Not admixture bureau poverty. The added way around: creating
possibilities for bodies to activity afterwards accepting to footfall out of
their own affiliation is appropriately bad. What happens in Europe is
the changeabout amphitheater from what happens in America. Bodies of
North African and Turkish bank acquire a bad name, (and statistically,
there is a adequate accuracy for it) which causes bigotry abut them,
which on changeabout makes them retreat in their own ability
fanatically. download movies download latest movies generic viagra online pharmacy

What happens to black people in some regions in the states is very similar to what happens to Muslims in Europe: Same ghettos, same discrimination.

Whoa there, Blacks here in the US are not as discriminated against as they should be. Blacks commit 50% of all homicides here despite being 13% of the population.

I assumption the American association is added accessible for a) and
harder abundant for b). The actuality that you are Japanese, Chinese,
Muslim, all-embracing or Jew doesn’t attempt your affairs in
accomplishing business and award a job. Once your activity becomes
anchored into the bounded economy, cultural affiliation will appear all
by itself. Not amalgam agency poverty. The added way around: creating
possibilities for humans to action after accepting to footfall out of
their own association is appropriately bad. What happens in Europe is
the about-face amphitheater from what happens in America. Humans of
North African and Turkish coast accept a bad name, (and statistically,
there is a acceptable acumen for it) which causes bigotry adjoin them,
which on about-face makes them retreat in their own ability
fanatically. This is accessible accurate the all-encompassing European
abundance system. This makes them added adverse and aweless adjoin the
ascendant culture, which makes them even added discriminated. The
amphitheater is round. We charge to aperture this amphitheater on two
places: By not acceptance ghetto’s in which they can feel almost safe,
getting on their own, and by actively aggravating to stop
discrimination. Both actual difficult I’m afraid.

 treatments for depression

The Saudi Plan: 100 years of Dhimmitude?

http://www.aina.org/news/20081210191649.htm

@ pvdh

...

2-A)  You are ignoring the main point, which was "the persecution of nonmuslims in virtually all MUSLIM societies today".  The fact that there are societies were muslims live peacefully with others is besides the point.  I have lived among muslims in such a society, but those muslims were less than 10 percent of the population, and the rest of that particular nonwestern society would not tolerate nonsense (from muslims nor anybody else).  The relevant observation is that all muslim societies or muslim-dominated societies are intolerant of nonmuslims, in the sense that they discriminate in law against the latter.  In addition, there is no genuine 'rule of law' in any muslim society today, only 'rule of (powerful) men'.  I am not an expert on Albania, but I understand that it is pretty much a sort of 'mafia state'.

2-B)  You are certainly right in claiming that persecution is not limited to muslims in the world (e.g the Han-Chinese in Tibet, the Shona in Matabeleland in Zimbabwe, etc...). But, that observation is irrelevant to the issue at hand which was your claim that "being muslim has nothing to do with it".  Point 2-A is independent from point 2-B.  

3)  Your comparison remains flawed, but there is no time to discuss every individual case.  Focus on the big picture. 

4)  Indeed we agree on point 4. That is one of the reasons why I consider you a rational European leftist (in contrast, say, with Kappert who cannot even read accurately, let alone reason about issues).

5) This is a big subject, with both elements of agreement and disagreement between us. Two fundamental disagreements are: (a) identities do NOT get "invented" and (b) people will only integrate if they WANT to integrate. The second point suggests that large-scale group immigrations are 'bad' (for the recipient/host country), and that immigration should be 'planned' by the host country and not 'undergone'.

6)  The "principle" is useless, if you are not willing to live by it, or enforce it.  If you start from the presumption that we cannot enforce immigration laws, or that we have "limited possibilities to stop the immigration flow" then you are lost as a society. You have essentially conceded that you are not a sovereign country, but that you are at the mercy of others.   The Chinese, the Japanese, etc... don't have that problem.  The only reason why people are "storming the fences" in Europe is because they know that it 'pays', i.e. because the European body politic is not willing to enforce its own laws, and a big part of the body politic is actively engaged in undermining the law.  The same applies to America.

