|1. Introduction||2. Democracy|
|3. Human Rights||4. Tolerance|
Today, there are two powerful forces that each have the will and potential to destroy and annihilate Western civilization.
Female American students prepare for a Black Lives Matter demonstration. Photo The State News.
The first has deep psychological roots in Western society itself and is called political correctness, cultural liberalism, post-modernism or wokeness. It is created by women's psychology, our shared traumatic memories of two catastrophic European civil wars, the revolt against the father, a deep unconscious sense of inferiority in men of non-Caucasian races, and the apparent ease of life that modern technology and welfare state has created.
The second force is Muslim mass immigration, which deeply irresponsible politicians - with the support of treacherous EU leaders - have allowed for 50 years. Millions of Muslims have penetrated deep into Europe and established their own territories in major European cities, where it is dangerous for indigenous Europeans to go.
The two enemies of Western civilization have found each other, or at least political correctness has found the Muslims, whom they use as a mean for stamping their countrymen, the traditional Europeans, as racists.
Muslims are firm in the belief that this gigantic clash between civilizations will result in a sure victory for Islam, which will then dominate the World.
Young European girls welcome men from the upcoming Muslim supremacists. Photo Black Pigeon Speaks.
With great passion, they refer to several verses of the Quran, which certainly declare that only they are the future rulers of the Earth. For example, 2:30, which says: "Behold, thy Lord said to the angels: "I will create a vicegerent on earth." They said: "Wilt Thou place therein one who will make mischief therein and shed blood? Whilst we do celebrate Thy praises and glorify Thy holy Name?" He said: "I know what ye know not."
Or 7:129, which says: "They said: "We have had nothing but trouble, both before and after thou camest to us." He said: "It may be that your Lord will destroy your enemy and make you inheritors in the earth; that so He may try you by your deeds."
Islam has come to Denmark. Photo Twitter.
Further, several verses of the Quran assure the believers that they will eventually come into possession of all the lands of the unbelievers, just as the early Muslims seized the originally Christian territories of the Middle East - see, for example, verse 28:58: "Muhammad Sarwar: How many nations, who had enjoyed great prosperity, had We destroyed? Those are their homes which were not inhabited thereafter except for a short time. Only We were their heirs." - "Arberry: How many a city We have destroyed that flourished in insolent ease! Those are their dwelling-places, undwelt in after them, except a little; Ourselves are the inheritors."
Now it is the case that the modern Western nations with great passion cultivate the form of government called democracy. Which includes women - young and old - who largely use their right to vote to challenge men's feelings - by making themselves representatives of irresponsible kindness and tolerance, and immature and easily influenced young men - down to 18 years old - who have no thought for the fate of their fatherland, but uses the right to vote to challenge the authority of the fathers.
The most important quality of most rock concerts is that there are still fathers who think it sounds awful. Photo TNT.
The vast majority of democratic voters are anxious and easy to manipulate. They displace unpleasant messages and think - or rather feel - in more pleasant ways. They intensely want everything to continue as it always has, and they are generally ready to accept any argument that promises them this, no matter how bad and illogical it is.
Democracy has evolved into "the sacred", it is no longer just a fair and practical way to elect the country's leaders. There is no longer talk of new Danes should be loyal to Denmark and the Queen and her government; no, they must be loyal to the "Danish democracy".
In their speeches, politicians often say that Muslim terrorism is "an attack on democracy". They never say that it is a danger to the original Danish people and our future prosperity and existence. And they say with certainty never that the very massive presence of Muslims in Western countries and their ever-increasing number is the greatest threat to Western civilization.
People must be brought up to democracy, said the architect and social activist Poul Henningsen (1894-1967). He believed that it has to do with the fact that democracy is not just a fair and practical way of appointing the nation's leaders, it is - in the words of the theologian Hal Koch: "a way of life to be practiced in the soul life of men. Photo The culture of communism, DKP and the intellectuals 1918-1960. Tiderne Skifter. Davidsen Wikipedia.
Politicians have made democracy a kind of new state religion, which has replaced Christianity. They will rather emphasize that their proposals are beneficial to democracy than they are beneficial to their country. For example, the former Social Democratic Prime Minister of Denmark, Helle Thorning, typically did not talk so much about what was good for Denmark, but about what was good for "our democracy".
The rationale seems to be that it seems fair and just to the politicians that the immigrant Muslims and their numerous descendants take possession of Denmark and make the remaining Christians a kind of subhumans, as long as the transformation takes place in a decent and democratic way.
