Robert Spencer interviews Nicolai Sennels: “Muslims are taught to be aggressive, insecure, irresponsible and intolerant”

By on Apr 2, 2012 at 8:22am in Uncategorized with 62 Comments

Nicolai Sennels regularly contributes to Jihad Watch, with articles on psychology and translations of Scandinavian and German news. To help you get to know Sennels better, we decided to do an interview.

Nicolai Sennels (born 1976) is a Danish psychologist. His first appearances in the Danish media concerned his unorthodox therapy methods that he developed as the only psychologist at Sønderbro, the youth prison (see here, here, here, here and here). He taught the young prisoners about mindfulness meditation and developed a special program on anger management. Sennels also developed a psychotherapeutic method that focused on teaching criminals with a low understanding of emotions and empathy how to take responsibility for their own behavior. In 2008, the prisoners of Sønderbro voted the facility as the best prison in Denmark. The leader of Social Services in the Copenhagen municipality concluded that this was due to the work of Nicolai Sennels (Amagerbladet, November 3, 2008).

At a conference on immigrant crime in 2008, arranged by the Copenhagen municipality, Sennels said that one should not use the term “criminal immigrants,” but “criminal Muslims,” since the majority of criminal immigrants have Muslim backgrounds. Seven out of ten inmates in the Danish youth prisons have immigrant backgrounds, and almost all of them are Muslims. Sennels was threatened that if he were to discuss his experiences, he would risk losing his job. This story developed into a national debate on the freedom of speech and became a widely discussed topic in the Danish media (please see here and here), and the Minister of Integration joined the discussion.

Sennels decided to publish a book on his experiences, Among Criminal Muslims. A Psychologist’s Experiences from the Copenhagen Municipality, which was well received in both the official Psychologists Union’s magazine and the newspapers. He found himself a new appointment at the Danish Ministry of Defense, and now once again he works as a psychologist for children and teenagers.

Sennels consulted on the case against Omar Khadr, a convicted terrorist serving in Guantanamo. He also contributed a chapter to the Dutch book Islam: Critical Essays on a Political Religion, along with Raymond Ibrahim, Hans Jansen, Michael Mannheimer, Ibn Warraq, Bat Ye”or and other renowned critics of Islam and Muslim immigration.

Spencer: Nicolai, people know you mainly for your articles on the psychological differences between Muslims and Westerners (please see here and here). You have also contributed your professional insights in the case against the Guantanamo prisoner Omar Khadr. You wrote several articles, as well as a book on your conclusions. Could you give us a brief account of your findings?

Sennels: There are many differences between people brought up as Muslims and those who are brought up as Westerners. I identified four main differences that are important in order to understand the behavior of Muslims. They concern anger, self-confidence, the so-called “locus of control” and identity.

Westerners are brought up to think of anger as a sign of weakness, powerlessness and lack of self-control. “Big dogs don’t have to bark,” as we say in Denmark. In Muslim culture, anger is seen as a sign of strength. To Muslims, being aggressive is in itself an argument and a way of gaining respect. But we should not be impressed when we see pictures of bearded men hopping up and down, shouting like animals and shooting in the air. We should take it for what it is: the local madhouse passing by.

In Western culture, self-confidence is connected with the ability to meet criticism calmly and to respond rationally. We are raised to see people who easily get angry when criticized, as insecure and immature. In Muslim culture it is the opposite; it is honorable to respond aggressively and to engage in a physical fight in order to scare or force critics to withdraw, even if this results in a prison sentence or even death. They see non-aggressive responses to such threats and violence as a sign of a vulnerability that is to be exploited. They do not interpret a peaceful response as an invitation to enter into a dialogue, diplomacy, intellectual debate, compromise or peaceful coexistence.