7) I have no reason to doubt Fjordman's description of Professor Eriksen. He sounds like a 'typical' professor of "social anthropology".  When I was still a fairly young man working in a developing country in the early 1970's, I started running into that sort of western 'experts'.  It is then that my eyes started opening up to two characteristics of much of western 'social science academia': (a) perverse self-hatred and (b) the ability to justify/excuse just about 'anything' (i.e the inability to make moral judgments of others).      

Just imagine 5 million in France, 4,5 million in Germany, 1,5 million in Holland, and more 5 million people in the rest of Europe 'persecuting' non-muslims. Marcfrans would be shattered by the lack of evidence!!!

Correction: the multiculturalists will not bring us all down with them. They will bring the Europeans down with them. The American electorate is not nearly as passive. I simply ask that people leaving the sinking ship of Europe not relocate to America. We don't need any more fools here.

@ pvdh

1) I am not going to invite you to move to Morocco or Nigeria (you would not survive there with your worldview), but you should think this through better. At the same time, while discussions with dogmatics like for instance  Monarchist and Wheeler are impossible, they are conceivable with a rational Western leftist like yourself. In the latter case it is often just a matter of clarifying the distinction between observable facts and beliefs/opinions.

2) How can you dispute the claim (not "fact") that being Muslim has nothing to do with it?  The persecution of nonmuslims in virtually all muslim societies TODAY is an observable fact or reality.  And we are talking here about real 'persecution', both in a direct-physical sense (from time to time) and in a legal sense (on a permanent basis). We are NOT simply talking about individual opinions and attitudes (like say in the context of typical 'discrimination' claims in the West).

3) Your comparison with European colonialism is deeply flawed. There was typically no large-scale emigration of 'ordinary' people from colonial centers in Europe to colonies in Africa, Asia and the Middle East. The colonisation of the 'emptier' Americas (and Australia+NZ) by Europeans was of a different nature and, viewed from the perspective of maintaining the cultural values of the 'original' peoples, it surely was disastrous. I hasten to add, that I do not share that particular perspective (i.e. I do think that those 'native' values were pretty abysmal), but the point is that your comparison is flawed.  And, certainly, there is no moral equivalence between spreading 'Islam' and spreading democratic ideals (of equality and of individual freedom).   

4)  If "protecting ethnic minorities" has become a "civilised value" in the West, it surely rests on a more fundamental 'Western' value, i.e. of respect for the rights of the individual.  Sadly, in the current naive-left orthodoxy, the fundamental value gets more and more forgotten and is being replaced by the lesser derived value.  In short, if 'muslims' need any special protection at all, it should not be because they are an "ethnic minority", but because they are human individuals.  To put it very concretely, ideally the Belgian law should protect the individual rights of all its citizens, including of muslim citizens (whose individual rights are much more threathened by fellow muslims than by nonmuslims).  By contrast, in fact the Belgian law and practice seems to undermine the basic rights of all in order to facilitate demands of 'separateness' and for special rules for some.   

5)   You misunderstand the American past.  By the time of US independence, there was an established American culture.  That culture has of course evolved further over time.  But, for nearly another two centuries the American ethos was NOT one of "intermingling cultures"  (in order to create a new culture), but rather one of assimilating (many different) newcomers and of turning them into 'Americans', i.e. of maintaining a common civic culture.  The growing 'balkanisation' and the attempt to maintain 'old' (imported) cultures is a relatively new naive-lefty phenomenon, rooted in perverse selfhatred and valse victimisation theories. 

6) It is also naive to think that, in Europe, the integration of Franks and Celts and Visigoths and Vandals, etc...occurred through some peaceful process. The historical reality was quite different and very painful.     But, I know that we agree on the need for integration of newcomers.  Where we probably differ is on the recognition that such integration is not always possible.  And, as you know, I firmly believe in the moral right of selfdetermination, both for the individual and for any society.  That surely means that immigration must be explicitly (and democratically) 'invited', not imposed from the outside.  

7) I don't know whether any quote in the article was taken "out of context" or not, but I doubt very much that your belief in an "academic exercise" is correct.  We do agree on the need to separate race/ethnicity from culture.  But, I do think that the concept of "majority culture" is a very dangerous one.  Societies can survive with different sub-cultures (concerning relatively unimportant matters like clothes and food), but they do need a common civic culture about essential matters (relating to moral values and to the law).