We have newly - in 2020 - been taught by the recent American election that democracy can only work in a homogeneous nation where the people share fundamental values and respect each other. We must not imagine that democracy is possible in a multiethnic state divided into intensely rivaling races and religions. There are far too many ways to manipulate an election result, and the perfect crime is precisely characterized by that it is never revealed that it ever took place.
The Danish Constituent Assembly in 1848. Painting by Constantin Hansen 1860-64.
For the Danish Constituent Assembly in 1848, God, King and Fatherland were still the sacred values that had been to the King and the Absolute Monarchy. The members of the assembly simply believed that the representatives of the people would be able to make better decisions in favor of the fatherland than the absolute king and his ministers.
That the assembly found the fatherland very important is made probable by Denmark's subsequent involvement in the Slesvig wars in 1848 and 1864, and in general by the nationalism of the eighteenth century.
Today we seem to have degenerated into a people who have in reality rejected Christianity and the Fatherland. Only a few are interested in the Christian religion, and many find it a bit ridiculous and old-fashioned to talk about "the Danish People" or "The Fatherland". In contrast, democracy, human rights and tolerance of other races and religions are supported by the greatest fanaticism. They are the new gods that one cannot criticize without being suspected or even rejected by the good company.
The retreat from Danevirke in 1864 - a national symbol. Painting by Niels Simonsen 1864.
Democracy is intended as a fair and practical method of choosing the right leaders for the good of the country and the people. But it has obviously failed, it is easy to see that the system does not work for the good of the Danish people.
How else can it be explained that for centuries Danes have fought against Swedes, Englishmen and Prussians, so that they should not take our country, while the modern democratically elected governments, invoking tolerance and human rights, have simply opened the door wide and allowed a comprehensive immigration of Muslims who want to take over our country and its resources? - Despite their seemingly democratic mindset, the politicans have made this historically unique and dramatic decision without ever asking the people in a referendum, yes they have actually decided it against the will of the people.
Human rights are another of the modern sacred texts that have largely replaced Christianity as the nation's spiritual foundation.
The European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. Photo rvs.su.
But there is a significant difference between the Ten Commandments and other ethical texts in the Bible and the human rights.
The Christian messages are demands on the individual on how he should be towards others, while the modern human rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, etc. are more egocentric, as they are the individual demands on the general public on how they want to be treated.
In general, rights differ from traditional legislation in that they define what is allowed. While traditional legislation throughout history typically defines what is forbidden, so that one can have confidence that what is not forbidden must be allowed.
The rights do not take into account that every time some are given a right, there are others who have the duty to provide them with the service in question or perform the necessary actions to ensure the conditions to which the complainants are entitled.
The feminist icon Eleanor Roosevelt shows UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. As chair of the UN Commission on Human Rights, she was the driving force behind the drafting of the document. Photo Vermont Humanities.
Article 3 says "Everyone has the right to life, liberty and personal security." But what if someone takes our life anyway, then we have the right to complain, when we stand at the gate of Heaven?
This paragraph gives the individual the right to defend his life. It certainly derives from John Locke's Second Treatise chapter 14, in which he writes: "God and nature never allowing a man so to abandon himself, as to neglect his own preservation; and since he cannot take away his own life, neither can he give another power to take it." And elsewhere: "no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions" and about the individual's right to defend himself: "Whereby every one has a right to punish the transgressors of that law to such a degree, as may hinder its violation." Which indicates that American gun laws are more in line with the original human rights than the European ones, making it possible for individuals to defend their right to life.
Paragraph 15 reads: "Everyone has the right to a nationality. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality." It is a bit like saying that every man has the right to get married - then one only need to find a woman who will sacrifice herself and marry him. The same with nationality, if some demand a nationality, all one has to do is finding a nation that is willing to take them - regardless of qualifications and personality.
UN General Assembly adopts Universal Declaration of Human Rights at the Palais de Chaillot in Paris on 10 December 1948. Photo Friends of Humanity.
Article 19 dictates freedom of speech: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."
Human rights as such contain no values, but they state that the individual has the right to have values. In terms of common values, they are, so to speak, empty shells, reminiscent of a quote attributed to Voltaire: "I despise your opinion on this, but I will with my life defend your right to express it."
The last articles of the UN human rights degenerate into something resembling a trade union manifesto or a Social Democratic party program. Article 22 states that "Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality." And in paragraph 23: "Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment." Later, there is talk of the right to leisure and holiday, care for mothers and children, the right to free schools and education and so on. Nowhere is it mentioned who has the duty to supply all this.