“Locus of control” is a term used in psychology, and relates to the way in which people feel that their lives are controlled. In Western culture, we are brought up to have an “inner locus of control,” meaning that we see our own inner emotions, reactions, decisions and views as the main deciding factor in our lives. There may be outer circumstances that influence our situation, but in the end, it is our own perception of a situation and the way we handle it that decides our future and our state of mind. The “inner locus of control” leads to increased self-responsibility and motivates people to become able to solve their own problems. Muslims are brought up to have an “outer locus of control.” Their constant use of the term inshallah (“Allah willing”) when talking about the future, as well as the fact that most aspects of their lives are decided by outer traditions and authorities, leaves very little space for individual freedom. Independent initiatives are often severely punished. This shapes their way of thinking, and means that when things go wrong, it is always the fault of others or the situation. Unfortunately, many Westerners go overboard with their self-responsibility and start to take responsibility for others’ behavior as well. The mix of many Westerners being overly forgiving, their flexible attitude, and Muslim self-pity and blame is the psychological crowbar that has opened the West to Islamization. Our overly protective welfare system shields immigrants from noticing the consequences of their own misbehavior and thereby learning from their mistakes and motivating them to improve.

Finally, identity plays a big role when it comes to psychological differences between Muslims and Westerners. Westerners are taught to be open and tolerant toward other cultures, races, religions, etc. This makes us less critical, impairs our ability to discriminate, and makes our societies open to the influence of other cultural trends and values that may not always be constructive. Muslims, on the other hand, are taught again and again that they are superior, and that all others are so bad that Allah will throw them in hell when they die. While most Westerners find national and cultural pride embarrassing, Muslim culture’s self-glorification, massive use of inbreeding, the rule that only Muslims can marry Muslims and their all-pervading social control function as self-protecting mechanisms on the levels of culture and identity.

In general, Westerners are taught to be kind, self-assured, self-responsible and tolerant, while Muslims are taught to be aggressive, insecure, irresponsible and intolerant.

Spencer: That reminds me of my interactions with the likes of Reza Aslan, Salam al-Marayati, Moustafa Zayed, Ahmed Rehab, Mohamed Elibiary, Ahmed Afzaal, Omid Safi, Ibrahim Hooper, Caner K. Dagli, Haroon S. Moghul, Nadir Ahmed, and so many others. Can you give a psychological explanation as to why so few Muslims integrate into our societies?

Sennels: Integration is dependent on motivation, freedom and intelligence. In other words, immigrants have to want to integrate, be allowed to by their family and friends, and mentally have to be able to do this.

People coming from cultures that are aimed mainly at physical survival, and in which religious practice and adherence to cultural traditions give more social status than having a good education and being self-supporting, usually are not very productive if they can live on the state. If on top of that, they can live in closed communities among others with the same culture and language, there is very little reason for them to get involved in our society. The only solution is to make the lack of integration so unpractical and economically non-beneficial that the only attractive choice is to receive our offer of state-sponsored repatriation.

As history and Muslim societies have show us time and time again, there is no need for more bloody examples before the majority does as expected. Muslim societies only have to kill, rape, incarcerate, kidnap and beat a few, before the rest “voluntarily” prefer Sharia to integration.

Thirdly, handling intellectually demanding jobs in our high-tech societies, is not easy for people brought up to believe that the Qur’an and Hadith, not school and science, has the answers. Being brought up in a Muslim family also makes it difficult to adapt to Western social conduct at workplaces, including contact between the sexes and emotional control. The fact that almost half of all Muslims are inbred, often many generations in a row, also does not increase cognitive abilities. In most cases, our workplaces demand that the employees are able to take initiative and be creative and self-responsible, which are all human qualities that are not welcomed among people who are first of all expected to blindly submit and who live in surroundings that punish independent thinking and behavior, sometimes even with death.

Spencer: As a psychologist, what is your explanation as to why Muslims oppress women?

Sennels: I see two psychological explanations for the oppression of women in Islam.

