserer og forsvarer bloggeren Fjordman, som Breivik citerer flittigt i sit manifest. Hvordan opfatter du hans rolle i forbindelse med Breivik?

”Som jeg skriver i bogen, så følte jeg på et tidspunkt – af forskellige grunde – at det var bedst ikke at have noget med Fjordman at gøre. Men da han blev dæmoniseret efter 22. juli og beskrevet som medskyldig i Breiviks gerninger, følte jeg bare stor sympati for ham. Hos mange andre islamkritikere var instinktet at distancere sig til Fjordman, fordi de var bange for at blive sat i samme bås. Det var trist at være vidne til. Som Benjamin Franklin sagde til sine kolleger, da de signerede Den Amerikanske Uafhængighedserklæring: ”We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” En historie der må fortælles. Interview med Bruce Bawer.

Excerpt from Bruce Bawer’s The New Quislings: How the International Left Used the Oslo Massacre to Silence Debate About Islam.

It did not take long for Norway’s New Quislings to rally around a new label for their enemies: “Eurabia writers,” “Eurabia conspiracists,” “Eurabia propagandists,” or some variation thereupon. One of the first to employ this label was Sindre Bangstad, a social anthropologist at the University of Oslo, who in the Danish newspaper Politiken used Breivik’s atrocities as a club with which to beat a wide range of adversaries. He went, for example, after Walid al-Kubaisi, an Iraqi Norwegian writer whose website is called Opplyste Muslimer (Enlightened Muslims). Walid is one of the bravest people in Norway and one of its most fervent defenders of individual liberty—yet Bangstad smeared him as a “Eurabia literature propagandist” and mocked him for having assumed, in the first moments after the explosions in Oslo, that they were the work of Islamic terrorists.

What is “Eurabia”? The word refers to the book of that title by the scholar Bat Ye’or, who describes how various obscure European commissions, committees, and such have smoothed the way for the Islamization of Europe. Since July 22, the book Eurabia has repeatedly been characterized in the Norwegian media as pure fantasy; on the contrary, it is a sober work of solid documentation, and anyone who wishes to try to refute it should do so by resorting to facts, not by smearing it as baseless propaganda. Ye’or has studied a small library of obscure agreements produced by diplomat meetings, conferences, conventions, and the like over recent decades, and has found what she considers an unsettling pattern of “informal alliances” between European officials and their Mediterranean Arab counterparts that take place under the umbrella of something called the Euro-Arab Dialogue, which dates back to 1974. Bat Ye’or considers these alliances to be characterized by a European deference toward Muslim values, sensibilities, and sensitivities, a pattern she likens to the historical subordination of non-Muslims in Islamic countries. These agreements, in her view, have been instrumental in producing an increasingly Islamized Europe in which government leaders are quick to give way to Muslim wishes and demands and loath to defend Western values and principles—thus, Eurabia. Ye’or is no shrill self-promoter, and her books are hardly the punchy screeds they have been made out to be; on the contrary, they are dry, sober, and packed with long, thoroughly footnoted quotations. The serious and responsible way for an opponent to respond to such work is by challenging the facts or the interpretations thereof; it is not to name-call, to describe her as a street-corner hatemonger or a reckless peddler of baseless conspiracy theories.

Bangstad also went after the Progress Party and its former head, Carl I. Hagen: “We don’t know when Carl I. Hagen began to read the type of Eurabia literature that Anders Behring Breivik has also read, but it is well documented that he and several of his fellow party members have read precisely that type of literature.” As in any totalitarian society, it was now apparently an offense in Norway simply to have read certain books that the country’s new Public Enemy Number One had also read. (By the same logic—in fact by far better logic—one would expect that after 9/11, Madrid, London, Beslan, Bali, Mumbai, and so forth, it would be forbidden to read the Koran.)

Bangstad had more to say:

Anders Behring Breivik . . . has read widely in the racist and Islamophobic literature, from the Israeli right-wing extremist Bat Ye’or by way of the American-Norwegian neoconservative Bruce Bawer to the Norwegian professor emeritus in sociology Sigurd Skirbekk. . . . Hereafter it will be difficult for editors and intellectuals to minimize the existence of Islamophobia in Norway, and it will, if possible, be even more difficult to claim that racists’ and Islamophobes’ words are just words. . . . Anders Behring Breivik has, by his actions, set himself up against history. Multicultural Norway has come to stay. No pasaran—the line is drawn here.

