torstaina, elokuuta 10, 2006

Mitä on monikulttuurisuus

Kaikki ns. monikulttuurisuus eli multikulturalismi tarkoittaa eurooppalaisten alistumista islamilaisen Afrikan ja Lähi-idän tapoihin. Kukaan ei ole koskaan tarkoittanut sillä mitään muuta.

Kaikki "monikulttuurisuuskampanjat" Suomessa ja muissa Euroopan maissa ovat valtiovallan kustantamia propagandakampanjoita, joiden tarkoituksena on aivopestä eurooppalaisia hyväksymään Afrikasta ja Lähi-idästä tulleiden islamilaisten maahanmuuttajien rikokset (mm.
sukupuolielinten silpomiset) ja jopa käyttäytymään näiden maahanmuuttajien tavoin eli verhoutumaan kaapuihin jne.

Esim. Oslon yliopiston sosiaaliantropologian professori on lehtihaastatteluissa syyttänyt muslimien raiskaamia norjalaisia naisia (poliisitilastojen mukaan Oslon raiskauksista 65% on muslimien tekemiä) siitä, että nämä eivät ole piiloutuneet burqaan; professorin mielestä nainen on itse syyllinen raiskatuksi tulemiseensa, koska ilman burqaa kadulla kulkeva nainen provosoi muslimimiehiä.

Tämä on sitä monikulttuurisuutta, jota Suomessakin edistetään valtiovallan kustantamilla propagandakampanjoilla.

Suomessa esimerkiksi "rasismin vastustamisen" nimissä halutaan kieltää "islamin loukkaaminen" ja "islamofobia" eli ateistien esittämä kritiikki islamilaisten maiden diktatuureja, terrorismia ja islamilaisten maahanmuuttajien Euroopassa harrastamaa naisten
sortamista ja lasten sukupuolielinten silpomista kohtaan.

Esimerkiksi Helsingin kaupungin kulttuuriasiainkeskuksen pyörittämä "Kansainvälinen kulttuurikeskus Caisa" on järjestänyt Euroopan parlamentin antamilla määrärahoilla seminaarin, jossa muslimit suunnittelivat "islamofobian" kriminalisointia eli islamin arvostelun kieltämistä yhdessä suomalaisten virkamiesten ja poliitikkojen kanssa.

Tätä se "monikulttuurisuus" tarkoittaa. Se tarkoittaa Euroopan muuttamista islamilaiseksi teokratiaksi. Se tarkoittaa mm. ateismin kieltämistä lailla, koska ateististen ajatusten esilletuominen "loukkaa" muslimien "pyhänä pitämiä asioita". Monikulttuurinen
yhteiskunta on yhtä kuin islamilainen teokratia.

"Maahanmuuttajien kulttuurien kunnioittaminen" tarkoittaa sitä, että islamilaisten
maahanmuuttajien Euroopassa harrastamaa naisten sortamista ja lasten sukupuolielinten silpomista ei saa kritisoida. Nämä asiat kuuluvat heidän "kulttuuriinsa", jonka "kunnioittaminen" tarkoittaa niiden arvostelemisen kieltämistä.

Kaikki ateistiset ajatukset ja ylipäätään kaikki ihmisoikeuksien kannattaminen on islamilaisen "kulttuurin" arvostelua, joka on määritelmän mukaan kielletty multikulti-ideologiassa.

14 kommenttia:

edsel kirjoitti...

Tuo sosiaaliantropologilinkki johtaa amerikkalaiseen blogiin jossa kerrotaan englanniksi norjalaislehden artikkelista. En epäile tai kiistä, että joku oikeasti on lausunut niin, mutta tarkempi lähde voisi olla paikallaan. Tuosta tulee vähän urbaanihuhun vaikutelma.

Mikko Ellilä kirjoitti...

Lähteenä oli todellkin tuon norjalaisen sosiaaliantropologin norjankieliset lausunnot norjalaisessa mediassa.