John Adams, the USA’s 2nd president, said that he studied warfare so that his children could study agriculture and their children could study art. Abraham Maslow formulated a similar idea, the “hierarchy of needs,” which shows how we aim toward a state of full development, possessing complete inner and outer freedoms, spontaneous playful creativity and love for all.

While Adams’s and Maslow’s views describe the goals and aims of our Western society beautifully as the full development of an individual”s potential, they do not apply to Islam or Muslim tradition. The aim of Islam and Muslims is dominance, not self-realization. Islam and Muslim culture is an aggressive movement, and giving space to female qualities such as sensitivity and empathy would be a hindrance, since it would allow for less aggressive human tendencies to emerge. Diplomacy, compromise, tolerance, democracy, compassion, sensitivity and empathy have to be locked away both on an internal and external level. On the outside, the oppression of women limits their influence, and their aversion against femininity in the outer world helps Muslims to also repress it inside themselves on the psychological level. Oppression of women is thus a psychological method of hardening a culture on the outside and people on the inside.

The other reason why Muslims oppress women and female sexuality, is the fact that women are simply stronger when it comes to sex. And it does not work for omnipotent, jealous and insecure Muslim macho-men that they in the most naked and vulnerable situation of all are the weaker party. Muslim men compensate this by oppressing their women and locking them up in apartments and ugly clumsy garments. The more embarrassing it is for the man that the woman is stronger in this essential aspect of life, the more he must dominate her in daily life. I had contact with two prostitutes who both said that Arab men did not last very long in bed. In many Muslim societies, a women’s ability to enjoy sex is simply destroyed by a knife or a piece of glass. The jealous fantasy of the man not being able to satisfy his lustful wife, who therefore looks down on him and may even go to other men to gain satisfaction, is an ongoing source of torment for the wanna-be almighty Muslim man.

True love can only exist on the basis of respect and equality. Muslim societies are therefore full of men and women who never experienced true, satisfying and giving love. The emotional and sexual frustration that results from the inequality of the sexes and being forced to marry a partner that one does not love surely contribute to the aggression and emotional immaturity that Muslims display whenever they are numerous enough to feel that such behavior is acceptable. As one said, “forced marriage is the earthquake and what follows is a tsunami of domestic abuse, sexual abuse, child protection issues, suicide and murder.”

Spencer: Why do you think that Muslims living in the West are statistically more criminal and violent than others?

Sennels: Well, there are several reasons. Firstly, the Islamic scriptures teach them that attacking and robbing non-Muslims is completely okay. Muslim culture’s degrading view of non-Muslims functions in the same way as war propaganda. By hearing again and again how evil, disgusting and unworthy the enemy is, empathy is removed, aggression is strengthened, and the step towards harming the perceived enemy becomes smaller. The Qur’an and the Hadith are criminal books that allow and even force people to undertake criminal acts.

The psychological differences that I mentioned before also play a role when it comes to the high crime rate among Muslims. Our diplomatic and tolerant attitude is simply perceived as weakness and exploitable vulnerability. We may not like it, but we Westerners must abandon our peaceful, dialogue seeking and politically correct ways if we hope to communicate with Muslim society. Otherwise, they will think we are too scared to risk a conflict. They simply do not respect to or understand our preferred ways of communicating.

Finally, most Muslims are unable to earn real respect from us. Their immature behavior, their lack of contribution to the community and their lack of success makes them look like real losers in the eyes of civilized modern people. And it is not easy to belong to Allah’s chosen people, who are supposedly better than the rest of the lot, when in fact they come in last every time. So, because of the lack of well-earned respect, and because of not being able to discriminate between the two, they try to be feared instead. It is Muslims, not Westerners, who invented the word Islamophobia. They want us to be afraid. But we are not. We feel sick of all their parasitism, violent behavior and mistreatment of their women. We have Islamonausea.

Spencer: Is there a psychological explanation as to why political correctness is still so widespread, in spite of the obvious evidence that Islam is an aggressive ideology and Muslim immigration is eroding our societies and destroying our economy?