Those last words, of course, were a quote from Che Guevara—which gave a helpful hint as to exactly where, ideologically, these nasty lucubrations had their origin. (Though it should have been No pasarán, with an accent over the third a.)

Late August saw the publication of more thorough, sustained attacks on the critics of Islam and of multiculturalism—attacks that had obviously been in the works for some time. They reached new level of propagandistic poison. The malice and mendacity were palpable; it was now no longer disputable that the New Quislings were out to destroy—nothing less. By now it was also clear that many of them considered the “Eurabia” line of attack a winner.

On August 19, the Norwegian weekly Morgenbladet ran a long, mischievous article by Maren Næss Olsen and Anders B. Bisgaard titled “The Eurabian Verses.” It was yet another attempt to link critics of Islam with Breivik—and yet another in a years-long list of attempts by left-wing journalists across the Western world to dismiss concerns about the Islamization of Europe as the product of misinformation by a few nutty extremists. Indeed, even given the ostrich-like attitude of the Western mass media generally toward the darker facts about Islam, Olsen and Bisgaard’s article was well-nigh breathtaking in its utter refusal to acknowledge basic realities about the world we live in.

According to the tale spun by Olsen and Bisgaard, pretty much all of Islam criticism, it seems, can be traced to the work of one whacked-out lady, and then, in turn, to the work of another whacked-out lady. “The mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, the blogger Fjordman, the Dutch politician Geert Wilders, the Oslo-based author Bruce Bawer, the Libyan dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi, and [Norwegian] Conservative Party veteran Hallgrim Berg,” the Morgenbladet authors wrote, “are among those who have embraced all or parts of Bat Ye’or’s imaginative Eurabia universe, which in turn is built on the thoughts of the Italian journalist and author Oriana Fallaci. Ye’or’s book, in time, has in time spawned an entire genre, with titles like Londonistan, The Last Days of Europe, Defeating Eurabia, and While Europe Slept.”

Olsen and Bisgaard called me, Wilders, Ye’or, Berg, Walter Laqueur, Melanie Phillips, and other critics of Islam “conspiracy theorists.” But it was Olsen and Bisgaard’s article that was framing a conspiracy theory. For their whole agenda was to dismiss all concerns about the Islamization of Europe as the product of a cultish conspiracy by us, a group of loony right-wing bigots who are the disciples of a lone crackpot and whose views have gained no traction whatsoever among academic “experts” in Islam and immigration—but who, for some mysterious reason, have managed to convince millions of readers that there is something to what we say.

Click here to order.


Nemo

Posted: 10 February 2012 - 11:22 - Reply

“Hos mange andre islamkritikere var instinktet at distancere sig til Fjordman, fordi de var bange for at blive sat i samme bås”

Hvilken bås er det? Båsen med intelligente, velinformerede kritikere af islamisk indvandring til de vesteuropæiske lande?

Lad os lige få det ind i hovedet én gang for alle: Fjordman kunne ikke på nogen måde gøre for at Breivik citerede ham i sit forstyrrede manifest og da endnu mindre lastes for Breiviks handlinger. Hvor svært kan det være at forstå det her?

Varmt Konservativ (kr)

Posted: 10 February 2012 - 13:24 - Reply

Vad är marxism-leninismen annat än teorin och handboken om användningen av konspirationen som politisk strategi ?

Marxism-leninismen är alla konspirationers moder.

Jens Hansen

Posted: 10 February 2012 - 17:36 - Reply

Udtrykket “no pasaran” har intet at gøre med Che Guevara. Det var et råb, som blev brugt af republikanerne under Den Spanske Borgerkrig i kampen mod fascisterne. Meningen var. de skal ikke slippe igennem vores front.

christina wegel

Posted: 10 February 2012 - 17:40 - Reply

“No Pasarán” has nothing to do with Che Guevara but was the Republicans defiant war cry during the Spanish Civil War.

Maria Due

Posted: 10 February 2012 - 19:34 - Reply

”Som Benjamin Franklin sagde til sine kolleger, da de signerede Den Amerikanske Uafhængighedserklæring: ”We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”

Ja, men det var ikke ensbetydende med, at man ikke var meget uenige og havde svært ved at trække i den samme retning. Det væsentlige er imidlertid, at der ud af den uenighed opstod en ny enighed, som var til at leve med for de fleste. Dels fordi ordet var frit, og dels fordi det var mere end almindeligt nødvendigt.