I.  Disagreement on the propensity of Muslim majorities to persecute non-Muslim minorities is one matter. Referencing colonialism, the Roma and Jews is quite another. Are you claiming that Europe as a whole must "pay" for past transgressions against non-European peoples? And if so, should Norwegians not be under the heel of Britons - not Somalis, Iraqis and Iranians? Why is Norway responsible for the British, Italian and French colonial empires? Must Poland accept the dregs of Bogota or Mexico City because of Spanish conquests? Is Norway permitted to "return the favor" some decades or a century from now?

II.  Civilized values are useless without survival and continuity. The Seym's liberum veto was theoretically noteworthy, but prevented concerted action against Poland's enemies.

III.  American culture is mainly Anglo-European. Nor have Hispanic numbers translated into an equal share of cultural weighting. It is incredulous that you conflate miscegenation with cultural integration; and for the record, 1/3 of White Americans has less than 90% European genetic ancestry. African-Americans tend to have on average 30% European genes.

IV.  The clash between Germanic, Celtic and Romantic cultures after Rome's fall continues to be felt today. Indeed, the fault lines cut across Belgium, eastern France and Switzerland. The Franks were culturally assimilated by the Gallo-Romans, the Visigoths made a superficial mark in Iberia before their defeat by the Moors, and the Vandals and Ostrogoths were similarly neutralized.

V.  The New Left claims that multiculturalism is liberalism's (as if) solution to ethnic/cultural/racial inequality. The Left's solution is "deconstruction", which is reminiscent of Marxist-Leninist policies. It has little to do with an intellectual or academic "exercise".

How can the ignorance of Islam in the West be explained? It only takes a weekend of reading the history of the dhimmitude and slaughter of Jews, Christians, and Hindus and their culture to know what Islam will do in Europe when it gets to critical mass. The purpose of the emerging alliance between the Left, Islamists, and Fascists is to promote the cleansing of Jewish and Christian identity in Europe to prepare the way for the conversion of Europe to Islam.

The suggestion by Paganini to Peter to move to a Muslim country is apt; it might open his blinded eyes. We Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians, Copts, Nestorians, Hindus, and Sikhs have centuries of experience with Islam and know what it does. But multiculturalists won’t listen to us. They are locked inside the death grip of ignorance and self hatred and will take us all down with them.

"Given the fact that ethnic groups who become minorities in their own lands usually have a hard time, and always get persecuted when the newcomers are Muslims"

1) I firmly dispute the fact that "being Muslim" would have anything to do with it. As colonialist's often in history, we did pretty much the same thing. In recent history, the fate of Turkish minorities on the Balkan and gipsies and Jews in all of Europe show that we were not much better. Since then western society has apparently adopted “protecting ethnic minorities” as a civilized value. But that’s a PC-thing. Hardly an attitude advocated on this website.

2) It doesn’t have to be that way. Often in history, we could see that out of two different intermingling cultures emerges a new culture. The USA is a good example. (Each white person in the states has on average of 18% to 20% of black genes.)  in Europe, Franks and Celts, Hispanic people and Visigoths, Vandals and Ostrogoths proved that peaceful integration was and is possible. On the other hand Irish, Berber, and Jewish examples show us that in some cases integration is not happening at all. This sometimes results in frictions and violence. We should study what elements encourage integration, and what elements discourage them, and make sure we use that knowledge to integrate the incoming flux of immigrants.  

 “deconstruct the majority [population] so thoroughly that it can never be called the majority again”

My Norwegian is non-existent. But by reading the trough translation programs translated text; I’ve the impression that the above quote is deliberately taken out of context. As I understand it, it is a white spot in “research”, and it is mend as showing there is no such thing as a monolith majority culture. The term between brackets shouldn’t read “population” but rather “culture”. What is absolutely sure is that he didn’t meant “deconstruct” as a real action upon society, but rather an academic exercise performed upon a concept.

Why isn't this sorry piece of shit challenged to put his money where his mouth is and let him move out of his 'boring white neighbourhood'? Preferably into some nice, swanky multicultural place like Sudan, Lebanon or the Balkans.

I don't understand why Eriksen isn't threatenend or menaced, and people like geert wilders (who defend us) are. I don't understand that: this guy is a dangerous lunatic and he should feel the repercussions of his behavior.