Norske jenter frister til sex, mener professor Unni Wikan.
Fordi de kler seg slik moten er i denne delen av verden, i
korte skjørt og med bare armer.

http://www.dagbladet.no/tekstarkiv/artikkel.php?id=5001010051402&tag=item&words=Unni%3BWikan

Mikko Ellilä kirjoitti...

http://www.dagbladet.no/tekstarkiv/artikkel.php?id=5001010049111&tag=item&words=Unni%3BWikan

65 % av voldtektsanmeldte er fra ikke-vestlige land

Mener norske jenter frister til sex

Professor Unni Wikan er ikke overrasket over tallene som viser
at 65 prosent av voldtektsanmeldte menn i Oslo i fjor var ikke-vestlige menn. Nå ber hun norske kvinner kle seg mindre dristig.

Mikko Ellilä kirjoitti...

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2001/09/07/279829.html

I går sa Unni Wikan i Dagbladet at norske jenter frister til sex og at menn med annen kulturell bakgrunn kan misforstå signalene. Dette kan være noe av årsaken til at innvandrere er på voldtektstoppen.
Likestillingssenterets forslag betyr at de kan lære å tolke signalene fra norske kvinner riktig.

- God idé. Overgriper har all skyld i en voldtekt, uansett kvinnens klesdrakt og atferd, sier Venstre- og SV-topper. Samtidig raser de mot Unni Wikans utspill om at kvinner må kle seg mindre dristig.

Både eksjustisminister Odd Einar Dørum og SVs kvinnepolitiske leder Inga Marte Thorkildsen støtter tanken om en sexskole for innvandrere.

Bakgrunnen for forslaget er sjokktallene om voldtekter som ble lagt fram onsdag. Politiets statistikk viser nemlig at to av tre voldtektsanmeldte i Oslo i fjor var menn med ikke-vestlig bakgrunn.

- Det må satses både på forebyggende arbeid og informasjonsarbeid overfor mannlige innvandrere. En god idé er å tilby seksualundervisning til nyankomne innvandrere. Arbeidet bør gjøres i samarbeid med for eksempel innvandrerorganisasjonene, sier rådgiver ved Likestillingssenteret, Rachel Paul.

Mikko Ellilä kirjoitti...

http://www.dagbladet.no/nyheter/2001/09/06/279676.html

Mener norske jenter frister til sex

Professor Unni Wikan er ikke overrasket over tallene som viser at 65 prosent av voldtektsanmeldte menn i Oslo i fjor var ikke-vestlige menn. Nå ber hun norske kvinner kle seg mindre dristig.

- Det er oppsiktsvekkende hvor blinde og naive norske kvinner kan være overfor ikke-vestlige menn. Norske kvinner må bruke vett og forstand, sier Wikan til Dagbladet. I går kom sjokktallene som viser at antallet anmeldte voldtekter i Oslo har økt med 40 prosent fra 1999 til 2000.For første gang har politiet sortert gjerningsmennene etter etnisk bakgrunn. Statistikken viser at hele 65 prosent av de voldtektsanmeldte kommer fra ikke-vestlige land.
Invitter
Wikan, som er professor i sosialantropologi, mener norske kvinner må ta sin del av ansvaret for at voldtektene skjer. Hun forklarer de uhyggelige tallene blant annet med den kulturelle konflikten som ofte oppstår mellom norske kvinner og utenlandske menn.

- Tallene overrasker meg ikke i det hele tatt. Mange innvandrere opplever at norske kvinner sender dem signaler om at de ønsker seksuell kontakt. Og da kan det fort gå galt. Mange norske kvinner har altfor dårlig kunnskap om ikke-vestlige menns kvinnesyn, sier Wikan.

- Det er aldri akseptabelt med voldtekt. Men det er forståelig at en del menn fra ikke-vestlige land opplever at de får seksuelle invitter fra norske kvinner som på sin side bare gjør det som er normalt for norske kvinner. Det er oppsiktsvekkende hvor blinde og naive norske kvinner kan være overfor ikke-vestlige menn, sier Wikan.