Der er flere måder at være venner og ”sammensvorne” på. I den danske debat har jeg mere end en gang set DF’ere undre sig over Venstrefolk, som de mente brød med alle regler for god opførsel, når vi gav vore egne politikere råt for usødet. Der er fordi mange DF’ere tidligere har været på venstrefløjen og vant til, at man udadtil står ubrydeligt sammen. Helt anderledes forholder det sig for os, der har vores baggrund i det private erhvervsliv, hvor kritik kan være bydende nødvendig for en virksomheds trivsel og overlevelse og i vellykkede tilfælde ikke så lidt af en sport, der kan være både munter og ennda kærlig. Vi er vant til at tage en ordentlig tørn, og den tåles bedre, når man er enige om at have målet for øje. Rygklapperi kan være hygggeligt og på sin plads men ikke i enhver situation

Bruce Bawer har nu fået set sig godt om i Europa og er vendt hjem til sit eget land med et tilsyneladende mere positivt syn på det, end han rejste ud med. Det er ikke en ualmindelig erfaring. Jeg har en fornemmelse af, at han mest kender til den norske hovedstad, der er beruset af forbrug og en underlig sorgløs tro på, at man vil lykkes med det, som andre på stribe mislykkes med. Det kalder jeg hovmod. Hvad Fjordman angår, synes jeg, at Bawer virker overfladisk i det citerede. Et lille skulderklap og så pist ud af landet. Det er muligt, at det varmer lidt, men det gavner næppe, når ”opponenterne” samtidig udskriges til at være quislinge. Om de er det, betyder mindre i den sammenhæng.

    Peter Andersen

    Posted: 14 February 2012 - 11:08 - Reply

    Jeg tror Bruce Bawer er blevet lidt mavesur, efter år med at banke panden mod en mur. Så kan man ende med, at blive en anelse uartikuleret og unuanceret. Intet underligt i det…

      JensH

      Posted: 14 February 2012 - 11:11 - Reply

      Ja, og så bliver de problmer Bruce Bawer jo ikke ligefrem mindre år for år. Tværtimod vakler Europa søvngængeragtigt lige direkte mod den katastrofe Hr. Bawer i årevis har prøvet at advare imod, og derfor er der vel ikke noget at sige til han efterhånden lyder en smule frustreret.

Menig 442

Posted: 10 February 2012 - 20:02 - Reply

I går så jeg en film om en australsk journalist, der rapporterede fra Indonesien i tiden op til Sukarnos fald. Kommunisterne forsøgte at tage magten, men blev stoppet af de muslimske generaler.
Kommunister og venstreorienterede må være så fjendske over for det kapitalistiske system, at de vil samarbejde med islam om at bryde det ned og hvis det lykkes, underordne sig islam, få halsen skåret over eller flygte til et andet kapitalistisk land.
Det er en historisk kendsgerning, at islam altid har taget røven på deres “vantro” nyttige idioter, den dag de ikke længere er til nytte.
I Spanien gjorde jøderne nytte som administratorer. Men det er jo ikke et element, der indgår, når der tales om årsagen til den spanske inkvisition.

Frank P

Posted: 10 February 2012 - 23:39 - Reply

Vigtig kommentar jeg lige fiskede på avpixlat:

“bensin … 2 dagar sedan
Jag är född och uppvuxen i Köpenhamn, men bor i Malmö med min svenska flickvän. Under de knappt 6 år jag har bott här i staden har 1 av mina grannars barnbarn rånats på mobiltelefon och plånbok på gatan. Det samma har hänt för 2 av min flickväns kollegors barn. Alla förövare hade självklart rötter i “exotiska kulturer”

Under samma period har ingen av mina bekantas barn i Köpenhamn utsatts för något liknande – men det är fortfarande pga. närheten till Köpenhamn att läget är så desperat i Malmö…snacka om strutsmentalitet…facepalm. ”

Fra Sydsvenskan (egtl. Asylsvenskan): “Väktare vaktar polishuset i Malmö.”

WTF Sverigistan (Oceanien) se det dog!!! At snakke om at “Bron” skulle være problemet for miniborgerkrigen i Malmøs gader er fordummelse… synd danskerne tror på tv-serien om hvor effektive svensk politi må være, hvis sandheden gik op for danskerne ville vi lukke “bron”

Leave a Comment