Thou Shalt Hate Christianity and Judaism

As a non-religious person, but still one that acknowledges and respects the impact of Judeo-Christian thinking on Western culture, I have warned against naïve Christian compassion related to Muslim immigration, as well as a disturbing tendency among too many Christian organizations to ally themselves with Muslims, for "religious values" and against Israel. But frankly, the most useful allies Muslims have in the West more often than not tend to be found among the non-religious crowd.

A number of executives and star presenters at the British Broadcasting Corporation admitted what critics already knew: The BBC is dominated by Left-leaning liberals who are anti-American and biased against Christianity, but sensitive to the feelings of Muslims. Former BBC business editor Jeff Randall said he complained to a very senior news executive about the BBC's pro-Multicultural stance, but was given the reply: "The BBC is not neutral in Multiculturalism: it believes in it and it promotes it."

The anti-Christian element seems to be a trait shared by Multiculturalists in all Western countries. Thomas Hylland Eriksen is a professor of social anthropology at the University of Oslo. He has written many books and is a frequent contributor of newspaper essays. He is also leading a major project for studying the Multicultural society in Norway.

Hylland Eriksen has proclaimed the death of nations as if he took pleasure in it, and has stated that the Nidaros Cathedral (Nidarosdomen), the most significant church in the country, should no longer serve as a national symbol in our Multicultural society. Mr. Eriksen has recently clashed with two brothers named Anfindsen, who run the bilingual website

According to Hylland Eriksen, "Cosmopolites insist on a world comprising of more colors than black and white. In such a world, the problems presented by Ole-Jørgen Anfindsen are not just petty, but irrelevant."

What are the problems presented by Mr. Anfindsen? Well, he has published numbers indicating that if the current immigration continues, native Norwegians will be a minority in their own country within a couple of generations. And a large proportion of the new population will be Muslims.

Given the fact that ethnic groups who become minorities in their own lands usually have a hard time, and virtually always get persecuted when the newcomers are Muslims, one would assume that this would be interesting information. But for self-proclaimed "Multicultural cosmopolites" such as Thomas Hylland Eriksen, it is "petty and irrelevant" to even consider that this could represent a problem.

Eriksen calls Anfindsen "stupid and ignorant," and hints that "Maybe Anfindsen's agenda is inspired by a kind of perverted Christianity (he has a Christian background)."

"He has a Christian background." Is that supposed to be an insult, and disqualify a person from worrying about whether his grandchildren will be persecuted? In a newspaper essay co-authored by Eriksen, he states that: "Is he [Anfindsen] asking us to once again repeat the obvious in that the murder of Theo van Gogh, various acts of terrorism and death threats against newspaper editors have nothing to do with Islam?"

Nothing to do with Islam? Really?

Mohammed Bouyeri, born in Amsterdam of Moroccan parents, killed Theo van Gogh as he was cycling in Amsterdam on Nov. 2, 2004, shooting and stabbing before slashing his throat and pinning a note to his body with a knife. "I did what I did purely out my beliefs," he told judges while clutching a Koran. "I want you to know that I acted out of conviction and not that I took his life because he was Dutch or because I was Moroccan," but because he believed van Gogh insulted Islam in his film criticizing the treatment of Muslim women.

So a peaceful Christian is accused of having a dark, secret agenda, while a Muslim murderer who brags openly about his Islamic motivations has nothing to do with Islam? Needless to say, Mr. Hylland Eriksen is also rather anti-Israeli. Christians and Jews are bad, Muslims are "misunderstood." This confirms my thesis that Political Correctness is a hate ideology disguised as "tolerance." It is based upon hate against anything considered Western and a desire to eradicate this.

The First Commandment of Multiculturalism is: Thou shalt hate Christianity and Judaism. Multiculturalists also hate nation states, and they even hate the Enlightenment, by insisting that non-Western cultures should be above scrutiny.

It is sometimes claimed that Islam is a "European" or Western religion. Ironically, we can test this by using "cosmopolitan Multiculturalists" such as Mr. Hylland Eriksen. They hate everything that's seen as Western and they like Islam, precisely because it's anti-Western.

Is religion a necessary component of society? Catholic historian Christopher Dawson wrote in his book "Progress and religion" from 1929:

"It is the religious impulse which supplies the cohesive force which unifies a society and a culture. The great civilizations of the world do not produce the great religions as a kind of cultural by-product; in a very real sense the great religions are the foundations on which the great civilizations rest. A society which has lost its religion becomes sooner or later a society which has lost its culture"

Alexis de Tocqueville, the French 19th-century political thinker, stated in Democracy in America:

"Religion in America takes no direct part in the government of society, but it must be regarded as the first of their political institutions; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief. I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion – for who can search the human heart? – but I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions."