Hun er klar over at hun kan få kritikk for uttalelsene sine, men mener debatten er viktig.

- Jeg vil ikke legge skylden for voldtektene på de norske kvinnene. Men norske kvinner må innse at vi lever i et flerkulturelt samfunn, og innrette seg deretter.

Advarer
Med mindre de har et ønske om sex, advarer Wikan norske kvinner på det sterkeste mot å invitere med seg hjem for eksempel muslimske menn som vet lite om norsk kultur.

Hun peker også på at voldtektsmenn i de fleste muslimske land knapt blir straffet.

- De fleste steder mener man at det er kvinnen som har skylden for voldtekten. Og det er rimelig at innvandrere tar med seg slike holdninger når de flytter hit til landet, sier professoren, som selv har levd mange år i muslimske land.

mr_Zombie kirjoitti...

Minusta on aika vaarallista kutsua monikulttuurisuutta läpikotaisin huonoksi asiaksi. Se tarkoittaa, että ainoa vaihtoehto olisi monokulttuurisuus eli rasismi, ksenofobia yms. natsihörhöily.

Mikko Ellilä kirjoitti...

Monikulttuurisuuden vastakohta ei ole rasismi, ksenofobia yms. natsihörhöily, aivan kuten Hizbollahia kannattavan "rauhanliikkeen" (ks. http://mikkoellila.thinkertothinker.com/?p=117) vastakohtana ei ole uskominen Israelin raamatulliseen oikeutukseen.

Hizbollah ja fundamentalistijuutalaiset ovat saman kolikon kaksi puolta. Vastaavasti "monikulttuurisuuden" eli Euroopan islamilaiseksi teokratiaksi muuttamisen vastakohta ei ole natsihörhöily, koska natsihörhöily ja islam ovat saman kolikon kaksi puolta.

Monikulttuurisuus eli islam ei mitenkään voi olla rasismin vastakohta, koska monikulttuurisuus on juurikin rasismia.

Ks.
Multiculturalism: The New Racism
http://www.aynrand.org/site/DocServer/newsletter_multiculturalism.pdf?docID=162

mr_Zombie kirjoitti...

Olet väärässä. Kirjoittelin blogiini.

Mikko Ellilä kirjoitti...

Jatkobileet siellä.

Henry kirjoitti...

Miksi fi-lib linkittää Panu Höglundin blogiin? Panu Höglundhan on mitä epäliberaalein henkilö, kuten näkyy esimerkiksi tästä:

http://plaza.fi/ajassa/kolinaa-panuhuoneesta/ryyppaamaan-joka-paiva-sannataan

Mikko Ellilä kirjoitti...

Meillä on linkkejä myös epäliberaaleihin tahoihin, kuten Mordorin linnaan (AKA eduskuntatalo) ja Pohjois-Koreaan. Panu Höglund sopii näiden joukkoon kuin nenä naamaan. Panun jutut ovat sitä paitsi ajoittain tietynlaista kalkkunahuumoria samalla tavalla kuin Klaus von Grewendorpin jutut.

roskaposti kirjoitti...

Päivän kysymys: Miksi Panu Höglund ei sitten ole Mordorin linnan ja Pohjois-Korean kanssa samassa kategoriassa, vaan on laitettu kohtuu liberaalien henkilöiden joukkoon?

Mikko Ellilä kirjoitti...

Panu Höglund on kategorian "suomalaisia blogeja" alakategoriassa "muita kuin libertaareja". Ei ole määritelty, että nämä muut olisivat "kohtuullisen liberaaleja". Vaikka Panu Höglund olisi bolshevikki, hän sopii kategoriaan "ei-libertaareja suomalaisia blogeja".

Mikko Ellilä kirjoitti...