Sennels: Yes, there is. As I already mentioned, we Westerners are brought up to think that tolerance and openness are positive human qualities. For a long time, we did not have to be aware that such qualities are only a strength as long as nobody wants to harm us. In our meeting with Islam and Muslim immigration, our biggest strength — our willingness to be open towards the new, that made us so curious and inventive and therefore knowledgeable and rich — has become our worst enemy.

In my article “Psychological explanations of Political Correctness,” I go through the most important social psychological explanations on irrational herd behavior. The most important are the bystander effect and pluralistic ignorance.

The bystander effect is when a person uses another reaction to assess a situation. If others do not react, it is interpreted as a sign that the situation is not serious and that there is no need to act. That is why we need more people to act, and in good style.

Pluralistic ignorance appears when people know that there is a problembut feel that it would be embarrassing to point it out. Leftists screaming “racist,” the general view that it is impolite to point out obvious weaknesses in others and our culture’s definition of good people as being open and tolerant, makes many people keep their mouths shut and even doubt their own sense and senses. When a majority of people, as a result of insecurity and wanting to be a “good person,” do not speak their mind, the result is pluralistic ignorance. The famous Danish fairytale about the Emperor’s New Clothes is an excellent example.

In the end, it comes down to cowardliness and wanting to be a good person in the eyes of others. Compassion for 700 million women who cannot chose their own sexual partners, clothing or lifestyle, as well as an openly declared war on our values and countries, the quick decay of our big cities into Sharia colonies, and the destruction of our economy as a result of Muslim immigration apparently do not count.

Spencer: Besides writing about psychology, you also write and translate articles on Muslim criminals, politics etc. Are you just a critic of Islam who happens to be a psychologist?

Sennels: No, I am a psychologist who through his work with Muslims became aware of how big a mistake it is to allow Muslim immigration and the spread of Islam in our societies. Together with overpopulation, which should be taken care of by using the enormous amounts of foreign aid to pay people who have less money, this problem is the most dangerous threat to world peace today. It has now been several decades since we passed the stage at which the problem could be solved without blood, sweat and tears.

I have dedicated my life to making people aware of the danger that is already gnawing off big chunks of our cities, economy and freedom.

The most embarrassing thing I can imagine is that the only place in this universe with intelligent life will end as a planet-sized khalifat floating around in space. Just like the bad guys in The Lord of the Rings, Star Wars and other archetypal stories of good and evil, Islam does not strive for freedom, happiness and love. Islam strives for the submission of Muslims to Allah and of non-Muslims to Muslims — a dark, cold and humorless world where men are forced to mistreat their women and everybody is a slave to a god whose only wish is the enforcement of Sharia down to the very last comma. They do what they can to reach their final solution, and we must do what we can to prevent it from happening.

Spencer: You have several years of experience in writing and debating on Islam. You have participated in intellectual debates on Danish national TV and national radio about Islam and Muslim immigration. Many people are critical of Sharia and immigration, but do know dare to speak out — or they are not sure how to express their views. Do you have any advice to people who feel like that?

Sennels: If we have compassion, people will feel it. Criticizing Islam is like shooting fish in a barrel, but we are not intellectual sadists. We are worried about the freedom of our women and the future of our children, and about our constitutions. And we know that the first and in many cases also the biggest victims of Islam are Muslims. We do not even have to use words like Islam or Muslims. We can just say that religions that oppress women and start holy wars make us sick. If you know that you are right, you do not have to be nervous or ashamed of yourself. Know that our politicians and media aim for the soft middle in society in order to be reelected and to sell newspapers and ads, and it is therefore up to ordinary people to protect our values, society and constitution.

Inform yourself and spread what you find out via email, social media, blogs and letters to the editor and to our politicians and journalists. When among others, the most important thing is that you do not force your view upon them and are happy and relaxed when you express your opinions. Only share your knowledge and your feelings when it feels natural — wait until others mention the topic and use only a few words unless people really ask you several times what you think. If you are good, you can even use humor.