Lee Harris is the author of Civilization and Its Enemies and The Suicide of Reason. According to him, Christian Europe was a fusion of diverse elements: The Hebrew tradition, Christianity, the Roman genius for law and the Germanic barbarians' love of freedom, among others. What created the communities of reasonable men that eventually made modern reason possible? This was the question taken up by Johann Herder:

"What were the necessary conditions of the European Enlightenment? What kind of culture was necessary in order to produce a critical thinker like Immanuel Kant himself? When Kant, in his Critique of Pure Reason, methodically demolished all the traditional proofs for the existence of God, why wasn't he torn limb from limb in the streets of Königsburg by outraged believers, instead of being hailed as one of the greatest philosophers of all time?"

For Herder, modern scientific reason was the product of European cultures of reason, the world-historical encounter between Biblical faith and Greek philosophical inquiry, "with the subsequent addition of the Roman heritage."

The 19th-century German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer was an atheist. Yet according to him, it was the Christian idea of God that permitted Europeans to believe that the universe was a rational cosmos.

As Harris points out, "Human beings will have their gods--and modern reason cannot alter this. Can even the most committed atheist be completely indifferent to the imaginary gods that the other members of his community continue to worship?"

And if modern reason required a pre-existing community of reasonable men before it could emerge in the West, maybe modern reason "must recognize that its own existence and survival demand both an ethical postulate and a religious postulate. The ethical postulate is: Do whatever is possible to create a community of reasonable men who abstain from violence, and who prefer to use reason. The religious postulate is: If you are given a choice between religions, always prefer the religion that is most conducive to creating a community of reasonable men, even if you don't believe in it yourself."

According to Theodore Dalrymple, the underlying problem in Western Europe in particular is a lack of purpose, which gives rise to a large amount of social pathology:

"Quite a large proportion of the population does not derive any self-respect from having to work for a living because some people are no better off if they work than if they do not work [due to the welfare state]." They "do not feel they belong to any larger project than their private lives. (…) I am not myself religious. However, I am not anti-religious. I am pro-religion provided that it is not theocratic, so long as there is still a division between church and state."

Dalrymple also believes that "Discipline without freedom leads to misery, but freedom without discipline leads to chaos, shallowness, and misery of another kind," alluding to the total lack of freedom in Islam, but also to the seeming lack of direction in the West.

I agree with Harris and Dalrymple: As long as there is separation between religion and state, those of us who don't have any religious belief should prefer religions which tend to create reasonable and prosperous communities. Our traditional Judeo-Christian religions have proven this capability. Islam never has, and probably never will. As Australia's Cardinal George Pell says, "some seculars are so deeply anti-Christian, that anyone opposed to Christianity is seen as their ally. That could be one of the most spectacularly disastrous miscalculations in history."

Indeed it could. Maybe if Western Multiculturalists get their will, and Islam does conquer parts of the West, they will discover that the new religion is infinitely worse than the old one. Of course, by then it will be too late.

"Wouldn't it be nice..."


How bland, how dull, how robotic would the world be if it were as "nice" as you would like to see it?

What a liberal cliche... "Imagine no religion..." Liberals like to pretend that people are as shallow as their thinking.

Just be nice. Kindergarten politics.

Hail Great Peter!

The smug superiority you preachers of secularism delude yourself into believing is as old as the Moonies accosting people in airports or the Saturday visits from that other group. If you are so morally superior why do you feel the need to proclaim it so loudly? I like living in a world with different religions. I just wish the religious bigots stay at home, especially in their own countries, and not bother me. That includes your type of religion.


If only we could get rid of religions, that ridiculous believe in bizarre complicated things we’ve never seen and have never had any evidence of, then the world would be such a nicer place to live in. Why can’t people see the contradictions, yes even the monstrous unfairness, of all those "revelations" and canonic truths? The cruelty in the scripts, the blatant racism, the huge amount of scientific evidence against what is written, it's all so obvious. Why can’t people just become responsible for their own values, principles and acts without the need of some alien super-creature as justification?

jew-hatred at the end

@ Bruyns


6) Finally, how often do I have to repeat that the current situation in Europe is the result of naive-left immigration policies and non-implementation of 'own laws' by European 'elites' in the recent past.  It certainly is not due to "some oil sjeiks from Arabia".  Who has made such a claim?  So, why set up such a ridiculous 'strawman' again?  If you cannot read, or will not read what is in front of you, then there is no hope for you. 

Yes, jew-hatred!

@ Bruyns


4) Your claim that jewish and christian culture "oppose each other in every way" is laughable on its face.  It suffices to look at the list of 'serious' nobel price winners, i.e. in physics, biology and chemistry. And who else in the world today shares genuine 'democracy' but jews and christians?   In fact, among the latter, many signs increasingly point to a possible loss of 'democracy' (again!) among the 'post-christians', particularly in Europe.