Varsinaisesta aiheesta eli monikulttuurisuudesta:

Jihad and European Multiculturalism

From the desk of James McConalogue on Wed, 2006-08-16 18:56

The jihadists are clearly winning their battle over the British people. In the UK, the Labour government has shown that it is more than willing to jeopardise national security in favour of its oppressive multicultural agenda. Violent Muslims ? a hotchpotch of infantile soul-searching converts, theocratic barbarians and permanently incensed and uneducated nobodies ? who are supposed to be living as British citizens are intending to kill the people they live among. Clearly, the European multicultural project is failing to such a degree that citizens not only possess a visceral hatred of one another but they are now at war with one another.

Western European multicultural programmes, which traditionally structured themselves around a liberal governance of individuals regardless of religion, race, colour and creed, are no longer sustainable for the societies they govern. They are gently becoming the human societies fit for different herds of religious savages, equipped with rights but not responsibilities, provided with authority but no elective legitimacy, administered with intensive social policing without a true realm of private activity, filled with a countless number of illegal and unmeasured migrants far removed from common social mores of both work and leisure. Such societies seemed condemned to tragedies on an apocalyptic scale.

An ongoing trend is the social disaffection brought by the infusion of Muslim immigrants into those European societies. The most disquieting of all those immigration (mis)measures is the pockets of private space given delivered to violent Muslims, or jihadists, unable to withstand opposition to the Islamic doctrine ? and frequently so uneducated as to no longer understand the meaning of their doctrine and how the modern world relates to it ? hoping for the devastation of the society which originally contracted each of them the right to live freely. In the hands of fundamentalist Islam, Western society and all its fruits have become pearl before the swine.

In recent days, counter-terrorist officials undermined a British terror plot by Islamic terrorists to blow up nine transatlantic airlines. The Metropolitan police estimated that the terror plot would have come at the cost of 3,000 lives. Immediate arrests ensued for 24 Muslims living in the Walthamstow, High Wycombe and Birmingham regions. The exposure of these arrests seemed to be related to the detainment of a British man in Pakistan, Rashid Rauf ? but as yet, the exact relationship has not been clarified. MI5 claimed that the suspects were planning to smuggle bombs aboard up to nine airliners to be detonated over the Atlantic or over American cities. It also believes that up to 400,000 people in Britain have sympathies for a violent breed of jihad around the world and as many as 1,200 are actively involved in a terrorist network. The devastation of the current attack would have been unimaginable.

The creed of Islam, supported by its jihadist interpretation, cannot be supported by European multicultural programmes ? perhaps, more to the point, we may have arrived at that point that we must now face that our multicultural programme can no longer afford the Islamic deviancy. Unlike other valuable and rich cultures and religions that integrate successfully, modern Islam seems steadfast in its principles of war and violence. Islam carries with it a powerful political and religious history. This violence, which the editor of The Asian Age, M. J. Akbar, once called the ?Medina Syndrome,? imparts the belief that Islam is under such a significant threat from its enemies that its only response is to be gripped by collective unity, faith, violence and war.

The history of the Islamic project has always been a political project ? the actions of the Prophet Muhammad begin with the battle of Badr and the slaughter of the Quraysh. Jihad is derived from the Arabic, jahd, meaning striving. It does not matter if there is success in jihad since death immediately qualifies one for martyrdom and paradise. As the Prophet warns Muslims ? ?al Jannat-a tahata silal es sayoof? ? ?Know that paradise is under the shade of swords?. If there are doubts as to the success of Islamic violence, the success of jihad ensured the spread of Islam ? from Muhammad?s first conquer of Medina, through to Jerusalem, Damascus, Antioch, Alleppo, Qadisiyya, Madain, Nehawand, Hamadan, the Caspian, Basra, Isfahan, Nishapur, Central Asia, Afghanistan, Sind, the Indus valley, Fustat, Alexandria (Egypt), the Maghreb, Gibraltar, Cordoba, Toledo and Sargossa.

