Början på ett mediakrig om mångkulturen?

Partiets symbol är en blåsippa, en blomma som är fridlyst eftersom den annars riskerar att försvinna. Det säger mycket om hur Sverigedemokraterna betraktar svensk kultur. De ser den inte som attraktiv och konkurrenskraftig, utan som bräcklig och svag. För att skydda den vill de bryta ner en essentiell del av den, den politiska kulturen.

I Danmark anses gemenskap komma underifrån. Samhällets stabilitet beror på medborgarnas känsla av samhörighet, och som Birgersson påpekar blir då Dansk Folkeparti såväl som hela debatten mer begriplig. I Sverige anser vi tvärt om att gemenskapen byggs ovanifrån, av staten och institutionerna. Att bli svensk är att ingå i systemet och följa dess lagar. När Sverigedemokraterna försöker omdefiniera detta angriper de en av den svenska politikens kärnvärderingar. Därigenom är de främmande för svensk kultur.

Vissa drag försvinner och andra kommer i stället. Men somliga drag lever kvar med en förbluffande stark kraft.

Ett sådant drag är den svenska konsensuskulturen; att vi helst ska uppträda på samma sätt, göra samma saker och tycka samma sak. Ett folk med den inställningen har svårt för avvikare, vilket gjort att Sverige i dag å ena sidan är världsbäst på att öppna gränser och ta emot flyktingar, men å andra sidan rekorddåligt på att låta dem bli en del av det svenska samhället.

Att Sverige inte gjort klart från första början för nyanlända att vi är ett land med en mycket stark säregen kultur beror givetvis på att de flesta svenskar inte uppfattar att vi har någon typiskt svensk kultur. Vi ser oss själva som moderna, som skakat av oss gamla vanföreställningar. Vad vi inte inser är att det också är en form av kultur, dit konsensuskravet följt med.

Den norske statsvetaren Asle Toje skriver i sin bok Jernburet om de som i Norge är rädda för att stor invandring kommer att leda till att norsk kultur försvinner. Toje är inte rädd för det. Den norska kulturen kommer att leva vidare, även om den givetvis med tiden kommer att förändras, precis som i det svenska exemplet med SOS.

De flesta invandrare kommer med tiden att bli en del av den norska kulturen. Andra kommer att försöka leva i Norge som om de levde i ett annat land eller rent av i en annan tid. Det innebär inget hot mot den norska kulturen. Den måste vårdas av norrmännen, inte av de invandrare som inte vill bli en del av den.

Men de flesta kommer att bli en del av den, eftersom assimilationens kraft är stark. Asle Toje har sannolikt helt rätt när det gäller Norge, eftersom norrmän har en mycket stark nationell stolthet. Och kanske kan samma framtidsperspektiv gälla för Sverige. Men för det krävs att vi inser att vi har en kultur att vara stolta för och rädda om och att den kulturen kan hjälpa integrationen, inte stjälpa den.

Den osolidariska asylpolitiken kommer att få konsekvenser. Och om det i dag är för de flyktingar som inte får en fristad är det i morgon för det Europa som ingått oheliga allianser för att till varje pris undvika att hjälpa människor på flykt.

Den öppenhet som tjänat så många länder väl riskerar de nu – för vadå?

Islam is the perfect religion to give justification for those who feel under attack and to maintain the eternal “victim" fantasy.

If a Muslim does not respond in a threatening way to insults or social irritation, he, not "she" (Muslim women are, mostly, expected to be humble and to not show power) is seen as weak, as someone who cannot be depended upon and loses face.

In the eyes of most Westerners it looks immature and childish when people try to use threatening behavior, to mark their dislikes. A Danish saying goes "…Only small dogs bark. Big dogs do not have to." That saying is deeply rooted in our cultural psychology as a guideline for civilized social behavior. To us, aggressive behavior is a clear sign of weakness. It is a sign of not being in control of oneself and lacking ability to handle a situation. We see peoples’ ability to remain calm as self confidence, allowing them to create a constructive dialogue. Their knowledge of facts, use of common sense and ability in producing valid arguments is seen as a sign of strength.

The Islamic expression of "holy anger" is therefore completely contradictory to any Western understanding. Those two words in the same sentence sound contradictory to us. The terror-threatening and violent reaction of Muslims to the Danish Mohammed cartoons showing their prophet as a man willing to use violence to spread his message, is seen from our Western eyes as ironic. Muslims’ aggressive reaction to a picture showing their prophet as aggressive, completely confirms the truth of the statement made by Kurt Westergaard in his satiric drawing.

This cultural difference is exceedingly important when dealing with Muslim regimes and organizations. Our way of handling political disagreement goes through diplomatic dialogue, and calls on Muslim leaders to use compassion, compromise and common sense. This peaceful approach is seen by Muslims as an expression of weakness and lack of courage. Thus avoiding the risks of a real fight is seen by them as weakness; when experienced in Muslim culture, it is an invitation to exploitation.

But Muslims have something else. They have strict external rules, traditions and laws for human behavior. They have a God that decides their life's course. "Inshallah" follows every statement about future plans; if God wants it to happen. They have powerful Muslim clerics who set the directions for their community every Friday. These clerics dictate political views, child rearing behavior, and how or whether to integrate in Western societies.

The locus of control is central to our understanding of problems and their solutions. If we are raised in a culture where we learn that "…I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul," as William Ernest Henley wrote in his famous poem Invictus in 1875; we will, in case of personal problems, look at ourselves and ask: "…What did I do wrong?" and "…What can I do to change the situation?" People who have been taught throughout their entire lives that outer rules and traditions are more important than individual freedom and self reflection, will ask: "Who did this to me?" and "Who has to do something for me?"