5) You have distorted views of what "multi-culturalism" is. The problem resides NOT in the fact that different cultures, or better sub-cultures, may exist together in one democratic 'polity'.  The potential problem resides in the possibility of the lack of minimum cultural adherence to common values among the different sub-groups.  Jews have never presented a serious problem for western countries, during the post-enlightenment era of 'democratising' polities.  Precisely because of the commonality of basic judeo-christian values.  Indeed, despite their small number, jews have reached very high levels of political and judicial responsibility in some western countries like France and the USA for instance.  In Britain they have had jewish prime-ministers!  And jews have had no problem of identifying 'patriotically' to western democracies. Perhaps a visit to the American cemeteries in Normandy (with their rows of crosses and stars of David) is in order.   You confuse opposition to 'dangerous forms of nationalism' with "spreading the idea of multi-culturalism".  Jews are not the only 'groups' who try to maintain certain 'own' traditions within a common democratic polity. 


Jew-hatred, indeed!

@ Bruyns

1) Good for you that you think that you do not "hate" people.  However, denying the reality of the judeo-christian tradition, and blaming the miniscule proportion of the European population that is jewish for the multi-cul illusions of leftist European 'elites' in recent decades, are clear indications of an outward-repressed hate.  I know, from a cultural perspective, that 'not-hating' anyone has been politically-correct for some time now in Europe.  Hence, you paying lip-service to it. 

2) I also observe that you "pray" for those poor-misguided jews.  Have you noticed here that our muslim hate-speech guy ('Nansi') is also "praying" for them, and for you and me as well?    Imagine Allah/God receiving such contradictory prayers from Nansi and you.  Thank God, I am not in his/her place, for I would get really mad receiving prayers from such narrow-minded sectarian truth-monopolisers.

3) It is almost unbelievable how SELECTIVE and selfserving you can be in your selections from the history of western civilisation.  Yes, the Romans did destroy the temple in Jerusalem, but ended up adopting the religion of a 'jewish sect', christianity.  And when Rome was destroyed by 'barbarians', with a very different 'tradition', what happened to the west?  It is remarkable that you deny the enormous contributions of jews to western civilisation - Spinoza and Grotius for instance (just to limit ourselves to the Dutch 'corner' of the west -  and that you use the shortcomings of pre-enligthenment Europe as an 'argument' to deny the judeo-christian tradition!  How else could one interpret your reference to "emancipation of the jews in the 19th century"?




1. Your first point is pure pathologization of my point of view- the oldest trick in the book. Besides, I really don't hate people, but I am not blind to group dynamics, be it muslims or jews.

Jews are a minority, but they are disproportionately powerful: nobody on this website would dare to adress jews as they would adress Arabs/muslims in the fear of being called an anti-Semite (how ironic, Arabs are also semite).

3. Jewish contributions to European culture before 1800 are rare. The case of Spinoza is interesting: he was cast out of the jewish community because of his thinking. Or is that contribution by accident?

I think there are more similarities between jews and muslims than between jews and christians. That would be an interesting thesis to discuss. The Quran was largely derived from the Torah and both could go along very well for centuries up to 1948.

Jewish multiculturalists can not stop talking about Al-Andalus and most jews left Europe for the muslim world and lived comfortably for many centuries there.

Jewish hatred at the end

@ Bruyns

As clear a recitation of some of the standard anti-Jewish statements as I have heard stated on the world's finest Jew-bashing sites. No doubt Bruyns you gladly get rid of the world's last few million Jews as part of whatever solution will address the Islamic problem.

So, that's where we are. I thought to come here to find a community of people who were able to articulate the battle against Islam more intelligently than videos of beheadings and childish meaningless threats.

While there are some here like that, it seems that "at the end", many of those who may have the ability to resist the Islamisation of their homelands do so based on a core of beliefs that includes anti-Jewish (apparently I dare not say antisemitism) and anti-female (discussion I had here a week or two ago) sentiments.

Instead of finding what I sought, I am more despondent than ever. Between the self-loathing lunatic left, and the destructive racist right, I cannot see how an effective resistance can ever come together.

And meanwhile the hordes keep breeding.

The captain spoke

@ Kapitein Andre


4)  Perhaps the most pernicious among your blatantly anti-semitic comments is the claim that  "human rights" apply differently to "gentiles".  That is in the same 'league' as Amsterdamsky confusing 'liberty' with "teenage sex, abortion etc....".  I guess the devil is again in the details.  What do you mean by "human rights"?  Does that mean genuine freedom-of-speech and habeas corpus, or do you confuse that with a polity controlling its own immigration policy..... I hope that you can also make a disctinction between war time and peace time, when it comes to practical governmental rules and regulations, because we have to live in the real world not in some fantasy world (the latter perhaps created by the 'Pax Americana' wich enabled two generations of Europeans to breed simplistic illusions, including of multi-culturalism).  In short, your charge of "applying human rights differently" can be applied to any 'group' or 'country', including the self-professed "cosmopolitans", and particularly when the concept of "human rights" gets stretched beyond empirical observations into ideological pet-peeves.