And do not fear to lose a few politically correct friends on the way. They will thank you in the end.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInPinterestBookmark/FavoritesPrintFriendlyEmailShare

There Are 62 Comments

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. TS says:

    If you’ve ever lived near Muslims who have children you can see this, at least with the sons. They are let to run wild in the neighborhood with no parenting in sight. Even if they damage other’s property, the parents do not punish them. They let their boy children do what they will (unless it’s ‘against Islam’) w/o punishment, especially bullying. The parents do not care if their kids bully, and do nothing to stop it. (maybe they look at it as a good thing their sons are doing?)

    A friend of mine who converted to marry a man from Jordan was so strict with her daughter, eventually prisoning her in the house, but let her son run destructive in their house and in the neighborhood. So, no wonder they grow up to be like they are.

  2. Toro says:

    Someone recently asked me why we cannot win over those islamists that come to our shores and with their own eyes see first hand how a secular society works. The following was my answer to him.

    “The very essence of Western culture is founded on the ability of the individual to affect his future and to have a direct impact on his own well being. The West’s mythology is based on the lone frontiersman making his way in the wilderness, working hard and achieving success. The concept here prevails that anyone with a little bit of effort can carve a good and successful life out for himself. The understanding that one has responsibility for his own efforts and his own success is ingrained in the way we think. Think of Clint Eastwood or John Wayne as the tall silent type that is slow to anger, considers his actions before hand and only gets angry when pushed to the limit. We see strength in the strong silent type; one who does not scream with the mob but stands on his own two feet.

    Combined with this fierce independence is the belief that one should not impose ones beliefs on others that what one holds dear by way of religion is a personal code that everyone is entitled to.

    The West encourages its children to question authority to think for themselves, to express their individuality and grow and learn, to tolerate this “code” above and to abide by the golden rule. Western parents will generally (as in all things) keep tight reins on their children when they are young and will loosen those reins as the children mature and obtain more wisdom and ability to handle the freedom.

    Now let’s look at islam. In islam everything is preordained. In effect nothing happens without it being the will of allah and every phrase uttered is followed by the phrase “allah willing”. What this evidences is that there is no self-determination. If I am rich, it is because allah willed it, if I am poor then so be it. The net result of this is that I have no culpability for my behavior. Therefore if something bad happens, I am not at fault and it must be because of the actions of others. The others are Christians and Jews or as the koran states “Apes and Pigs”. The Koran which Geert Wilders has described correctly as a piece of hate literature, blames everyone else for all that is evil in the world and holds only muslims in esteem – everyone else is an Infidel. The koran requires rejection of the Golden Rule (it is after all Christian nonsense) and believes at its heart that there is no need to accommodate others as islam is the “ONLY” religion. Everything is always the infidel’s fault and other religions need to be crushed. There is simply NO self reflection in islam – it does not happen! Only islam commands respect and it gives absolutely none to anyone or anything else. The fundamental declaration of human rights as proposed by the United Nations has not found support in one muslim country on the planet because it flies in the face of this belief.

    Now take a look at how children are treated in the Middle East. We have all seen pictures of the little kids marching around in soldier’s uniforms brandishing weapons and reciting the koran. The lessons they learn at a very early stage indoctrinate them into this belief system. Kids as young as three or four are memorizing the koran and reciting it by heart (even though it is written in Arabic and they don’t understand what it says). Education consists entirely or principally of learning the koran and accepting it as the immutable word of allah- beyond question, beyond doubt, beyond criticism All other forms of education are diminished by the misogynistic teachings of a lunatic that lived in the seventh century. Boys in muslim communities are at a very early age taught that they are superior to the infidel (and their own mothers and sisters) and given free rein to behave as they wish. Any public school teacher in Brampton Ontario could tell you very clearly that this is the case. As they get older though the community starts to put more pressure on them to conform with the mantras of islam and the pressure starts to build as the mosques further delineate the superiority of the muslim to the infidel. Girls well they are chattel and will do as they are told.