Furthermore, European human rights are historically special in that they allow a special court based in Strasbourg to make verdicts that oblige national authorities. Every citizen of a Member State of the European Union has, in principle, the right to present his case before the European Court of Human Rights, if he has been the victim of a violation of his human rights. However, it is a condition that the complainant has previously exhausted all possibilities in the national legal system.
Irish women in Dublin demonstrate in favor of more Muslim immigrants. Photo Doherty - Stand.
We have often seen cases where the human rights court in Strasbourg rules that the Danish authorities' demands for deportation of criminal aliens are ruled against the human rights convention, and they are then allowed to remain in Denmark.
Danish politicians have also been so improvident to sign the UN Refugee Convention of 1951 that ensures that all refugees are protected by yhe universal human rights, that UN formulated in 1948:
Artikel 33. Prohibition of expulsion or return.
No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.
It is this section that makes it possible that the whole world seem to be entitled to live in Denmark and receive benefits from the Danish taxpayers, peovided that they are able to throw themselves across the border and say the word "asylum".
However, when reading the paragraph, it is obvious that it says that the refugee must not be rejected "to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened". Denmark does not border on such lawless refugee-producing areas and could thus reject all asylum seekers in full compliance with the UN Refugee Convention, if the will to do so was present.
The flow of migrants in 2016 could have been rejected at the border in full compliance with the conventions. Photo Twitter.
Human rights saw the light of day in 1689 in John Locke's "Second Treatise of Civil Government". He wrote that in the state of nature, before humans formed societies, they had certain rights. It was about "the right to life, health, liberty and property."
According to Locke, these human rights could be derived from "The Natural Laws", which is given by God. Man comes to the realization of the natural laws with their reason, which is also given by God. And as "the fundamental law of nature is the preservation of humanity, no human regulation that goes against it can be valid." If the rulers violate "The law of nature", citizens have the right to rebel. Most likely he just meant that no king or other authority could force a man not to defend his own life, hand over his property or take the life and property of others - a sort of man's natural survival instinct.
Rousseau did not agree with Locke in his theory that the right to property was independent of society. He wrote, as is well known, that in the original state of nature no private property existed: "What man loses with the covenant of society is his natural freedom and an unlimited right to all that tempts him and that he can get; what he gains, is civil liberty and ownership of all that he possesses." He believed that if man abandons his original state of nature and enters into a social pact, he can have his possessions recognized by organized society as legal property.
Locke's "rights" can be found in greatly expanded form in the United States' "Declaration of Independence" of 1776 and the "Bill of Rights" of 1789. They can also be found in the French National Assembly's "Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen" of 1793.
Jeremy Bentham 1748 - 1832.
Motivated by the Holocaust of Second World War, in 1948, the UN revived the idea of such rights by introducing a Universal Declaration of Human Rights, thereby creating the current highly topical status of rights. As mentioned above, the Council of Europe also introduced a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1950, which was later adopted by the EU.
The famous utility philosopher Jeremy Bentham did not recognize the concept of human rights. "Right is a child of law," Bentham wrote. "From real laws come real rights; but from imaginary laws, from "laws of nature", come imaginary rights - natural rights are simply nonsense." Bentham believed that in a state of nature a man could only maintain such possessions as he was able to defend physically.
However, we may think that human rights as a guiding legal standard is a good thing. It is a good thing to live in a country where you can believe what you want and say what you think. For example, I can write this article without being persecuted - at least by the Danish authorities.
But fundamentally, human rights are empty values, we do not have much to fill in them. For example, let's take the human right "freedom of religion"
OK, now we are free and we can believe whatever we want. So what are we to believe in, apart from Democracy, Human Rights, Tolerance and Total Freedom and that sort of thing? Human rights say nothing about this. Most people today who are very committed to human rights seem to have only vague ideas about what it is that - for example - the right to religious freedom allows them to do.
Newly converted European Muslims are interwieved on British TV.
For the American settlers, freedom of religion was not an empty concept, they had all their Protestant sects whose messages was that they wanted have the freedom to believe in as they wished. It was Lutherans, Presbyterians, Baptists, Methodists, Quakers, Shakers, Amish, Mormons and several others, as well as, of course, Catholics and Russian Orthodox and so on.