5)  That intellectual 'jews' have often warned against the dangers of excessive or simplistic 'nationalism' is a fact, and easily understandable on historical grounds.  But, they never had any monopoly among westerners in terms of promoting perverse selfhatred for their own civilisation.  And, if the essence of western civilisation is respect for the individual and his/her rights, versus group-think, then 'jews' have  played a most admirable role in preserving western civilisation.  In short, your musings on "multiculturalism" miss the core point at stake, which is individual freedom.   


I don't hate people, because as a christian you should not hate people but pray for them, especially for those who held other views or are misguided.

My first point is that Judaism is essentially ethnocentric, unlike the universal message of christianity, and opposed to Greco-Roman culture, which animosity was answered by the Roman destruction of the Temple. Therefore there can not be a Judeo-Christian culture, because both oppose eachother in every way.

Until the emancipation of the Jews in the 19th century they were not considered a part of European civilization, which was exclusively Christian, by contemporary Europeans. Great thinkers and writers, like Erasmus and Shakespeare, acknowledged this and were even opposed to giving equal civil rights to Jews.

Jewish emancipation in the 19th century both in America and Europe led to an ethnocentric reflex in fear of assimilation. Jewish pressure-groups were opposed to the idea of the melting pot and generated the idea of multiculturalism in America in order to preserve Jewish group cohesion as a minotity among minorities.

Here we come to my second point: Jews were in the forefront of spreading the idea of multiculturalism and fiercely opposed to nationalism, including immigration restriction as a form of ethnic (and cultural) self-preservation.

The 'Holocaust-industry' after WW II was only the gearing up of the Jewish relentless attack on nationalism and immigration restriction. It is this exploitation of sincerely felt guild after this human tragedy which led to the current situation and not some oil sjeiks from Arabia. Dixit.


Maybe if the world learn more about Islam they will like it perhaps they will accept it as their way of life. Do not look at the practice of some Muslims rather give the religion a chance. Read the Quran independently also read the Bible the Quran and Science by Maurice Bucaille. May Allah guide all of you to the right path.



What "NEW" is there to read..We all have seen Islam in action...

The 'Captain' has spoken again

@ Kapitein Andre

1) On the contrary, what "non-westerners" (i.e.others) believe or do not believe is of great importance.  Demarcations, distinctions, definitions, etc...all involve delineations from what is different or "other". 

2) Christianity is a direct 'offshoot' from judaism.  It started as a religious 'sect' within judaism which was brought later to 'Europeans' mainly by 'Greeks' (and by others).   In western history, jews have always been in the forefront and in disproportionate numbers with regard to promotion of the "scientific method", certainly when compared with others in the  'west'.   As to "Arab intellectual foundations", it would indeed be ridiculous to call them "Judeo-Christian-Islamic". I do not see much evidence of any respect for "the scientific method" in the contemporary Arab world, whatever the reasons for that might be, and the intensification of ideological intolerance of the ruling naive-left orthodoxy in Europe today is also counter to the "scientific method".  

3)  After many centuries of diaspora and human history, the typical secular and/or liberal 'jew' in the west today is as much or as little "a Levantine" as you and I are (perhaps not in Antwerp, but certainly in the anglo-sphere).  Also, the fact that judaism has never displayed the missionary zeal of christianity and islam, does not make judaism an "ethno-centric" religion. I will take the freedom-of-speech in the one jewish state ANYTIME above the purported "cosmopolitan" intolerance of the group-conformity among our muslim 'brothers' and of a certain kind of 'post-christians'.




While your reply was directed towards Bruyns, I would like to comment on it.

Firstly, what non-Westerners (incl. your "intolerant Arabs") believe or do not believe about the West is of no concern. Nor do these opinions have any bearing on the intellectual foundations of the West, which, for the purposes of this discussion consists of Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Secondly, Western intellectual foundations are: (a) the Greco-Roman philosophical tradition (incl. the scientific method, etc.), and (b) Christianity. Why do I exclude Judaism? Because Christianity includes elements of Judaism, particularly by having the Old Testament in the Bible. Similarly, Judaism has borrowed from other philosophies and religions e.g. Zoroastarianism. Should we call Arab intellectual foundations Judeo-Christian-Islamic?

Thirdly, Jews are not European; rather they are Europeanized Levantines, just as the Palestinians are Arabized Levantines. Judaism also encompasses far more than merely those ideas also found in Christianity. Whereas Christianity has a universal cosmopolitanism, Judaism remains an ethno-centric religion; those human rights found within it apply differently to Gentiles.

Lastly, I do not "blame" Jews for multiculturalism, I have merely noted that they have played a disproportionately large role per capita in advocating it. This contradicts arguments that multiculturalists are either opposed to their own ethno-nationality (which Jews are not for they have Israel) or bleeding-heart Christians.

Remarkable insularity from a world perspective.