    Now recognize that self reflection is not a part of the islamic makeup and you begin to understand why mob violence is so prevalent. To an islamist someone that does not stand and scream at every offence and gather in mobs and yell clearly is clearly weak of faith. The tall silent type that we respect is considered a weakling. Any concession the West gives to islam is treated as a lack of faith in our own system and clear evidence that islam is superior. Every concession demands more and we now see a political movement to make even mild criticism of islam illegal.

    Not everyone is raised in the middle east you say – Well the pressure at a tribal or community level is HUGE and even those that might be considered “moderate” dare not oppose the teachings because to even question the koran is to risk being labeled an apostate and be subject to execution. We are talking about islam here not individual muslim and yes I believe that not all muslims are bad people or out to destroy our western secular democracy however if I may quote.

    “We are told again and again that Islam is the “religion of peace” and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant. It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

    The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder, or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque. It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers”

    With this background, the unwillingness of islamists in the West to assimilate or even tolerate a secular democracy, is it any wonder that second and third generation North American muslims are susceptible to terrorism – Where is the internal moral code to prevent that from happening? No, islamists are here as settlers not as immigrants they have stated time and time again that they want the west to adopt sharia and it is their goal to make the entire world into the same kind of islamic cesspool they all left behind – we will find NO allies in second third fourth or fifth generation North American muslims and unless something is done now we face a coming dark ages.

    So there you have it islam is a an all encompassing misogynistic political system that in reality is a cult disguised as a religion – it brooks No tolerance and demands and commands its followers to rule by the sword.

    “islamophobia is a word that liberals and leftists love to use to encompass anyone that dares criticize this man made belief system – I however am scared to death of islamofacism and absolutely defend our right to point this out to a world locked in disbelief and stupidity.

    We should NOT tolerate that which is intolerable – that is not racism it is common sense!!

  3. traeh says:

    Great interview.

  4. StephenDvd says:

    Very insightful! My respect for Mr. Sennels just went up significantly.

    Thanks for posting this interview!

  5. Jamadagnii says:

    Yes, I have been feeling Islamonauseated lately. What’s the cure? Humor? Anyone know any good Muslim jokes?

    Fantastic interview and insights. thx.

  6. Nicolai & Robert, fantastic interview! I didn’t realize that Nicolai was a psychologist – this is one of the best psycho-analysis of islam that I’ve ever read.

    Nicolai’s observations about the agression of Muslims is spot-on! As he notes, they have zero introspection skills, which is why the calls of otherwise intelligent people on them to be more self-critical is totally off the mark – It’s like wondering why a triangular wheel would not roll.

    On the question of why Muslims don’t integrate, the answer is simple – values! Even though other populations, such as Japanese, Koreans, Indians, Chinese, Filipinos, Latin Americans and others may differ in major ways from Western populations, at the end of the day, their values – of being positive contributors to society – is what enables them to integrate well. Those in those groups who are not interested in that usually don’t immigrate in the first place – they remain in their countries and live by those norms.

    With Muslims, given their parasitic nature – of being recipients of the jizia that is divinely owed to them, as per their texts (I refuse to call that scripture), those very values are different. And I’d argue that it’s not just difficult, but in fact impossible for people w/ conflicting values to integrate. At a personal level, it shows itself in most divorces, and at a societal level, it shows itself when two groups of people w/ conflicting values are made to co-exist. At worst, one would see a bloodbath like Rwanda, and at similar levels, one sees the civil strife in most Muslim countries, where even though the majority of a population is Muslim, every other difference there is within the local ummah kicks into action.

    I also thought Nicolai did a brilliant analysis on the push-pull effects of PC on the part of non-Muslims on one hand, and supremacy on the part of Muslims on the other. I haven’t seen a better analysis that explains the behavior of all parties to this.