For the Danish fathers of the Constitution and their generation, freedom of religion was not an empty concept either. Grundtvig himself was a member of the assembly, and as you know, he had very definite ideas about what to believe. Only a few decades later, in terms of religion, the country was divided into two warring camps, the "Inner Mission" and the "Grundtvigians"
Young English converts in Friday prayer.
Such one can take human rights one by one. They are almost empty shells. We do not really have anything to fill them. The West is in a value vacuum, we are spiritually defenseless. It is a very dangerous situation for our people and our Fatherland.
Keynes wrote in "A Short view of Russia": "For modern capitalism is absolutely irreligious, without internal union, without much public spirit, often, though not always, a mere congeries of possessors and pursuers. Such a system has to be immensely, not merely moderately, successful to survive."
Muslims conduct themselves uncompromisingly with shattering self-confidence. They want to fill our value vacuum. They will use our tolerance and our confusion to promote their own faith and their Islamic law, and when this is completed, they will never again talk about democracy, human rights and tolerance.
Perhaps you, my readers, will find this thought ridiculous. It will never happen, we think. But think of how divided and atomized modern society is. There are many lonely and anxious people, especially women, who lack a firm foothold in their lives. They may eventually be attracted to the shattering self-confidence of Muslims because they feel they have no other option.
Many ethnic Europeans and Americans have converted to Islam. In particular, women seem to be strongly attracted to the Muslim faith. The British journalist Yvonne Ridley was thus converted when she was a prisoner with the Taliban in Afghanistan for a period. Fatimah Mohammed of Iowa appeared to have converted to get a husband. German Eric Breininger has joined the Taliban in Afghanistan as a jihad terrorist.
They are Yvonne Ridley UK, Susan Carland Australia, Eric Breininger Germany, convert from Northern Ireland, convert from UK, convert from South Africa, convert from UK, convert from Iowa, Ingrid Mattson Canada, Heather Ramaha Hawai, convert from Sweden, Two British converts, Petersen Denmark, convert from UK.
Right from elementary school, girls are indoctrinated that they should be smarter than men and replace them as lawyers, judges, engineers, professors, commandos, politicians, deep-sea divers and all other positions in society. They must also be slim, beautiful, charming and intelligent. This creates a great pressure of expectation, which many find difficult to cope with, and therefore they are attracted to the sweetness of submission, Islam's simple and easy-to-understand requirements for covering, women's subordination to men, five prayers a day and so on.
Helena Benauoda - leading member of Muslim Council in Sweden - She was born Swedish but has allowed herself to convert.
It seems that the Muslim faith is particularly popular with the indigenous people of our neighboring countries England and Sweden. Many who were born as Englishmen and Swedes have converted to Islam.
Helena Benauoda was born as a Swede. However, she has converted to Islam and is now a leading member of the Islamic Council of Sweden. She estimates that in Sweden alone there are already at least 5,000 naturally born Swedes who have converted to Islam.
Tolerance is generally a good thing. We may not all be alike and we may have different opinions on how to solve problems. If we stubbornly insist that our own ideas and our own solution proposals must be followed to the last comma, we would quickly create a very bad climate of cooperation, and most likely, the proposals of the others can also lead to the solution of the problems.
But all this presupposes that we broadly have a common set of values and roughly agree on to where we are going.
The philosopher Karl Popper (1902 - 1994) is known for his theory of science and the work "The Open Society and Its Enemies", which is a defense of democracy and the open society, and an ambitious showdown with the philosophers Plato, Hegel and Marx.
But, if the dissenting attitudes cover a desire or ambition to destroy us and take possession of our property and our land, should we then tolerate them?
The philosopher Karl Popper wrote that a society can only be a tolerant society if it is intolerant of the intolerant: "If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerants, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.
He believes that a tolerant society will eventually be overthrown by the intolerants if these are not fought with appropriate means of force.
The predominant political problem in Western European countries is the massive Islamic immigration. In less than 50 years, Europe has been transformed. Islam is the fastest growing religion in Europe. Many neighborhoods in European cities are completely taken over by immigrant Muslims.
In 2014, the Swedish police released a map of 55 areas where they publicly admit to having handed over control to the criminal gangs. These areas have long had problems with postmen, fire-brigades and ambulances being attacked when they tried to enter, which has led to that they routinely requesting police escort. Now it is the police who are being attacked directly. A new trend is also to map police-employees homes and families to intimidate and discourage police work, police said.
Young Swedish convert marks a no-go area in a Swedish city. Photo Swedenreport.