@ Bruyns

Perhaps the reason why there hasn't been a reaction yet to your denial of "judeo-christian culture" is because it was such an outrageous statement that most readers felt it would be best left alone.  But, you have managed to 'top' yourself with an even more outrageous statement (more on that in a minute).

Your denial of a judeo-christian 'tradition' is remarkable indeed.  Perhaps the 'Old Testament' hasn't received much attention anymore in recent decades in European education, because the educators were too busy making fun of the 'New Testament'?  I am not a 'kultuurfilosoof', but your claim is absolutely ridiculous.  When  the intolerant Arabs (including some on this website)  complain of Israel being a "foreign element", let me assure you that they don't mean some chinese, or melanesian, or amero-indian, or whatever "element", but they do mean a western (yes European) element.  The judeo-christian tradition is the cultural bedrock of western civilisation, viewed from a world perspective.

The jews tend to be a 'democratic-minded' people, in the sense of stressing individual rights and tolerating a wide variety of opinions within their group.  So, yes, they have their share of nutty professors with marxist and multiculturalist illusions in western academia.  But, after the European holocaust in the 20th century, the jews have represented an EXTREMELY TINY percentage of the population in Western Europe.  It is thus extremely ridiculous that you would put the blame on jews for "the current mass immigration and the lack of resistance against that".

Apparently, jew-hatred is still alive and well among the 'natives' in Europe.  Combined with the jew-hatred of the 'newcomers' to Europe in recent decades, it would seem that not much has changed from a century ago.

@Zoe Part III

Again, I want to re-iterate that ethnic nationality is different from nationality (i.e. non-White Britons are British nationals but not English).

I agree that from a collective and general viewpoint, Islam is aggressive and cannot co-exist with the West, regardless of immigration.

And for the record, while I would like to see the Israeli-Palestinian conflict treated like the other ethno-cultural conflicts without the heavy support for Israel, I do not want to see Israel or its Jewish majority lose their right to self-determination. I am a proponent of the two-state solution, the return of the Golan Heights to Syria, and the withdrawal of the IDF from Lebanon, however, I agree that the Jews require their own nation-state.

As far as European ethno-national groups are concerned, I am opposed to anyone or group that is passively or actively eroding their self-determination. I believe that the Russians should de-colonize the Baltics, that Flanders receive statehood, that the Basques receive statehood, as well as the Transnistrians. The UK should be a Swiss-style federation with guaranteed powers given to the Welsh, Northern Irish, and Scotch to maintain their socio-cultural integrity.

No Judeo-Christian culture

Still no reply against my statement that there is no Judeo-Christian culture due to the ethnic nature of Jew religion and their rejection of the Roman-Greco tradition, which makes them not even European.

As Kapitein André states correctly jews always have advocated multiculturalism and combated nationalism, which shaped the conditions of the current mass immigration and the lack of resistance against that.

@Zoe Part II

I am not blaming Jews for multiculturalism or political correctness: there are those (incl. Jews) who stand to benefit from these movements and policies, and there are those who support them because of genuine (albeit misguided) conviction. However, under the banner of combating anti-Semitism, National Socialism, and Fascism, Jews in the West have played a proportionately significant role in the erosion and deconstruction of ethnic nationalism. Had the Gypsies existed in larger numbers than Jewry in the West, they would have acted similarly to secure their minority communities.

Additionally, I have never seen or heard of Jews standing up for ethnic nationalism anywhere except Israel, for the simple fact that they are not considered ethnic Frenchman or Germans - regardless of whether or not the "outsider" status was imposed from within or without.

While there are certainly more of the "misguided" group than Jews eroding Western nations, theoretically, anyone who is an ethnic Frenchman or German (regardless of political stance) can change their viewpoint of ethnic nationalism in a way that French or German Jews (or any non-French or non-German) cannot. Jus sanguinis ensures that the ties remain...

@Zoe Part I

I realize that when it comes to what Israeli Jews and the Jewish diaspora believe about and/or want for the State of Israel, it becomes a complicated and controversial issue. I am merely simplifying for the sake of space...

On the whole, Judaism today is in limbo today, incorporating religious, ethno-racial, national, civil, and cultural loyalties.

However, the general trends have indicated discrimination against Arab Muslims and Arab Jews, and non-European Jews. I have a Yemenite Jew as a friend and he is ostracized by much of the Jewish community which tends to be Ashkenazi of East-Central European descent.

While there are many competing factions in Israel's socio-political life, the concept of Jews as an ethnic group (i.e. racial/genetic) did not disappear in 1945, even it it exists in combination with religious and national identities.

Furthermore, there are a great deal of Jews in the diaspora who are more "hardline" than their Israeli brethren.