In spite of denials at empire-building, jihad ensures effective empire-builders fixed on the subservience of all to Allah. Jihad is the most effective assurance that the Islamic people die for its cause(s). To note, this is severely at odds with the making of Christian political development, of which, modern liberalism is a legitimized extension. Islam occupies no such place in this development. In striving for a heroic persona and international martyrdom, knowing that paradise is under the guidance of swords, Islam is capable of enforcing a public, political and personal belief in its creed. The future governance of a multicultural Europe, creating domains of private activity justified by rights, cannot withstand such violence and will continue to suffer at the hands of Islam, effectively making the rightful citizens of European states homeless within their own homes.

The Western European polity, its cultural way of life, its historic religious grounding in Christianity, is, without a shadow of a doubt, fundamentally different from that order created under Islam. The treatment of Islam in modern society has been, in spite of many complaints of political correctness, radically different. It might be thought that we could ignore the differences between Christianity, underpinning the Western way of life, and Islam, and instead, concentrate on their similarities. Yet, this is to ignore that there are fundamental differences ? between Islam and Western culture, state, values, and way of life. Moreover, Islam falls into Western Europe already equipped with its own internal model of theocratic governance and the necessary values of its citizens ? if we do not clarify those issues of governance, then the citizens of Islam, going by the name of ?Muslims?, will be in constant confusion over its rightful place in a modern liberal society.

A justification of the liberal order and its inherent personal freedoms cannot afford to be based upon the ignorance of difference or the pretence that the differences can be glossed by dwelling only on similarities simply provides a philosophical façade. Certainly in the UK, the New Labour Third Way philosophy hopes to achieve such a façade through its perverted multicultural programmes but it is obvious that they do not work. There are clear differences between Islam and the West, when we conceive of both concepts as cultural, religious and political entities.

It should be clear to the West that Islam, as a doctrine and practice, is a different religion from Christianity. Islam, when translated from the Arabic, means ?submission?, and should be understood as submission to God. A Muslim is one who surrenders or ?submits? to God. In the West, it is certain that that the requirement of a complete submission to God makes it incredibly difficult for Islam to sit comfortably alongside a model of free expression, requiring discussion through rational belief. For Islam, Allah, or God, delivered his word to Muhammad through the archangel Gabriel between the years 610 and 632. Although there are many prophets for Islam, the true and final prophet is Muhammad. It is set against Christianity and Judaism most deeply because it holds fundamentally different doctrines and practices as important to its faith. For Islam, the only record of written revelation is the Qur?an, not the Bible or Torah (which it holds to have been distorted). The common beliefs of all Muslims are: the belief in the one God, a belief in all the messengers ? the most essential of which is Muhammad ? a belief in the angels and prophets sent by God, a belief in the books delivered by God, a belief in the day of judgement, the resurrection, and fate.

The Christian doctrine of God as the trinity ? the father, son and the holy spirit ? is fundamentally wrong for Islam, since God?s oneness cannot be challenged. On the Muslim view, the trinity represents a kind of polytheistic doctrine in which God is decentred. As such, ?Moslems pride themselves on being the only Unitarians. Christians are Trinitarians.? Beyond religious texts, there are also expectations of Muslims to uphold the practices of Islam: the faith in the oneness of God, prayer for five times a day, giving help to the needy, fasting and also if one is fit and able enough, the pilgrimage to Mecca. Subsequent to the death of the Prophet Muhammad, the early Muslims constituted a set of sacred Islamic laws, which were intended to guide them in their everyday lives. This Islamic law is known as the Shari?a, and for modern Muslims in contemporary societies, its value remains debated. However, regardless of the place of the Qur?anic law and the Hadith within Islamic thought itself, it is Islam ? unlike Christianity ? that is a lay religion with no sacraments, hierarchy of persons or clergy, capable of preaching practical and attainable ideals for the lay person.

Over the ages, the true interpretation of the verses in the Qur?an has often been a source of inconsistency and controversy for Muslim scholars and interpreters in general, since the meaning may have been lost over time, during several periods following the death of the Prophet. This might be seen as a basis for why Rushdie?s Satanic Verses reaches the heart of Islam, which has taken the Qur?an as its one true text but has itself been internally disputed by Muslim scholars, with regards to its purity and authenticity.