Thus, the locus of control is central to the individual's understanding of freedom and responsibility.'

In societies shaped under Islamic and Qu’ranic influence there may be fewer feelings of guilt and thus, more freedom to demand the surroundings to adapt to one's own wishes and desires. This may include demands to wear Islamic costumes which can result in more Muslim demands for Islamization of our Western societies, but it is also a powerful source of victim mentality and leads to endless demands on one's surroundings.

The standard answer from violent Muslims was always: "…It is his own fault that I beat him up.

I have seen with Muslims, this cultural difference, concerning locus of control. It has been the source of countless failed social and integration projects. Besides the great support from our welfare systems, our state departments offer a variety of entertainment and guidance to criminal Muslim youngsters hoping that the thankfulness and trust that normally appears from such generosity will create a good relationship, respect and willingness to cooperate. But when the program of social events and appointments with patient social workers ends and the demands of mature behavior appear, the "mutual respect" often evaporates.

Young Danes, who showed an interest in Islam, immediately received positive attention from even the non-practicing Muslims. So did the more hardcore Muslims. The power circles always appear around the more devout Muslims, fanatic, and powerful. The most popular among the Muslims were the true Islamists.

Being a Muslim clearly overrules whatever national identity one has.

The tops of the two "towers" of the "U" are where Muslims feel "belonging to the Umma" (the world wide Muslim community), and "belonging to the tribe" (sticking together with other Muslims in the same geographical area). At the bottom of the “U” is national identity. For Westerners it is the opposite, our "U" stands upside down. Our feeling of obligation to the country where we live is stronger than our religion or group.

If integration just consists of learning the language and finding a job, it is not so difficult. But if integration also includes developing mental habits of equally respecting non-Muslims it is simply impossible for most Muslims. They see themselves as special, will always try to live together, create their own Muslim/Islamic parallel societies, feel separated and have less respect towards non-Muslims. True integration doesn’t have to, necessarily, imply religious conversion. However, for Muslims it certainly presupposes cultural conversion. Clearly, very few Muslims have the will, social freedom and strength of personality to go through such a psychologically demanding process.

If you had ever spent time in a Muslim community you experience this very clearly. You would find yourself constantly trying not to offend anyone and you’d treat everybody like a rotten egg. Jokes, irony and, especially, self-irony is as good as non-existent. It creates a superficial social environment where unhealthy hierarchies appear everywhere because nobody dares to, for instance, point out the weaknesses of childish men and make fun of the powerful.

This survey clearly showed that while there is widespread hope for a peaceful outcome between the tensions of Islam and the West, people are seemingly very pessimistic.

Things are not going in the direction of peace.

Draconian measures may have to include shutting down Muslim immigration; demanding reform of Islamic organizations and leaders in the West; tightening the thumb screws on integration; becoming less dependent on oil in the Middle East; providing incentives to extremely overpopulated, impoverished countries to have less children; creating an alternative to the UN exclusively for democratic countries; cutting the EU's ability to force European countries to receive more Muslim immigrants and refugees; and perhaps even sending Muslims who proved themselves unable to adjust to our Western secular laws back to their countries of origin.

Such drastic measures are probably necessary. However, our politicians have decided to give the "long leash" first, then slowly and with much hesitation, to shorten it as things get worse and worse. With such politicians the Islamists can lean back and enjoy the show. The destruction of the "perverted," free, non-Islamic West will happen by itself.

Since the Muslim world is already here – in thousands of Muslim ghettoes in Europe, Australia and North America – the possibility that violent conflict will happen in Western cities all over the world is very great.

We need to understand the Muslim culture much better if we want to be able to stop such a catastrophe. We need to understand that it is not possible to integrate masses of Muslims into our Western societies. We need to understand that our non-confrontational Western ways of handling conflicts make us look weak and vulnerable to Muslim leaders.

We need to understand that Muslims will only feel at home in a Muslim culture and this is why their religious demands for Islamization of the West will never end.

All Western European countries have such “no go” areas where policemen and authorities are met with threats and flying stones upon entering; all while Islamic authorities such as Imams and homegrown Sharia courts freely rule these “no go” areas, creating Muslim ghettoes.

Unga män och kvinnor som funderar på att döda för sin Gud ska inte förminskas till marginaliserade individer som lider av brist på integration, utan bemötas kraftfullt och deras idéer måste fördömas i skolor, tidningar och av centrala politiker.

Än en gång demonstreras hur skrämmande sårbara öppna samhällen är mot terror.
/... /
Jag skrev efter Charlie Hebdo att terrorn på allvar kommit till Europa och att vi kommer att få vänja oss vid den här typen av attacker. Tyvärr har jag i dag blivit sannspådd ännu en gång.
/... /
Det har sagts förut men förtjänar att påpekas igen; Det är oerhört svårt att skydda sig mot den här typen av terror som angriper mjuka mål. Människor i folksamlingar som njuter av en fredagkväll ute på stan. Sitter på krogen, går på teater och andra aktiviteter där människor normalt känner sig helt trygga.

Så länge vi inte alla ska bära skottsäkra västar eller låsa in oss bakom säkerhetsdörrar så är det omöjligt att försvara sig mot individer som är beredda att urskiljningslöst skjuta ner oskyldiga människor med automatvapen.