Re: Thou Shalt Hate Judaism? Pt.3

Let me also remind you that Islam’s ambition for world domination didn’t magically appear in the last decade, nor it did after the birth of the Jewish state. Muslims feel they have unfinished business with the crusaders’ descendants. The reason why they take their chance nowadays is because they have the OIL that Europe and America so desperately need. That boosts their confidence into thinking that they can, after all command the West into doing what they want. When they bomb the West ‘over Israel’, it’s just another tactic for them to enforce submission in the West. Israel has little or nothing to do with this whole matter, it is just used as a tool for their own benefit and their PRIMARY AGENDA. They view Israel’s presence as a great challenge: if they can overcome Israel’s presence in the Middle East and turn the West against Israel, that would mean they can do other things, like TAKE OVER EUROPE. They’ve already succeeded in doing this so far, which is to turn Europe against Israel. I’ve heard them declare the following concept many times, “Today we take Israel, tomorrow we’ll take the West”.

The problem is that the West had overdosed on Multiculturalism, it simply didn’t handle it properly and now we see the results. Blaming the Jews / Israel is an old, tiresome and lazy thinking in which the root of the matter is to dump the entire blame on someone else. It would be stupid and quite distracting from the real Muslim danger, to solely blame the Jews for the current Muslim problem. Instead, the West needs to smarten up, and orchestrate a cohesive retaliation against Islam. Once that is cleared up, we can all sort out our differences.

Re: Thou Shalt Hate Judaism? Pt.2

“At best they are allies of convenience in the war on terror, and even then Israel benefits with arms and funds while the West gets bombed for supporting it.”

You cannot lump all of them into that category. There are many Jews that are first and foremost loyal to the countries in which they live in from the ‘left’ and the ‘right’, examples: France’s Alain Finkelkraut who advocates for France’s national sovereignty, and Henryk Broder of Germany. On the other hand you have people like Noam Chomsky who’s fiercely anti-American, anti-Israeli, and probably wouldn’t mind living under Sharia law one day. The liberal, “Politically Correct” Leftists who led the “Peace Now” movement in the 1990s are the quivalent to the West’s self procalimed Liberal 'left'. We should learn from what happened in Israel at that time. They meant good for themselves and the Palestinians when their naïve intentions led them to give as much land for peace to people who wanted to see them dead. Those good intentions were understood (or misunderstood) as a sign of weakness on the Muslim Palestinian side, more Israeli blood-shed resulted precisely during the so called Peace Process.


You've been smoking too much hash again. The Pope banned opera briefly in the 18th century for immorality. What has that to do with the Dark Ages and Luther?

The Dark Ages was a result of the sack of Rome in 410 A.D. Luther didn't promulgate his heresy till the 16th century, well after the Renaissance.

A little addled, are we?

Thou Shalt Hate Judaism? Part II

Think about it. In Western educational institutions Jewish academics are teaching Neo-Marxist perspectives on the nation-state and society in general, with the obvious "anti-racist" (anti-White/European) component included. However, when it comes to Israel, it seems that: (a) ethnic cleansing, (b) apartheid, (c) ghettoes, (d) military occupation, (e) concentration (or refugee) camps, and (f) ethno-religious purity is good. For Europe and North America - bad. 

If non-White immigrants are good for the Western economies (except the East Asians of course) why aren't they good for Israel to? I'd like to see the Palestinians become full citizens of the "Jewish State." Grant them amnesty the way America does the Mexican illegals...

Excuse me if I do not consider these people an ally in solving the dual challenges of immigration and Islam. At best they are allies of convenience in the war on terror, and even then Israel benefits with arms and funds while the West gets bombed for supporting it.

Multiculturalism and political correctness is a double standard, which means it does not come from the heart. Nor is it misguided.

Re: Thou Shalt Hate Judaism? Pt.1

@Kapitein Andre

You are right about the overall Jews' advocacy for Multiculturalism in the West. Although your understanding of how they are dealing with it when it comes to Israel is muddled: there are many Arabs who still live in Israel, and are no lesser citizens then other Israelis. Israel in itself is composed of Jews of different ethnics, African (looking) Jews, Nordic / European (looking) Jews, Arab (looking) Jews...etc... So when it comes to ethnic cleansing i'd harshly disagree with you, as in essence, Israel would LIKE to see a well functioning, neighbouring, Palestinian country. If you haven't read the news, then i’d like to inform you that it's the majority of the Palestinians who would like to see Israel ceasing to exist because they feel that Israel stole their land. Now i'm not going to get into the intricacies of the matter because this topic is very broad, but the fact is that 6 million Israelis cannot just pack up and leave overnight, or even over a decade, and you simply CANNOT REVERSE what happened over the last century. Therefore people in the region need to come back to reality, acknowledge their new neighbours, and try to make the best of it.

Basically what Israel is really advocating is a Multicultural existence within itself under the Jewish banner. The problem at this point, is that it is surrounded my a majority of Muslim countries who intimidate their own Christian minorities / Jews to take their side, example Lebanese Christian who were afraid to show disagreement with Hezbollah during last summer's Israel-Lebanon war.

Thou Shalt Hate Judaism?

In fact many of the oikophobes (proponents of multiculturalism and political correctness) are Jewish or of Jewish descent.