It should also be apparent to the West that Islam is also a different political entity from that of Christianity. The Prophet Muhammad, after leaving Mecca as a young despised visionary returned as a military leader to establish Islam in this new religious capital and conquered Mecca in the year 630. He had summoned 10,000 warriors and followers to achieve this power. Two years later, Muhammad had died and the first caliph (leader), abu-Bakr felt assured by the success of heroic and violent conquest that no religion would exist other than Islam. The battle over the rightful caliphate succession to the Prophet Muhammad split Islam in two, reflecting the contemporary divisions between the Sunnis and the Shiites. Islamization began in the little-known Arabia but in the generations after Muhammad?s death, it ended ruling over extensive parts of European soil.

The expansion of the religious ideology in the early conquests was based on economic motives and self-interest, justified under the doctrine of ?holy war? (jihad). Those Christians and Jews utterly dissatisfied with life under the Byzantine tyranny did not take long to convert to Islam. In fact, even from the very early conquests, there was not even a forced conversion, since Christians and Jews still attained the protection of their property, rights and lives as long as they paid tribute to Islam. Scholarship still remains divided over the treatment of Christians and Jews in the historical epochs that followed. In its politics, one could quite easily argue that unlike Christianity, Islam is not willing to recognise the distinction between the sacred and the profane, the spiritual and temporal, and ultimately, between din (religion) and dawla (state). It is clear that the Islamic faith will continue to be bound in enforcing its religious faith through the practices of the state.

It should also be clear to the West that Islam has also been held as a different cultural entity from that of Christianity. Islam has been treated as fundamentally different if one observes the history of Western literature. St. John of Damascus (d. 749) and Theophanes the Confessor (758-818) were amongst the first to depict Muhammad as a false prophet. The bishop of Cordova, Eulogius, was killed by an Islam caliph in 859, following his voluntary martyrdom, and earlier claims that when Muslims were waiting for angels to descend to the Prophet?s dead body, no angels had descended but dogs arrived and ate the corpse. An infamous missionary of medieval Europe, Raymond Lull (1235-1315) had also shouted in the streets of Tunis that Christian law was holy, whilst the Muslim law was false ? he was quickly stoned to death by a mob.

From the fourteenth century through to the nineteenth century, a widely circulated Western myth was that a white pigeon sat on the shoulder of the founder of Islam, and it was mistaken for an angel dictating the word of God (a myth that Shakespeare refers to in Henry VI). Dante (d. 1321) had asserted that the rightful place for Muhammad was in the ninth hell, designed for the makers of schisms. In the seventeenth century, Western scholars of the Arab world understood Islam, on the whole, to be a fraudulent project. The first Arabic professors at Cambridge (Simon Ockley in the eighteenth century) and Oxford (Edward Pocock in the seventeenth century) Universities dispelled some myths of Muhammad and Islam, portraying Arabic texts in the context of the world setting, rather than as purely religious. By the mid-nineteenth century, English and French professors, in addition to German poets and philosophers, had developed a more enlightened, tolerant and careful approach in their treatment of Muhammad, particularly noticeable in Carlyle?s acceptance of Muhammad as a heroic figure. The portrayal of the differences began wild and mythical, but they did not disappear ? the chief reason being that there are fundamental differences between Islam and the Western way of life.

Even though we cannot take Islam to be strictly opposed to Christianity ? since in their historical realities they have often crossed paths ? the modern personal freedoms, entrenched within the territories of former Christendom, appear to stand posed against many Muslim group?s requirement for respect towards the Islamic faith. The differences must be taken seriously, if the continued threat of jihad in Eurabia is to be understood as a genuine plot in the destruction of Western way of life ? I understand that the jihad loyalists offer a genuine position on the West and a reaction to their position ought also to be rational and sincere.