In 2015, the American Fox News described the English city, Birmingham, as a "Muslim city" to the great regret of the Englishmen. In the wake of the Paris attacks - also in 2015 - the Belgian Minister of the Interior stated that the government did not "have control over the situation in Molenbeek" and that terrorist linked to this district were a "gigantic problem". Such is the situation throughout Western Europe, and it has developed in only 50 years.
The Quran is the word of Allah and should not be interpreted. It says:
22.19-22 "These are two adversaries who dispute about their Lord; then (as to) those who disbelieve, for them are cut out garments of fire, boiling water shall be poured over their heads". - "With it shall be melted what is in their bellies and their skins as well" - "And for them are whips of iron" - "Whenever they will desire to go forth from it, from grief, they shall be turned back into it, and taste the chastisement of burning".
9.123 "O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard."
47.8 "And as for those who disbelieve, for them is destruction and He has made their deeds ineffective"
47.35 "And be not slack so as to cry for peace and you have the upper hand, and Allah is with you, and He will not bring your deeds to naught."
This is just a small selection of texts that call on Muslims to fight the unbelievers - perhaps not even the most belligerent. It must be said to be quite intolerant. Therefore, if we want to preserve Western Civilization, the physical existence of our children and grandchildren and a good life for them, then we must follow Karl Popper and not tolerate the intolerant, namely the Muslims.
Portrait of John Locke (1632-1704) painted by Sir Godfrey Kneller - Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg, Russia. Wikipedia.
The concept of tolerance was mainly developed in connection with the Protestant Reformation and the Renaissance.
Tolerance is addressed in John Locke's "Letter Concerning Toleration" from 1689. Here he distinguishes between topics on which it is possible to obtain true knowledge and topics concerning faith. Different religious faiths and heathens are all equally convinced of the truth of their faith, he wrote. John Locke's and his contemporaries' attention was primarily directed to the many new Protestant sects in England. Since one cannot obtain certain knowledge as to which religious direction is true, one must tolerate them, he believed.
However, he did not believe that Catholics and atheists could be tolerated.
Catholics could not be tolerated because they "profess allegiance to a foreign prince" that is the Pope. Locke wrote: "That Church can have no right to be tolerated by the magistrate which is constituted upon such a bottom that all those who enter into it do thereby ipso facto deliver themselves up to the protection and service of another prince. For by this means the magistrate would give way to the settling of a foreign jurisdiction in his own country and suffer his own people to be listed, as it were, for soldiers against his own Government."
Atheists could not be tolerated because one could not trust their promises. "Those are not at all to be tolerated, who deny the being of a God. Promises, covenants, and oaths, which are the bonds of human society, can have no hold upon an atheist. The taking away of God, though but even in thought, dissolves all", skrev Locke. Locke wrote. Later, however, he felt doubt about his judgement of atheists. There is a passage added in a later edition of his "Essay Concerning Human Understanding", where he questions "whether atheism was necessarily inimical to political obedience."
The Muslim concept of jihad - holy war.
It is well known that muslims have their own agenda and are more loyal to their own religious authorities and the ideal of a world-wide caliphate than they are loyal to the Danish queen and her government. Furthermore, it is common knowledge that the Muslim faith contains the notion "Taqiyya" , which allows them to use pretence in the fight for Allah against the unbelievers, including swearing falsely.
Therefore, it can be said that Muslims in practice "profess allegiance to a foreign prince" , and they do not feel bound by "promises, agreements and oaths" , as they are allowed to lie for the cause of Allah, and therefore we must follow John Locke and refuse to tolerate them.
Sooner or later we will have to take a stand on the problem that our country is gradually being taken over by foreigners who have their own ideas about what to do with it - when they become numerous enough. Should we, in powerless devotion to modern common values, Democracy, Human Rights and Tolerance, tolerate this?
Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke American History
Muslims Can Bring an End to Western Civilization by Mumin Salih Islam Watch
Understanding the Meaning of Khalifah fil ardhi in the Quran Munawar Rahmat
Den Europæiske Menneskerettighedskonvention Menneskeret.dk
Menneskerettigheder beskytter især kriminelle Kristeligt Dagblad
Paradox of tolerance Wikipedia
Swedish police: 55 official no-go zones The Sweden Report
The Pilgrimage The Koran
The Immunity The Koran
The Narratives The Koran
Verse (28:58) Quran
Muhammad The Koran
Second Treatise by John Locke Project Gutenberg EBook