Since when have Jews supported ethnic nationalism in Europe? Since when have they supported the Anglo-European character of North America and Australasia?


There is a school of thought that believes the Jews advocated "rainbow" or "world-in-one-country" societies in the West to combat European and White nationalism; similarly those Jews in Eastern Europe advocated Communism for the same reason. In a country full of different minorities, the Jews were safe; in a country of only Europeans and Jews, there could be pogroms. Unfortunately, if this is true, their plan backfired and both Europeans and Jews are paying dearly i.e. the immigrants are Muslim and far nastier than any Holocaust-denier.

Judeo-Christian influence on europe

"but still one that acknowledges and respects the impact of Judeo-Christian thinking on Western culture"


The Dark Ages?  The pope banning opera during the peak of Mozarts short career?  If not for Martin Luther we would still be living in a medieval theocracy I am sure.

Why don't we want to listen to what they say?

The main stream media and left is doing the best to whitewash Islam whereever we can.

Why not simply listen to what  reknown islamic authorities have to say, like the Mufti of Australia (the greatest islamic authority there). Best place is a mosque, where the taqqiya (the muslim commandment: thou shalt lie to infidels to serve islam) isn't respected.

That good man
claims for Christians there's  only hell and raping a woman not dressed in the hijab comes down to a cat eating unattended meat..

Here's the speech:

What will our left and mainstream media do about such unpleasent things that tarnish the self-proclaimed religion of peace?
1. they will outcry - that publishing and distributing the good imam's view will only raise islamophobia...

So - what's bad about islamophobia? - if Muslims think like the imam it's the only sound reaction they deserve. And politicians shouldn't reward them with additional social security paychecks but better with one way tickets back home.

Holy smoke and mirrors

I think Europeans have received learned conditioning to the religion of their past, which was primarily Catholic. I doubt that many have experienced negative aspects personally but have had it pounded into them by unrelenting media and educators that the experience was a bad one. There were some real problems, too, in many areas of the churches which would make reasonable people wonder whether the officials were representing God or representative of Satan. I doubt that the many churches that remain at the city centers could have existed for so long if the entire history had been so negative for your ancestors.

There are many versions of Christianity, but all find that acceptance of Christ is implicit. I know of no version which require a person to be Christian. It is a personal step that each individual takes for himself of his own free will. Many of the misguided practitioners lose sight of this fact. No one can be a Christian because of a requirement of another. It is implicit in the contract between God and man that the person must make the decision to accept Christ in order to become a Christian. God does not order it but entreats man to accept. I am not a theologist by any means, but that is my understanding.

I wish that Europe would recognize that religion was important to them, but the pervasiveness of leftist views will likely keep it secular. Europe would be stronger with a christian faith, but it can't be manufactured so secularism will remain the dominant religion for so long as the left can maintain their illusionary hold on the people. Many of the so called leaders of Christianity have given their allegiance to leftism and secularism over Christianity, which gives rise to the same problems Europe experienced with them in the past.

There is another...

There are two ideologies that might allow for a defense of the west - Christianity and Nationalism.  Christianity descends, via Catholicism, from the Romans;  Nationalism from the tribal loyalties of the invaders that devastated the Romans.  Both are suppressed under the liberal political  hegemony, Nationalism by the invocation of the evils of Nazism/Fascism (even though the resistance to those was also Nationalist), and Christianity by ridicule of the idea, from primary school upwards,  that "Big Beardy" created the universe (although Christian ideas are of course way more sophisticated than this - read Aquinas or Augustine for God's sakes).

We need to awaken both of these ideologies.  We also need to find a good balance between the two. 

Christianity alone is not good enough - too many Christians support the international liberal hegemony, as it looks very similar to the old Catholic idea of binding together the nations of Christendom under a single moral authority.  Maybe, these Christians think, with minor adjustments it can be made to work.

The other problem with Christianity is that most public intellectuals still balk at actually believing in it - our Fjordman above; Theodore Dalrymple; Orianna Fallaci - all of them declare themselves atheists while touting Christianity.  These is no way that this kind of thinking is going to build a realistic resistance - functioning ideologies absolutely require that the elites believe the same as the masses, albeit with more sophistication and detail - the Catholics knew this, and the Communists  attempted to copy it (see Gramsci, amongst others).

Nationalism has its own problems.  I think it has to form the core of the resistance, but should be tempered with Christianity to stop it from going too far.


The different versions of

The different versions of Christianity described by McMad and Saharian are visible, but they are not the type of Christianity I am advocating.  I am talking about true belief; not just some adoption of a morality code.

Of course, believing the Bible as I do, I might resign myself to winning the few souls I can to Christ and leaving Europe to its own devices.  Considering the prophesies of Revelation and the high possibility we are close to the days described there, expecting Europe to come around in time to save itself is Saharian's "Pipe Dream".

In some ways, the Revelation prophesies make more sense the more Muslim Europe becomes...


Lord, grant me the strength to change the things I can;

the serenity to deal with the things I cannot change;

and the wisdom to know the difference.


Some Christians are the worst kind of submissive dhimmis imaginable. Go to your local library an take a look at the Christian magazines in print today. There are magazines for Christian Marxists, Christian Feminists, Christian Gays and so forth. When they are writing something about islam then it is with the most submissive tone imaginable. A few weeks ago i happened to leaf through such a magazine and noticed a story for children. In short, it went something like this: "John and his best friend Achmed went to the local mosque where they had a long conversation with the friendly imam and John learned that Christianity and islam have a lot in common!"
Basically, these "Christian" magazines are saying that islam is just as good a way to God as Christianity is.

We dont need all europeans to convert to Christianity, we need patriotism. Patriotism was considered one of the greatest virtues until leftist propaganda, spewed out by the powers to be in Europe, turned it into a sin akin to fashism.
Patriotism makes people stand up and fight for their People and their Country, not some promise of afterlife.

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and
degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing
is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is
willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal
safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless
made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." - John Stuart Mill -

There is no Jewish-Christian culture

Judaism and Christiniaty have the same 'ancestors' but are two comnpletely diffirent kind of religions, which actually oppose eachother. Judaism is a tribal religion with no universal appeal, while Christianity appeals to all human beings of all nations. Judaism has no connection with the Roman-Greco culture, which it always had resisted, while Christianity has placed itself in the tradition of Greek philosophers and Roman law.

I can go on and write a whole book, but the most significant split is the Jewish adoption of the Star of David instead of the universal Red Cross as the symbol of help services, which says: we can take of our own and don't need your help (and cross).

question of will

...well, before you can use those sharp swords, you need to muster the will. And will comes from a sense of identity. I'm arguing that an identity centered on Christ will lead to the most humane (yet effective) response to the Islamic colonization of Europe.

Perhaps pure patriotism can provide it too. But I fear that if it's not tempered by a Christian morality, the result will be just another monster like Hitler or Stalin. In my mind, this isn't any better than what the Muslims would do. It might be worse...

And without a Christ-centered identity, many native Europeans will just convert to Islam. It will be the most 'rational' choice - and will spare them a life of hardship (or death).

I'd wager that the will of Islam is greater than European patriotism. Europeans need something more. Something bigger than themselves.

Fjordman, be a radical!


I agree that Christianity was a key ingredient of Western Civilization...and am happy that you defend it as such.

But Europe is really up against the wall now. It's in a civilizational conflict which might bring about it's permanent collapse. Wishing for a 'little more of that religion' that we used to know - so long as it stays in a nice little box - is such a watered down call that it can have little effect.

Europe doesn't need religion or even Christianity. It needs believers in Christ. People who are guided by Jesus in their everyday decisions. People who know what is good and what deserves protection.

And yes, people that are willing to fight and die. I think you may misunderstand Jesus' admonition to turn the other cheek and to love your enemies. These are personal commandments, but do not necessarily apply to us as nations. I don't think Jesus meant that our communities should just lie down and surrender to any dark force that threatens us.

He says that we will in fact have enemies and that we should pray that they come to know Him.

It grieves me to hear how impotent the churches of Europe are. They appear from afar to be nothing but leftist political groups with only a thin veneer of (fake?) Christianity.

Fjordman, you have an important voice. People listen to you. How great would it be if you could - in this crisis - lead people to Christ? How great would it be if you yourself came to know Him.

It's a radical move, I know! Moreso in Europe than in the States. But Europe needs more than a little healthy radicalism. Put on your tie-die shirt, brother and join us!

I agree with you, Fjordman.

I agree with you, Fjordman. Muslims all over repeat openly again an again their gender-/minority-/religion-/ discriminating views and are by no part held accountable for that. 

What about beheadings of innocents in the name of Allah - nothing Muslims have  to be ashamed of or be held accountable for - violence per definition can't originate from Muslims, so let's ignore it (or better - punish the victims for provocating peaceful Muslims to commit such acts - if they still got their head on their shoulders....). That's where the dumbest village imam and Europe's smartest leftist fully agree. (competely other story if a Christian soldier holds up a long time dead's skull.. like it happened in Germany - that's when the left gets really mad)

What about women in hijab - just a sign of the great self esteem and pride of Muslim women, as more and more leftist feminists try to justify. Even if those who should know it better - like the imams - tell a complete different

Here's a nice link (unfortunatley only in German) to the view of Australia's mufti on women who don't wear the hijab - he simply compares the act of raping them with a cat eating unattended meat.,1518,444869,00.html

But hey, let's ignore this one as well. Supposedly even the imams don't fully understand the peaceful nature of islam and how well it treats women and gays and Jews and so on and on. But luckily our left and the EU knows better than even the imams..Islam means peace. Name those, who don't follow the muslim rites and be sure islam will spread it's love and peace on  them.