    From the interview

    I had contact with two prostitutes who both said that Arab men did not last very long in bed.

    For a population that doesn’t believe that rape is wrong, this one is really ironic!

    All in all, I think Sennels is currently the best commentator we’ve had in JW since Hugh – no offense to the others, all of whose work I admire.

  7. In a just, academic world and one with responsible mainstream media, one which was focused on justice, equality, tolerance and, overall, intellectual honesty, Nicolai Sennels (and Robert Spencer, for that matter), would be among the most important writers of the age. The books and articles would be required reading, and the self-evident truths would be implemented as the basis for wise and prudent public policy. But in the unjust world spawned by a strange perversion of noble, classical liberal ideals, Saudi oil money academic endowments, and shadowy billionaires trying to manipulate public discourse and politics on the highest level, this is not the case.

    The term “progressive” has come to mean repression of truth and silencing critics who demand we speak honestly and openly about all things. A “progressive” in today’s bizzaro world climate is no longer somebody who works towards equality and justice and human rights for all. They used to be, before they embraced the advance of Islamic supremacism — and have remained willfully and purposely ignorant of what they help promote. At this moment in time, most “progressives” are “useful idiots” (as Lenin would have called them).

    It is only because we live in the internet age that the good man has a chance to defeat the evil man. One can only wonder where we would be without an internet — where people have access to the facts and explore uncomfortable reality and speak out against the smothering and squashing of inconvenient truths. Bravo, Nicolai Sennels!

  8. johnmatt says:

    Terrific, Robert. Thanks.

    Not just reading the relevant Islamic doctrine, but understanding the psychology of muslims, is key to defeating Islam.

    Jamie Glazov’s Book ‘United in Hate’ has a great psychological profile of muslims in it.

  9. eliasX says:

    Quote:

    “we Westerners are brought up to think that tolerance and openness are positive human qualities. For a long time, we did not have to be aware that such qualities are only a strength as long as nobody wants to harm us.”

    Comment:

    I think the point is that people can assume that people everywhere are fundamentally the “same,” our ways of being are “shared,” and that cultural and other differences are superficial and/or insignificant. Projecting one’s own cultural assumptions and worldview onto people who don’t share them is an example of this.

    “Political correctness” magnifies this tendency and even suggests one should accept or “tolerate” values and behaviors that are the antithesis of one’s own; e.g., Muslim treatment of women, inequality, polygamy, honor killings, totalitarianism, theocracy, etc.

    “Understanding” cultural differences is a form of awareness, however, and does not mean, as the PC community would have us believe, that one needs to accept, turn a blind eye, or passively yield to such differences, particularly when the Muslim “other” in question threatens our way of life, our fundamental right to life, and our property out of motivation and inspiration from a pre-modern ideological fiction or religious fantasy.

  10. j_not_a says:

    “We do not even have to use words like Islam or Muslims. We can just say that religions that oppress women and start holy wars make us sick”

    WTH?????

    I was appreciating many good points up until this point. The quotation above is just plain stupid and insulting. Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism TODAY is not starting the holy wars and oppressing women – it IS MUSLIMS. So yes WE ABSOLUTELY DO have to use words like islam and muslim.

    Sennel need to keep his obvious atheism and disdain for genuine religious beleifs, whose adherents are trying to do the right thing in their lives and for others, to himself.

    Statements like this do not enhance his credibility one bit.

  11. eliasX says:

    Nicolai,

    Regarding “pluralistic ignorance,” it seems to me there is a political dimension. The European “political class” has made the decisions that resulted in the influx of hostile immigrant communities of Muslims, and it is that class that frames the public discussion on Islam, immigration, “tolerance,” “multiculturalism,” etc.

    More to the point, you know that it is “unacceptable” to express views that contradict or criticize the policies or consequences of those policies of the “political class” (and I include the media in this group) on these issues.

    “Pluralistic ignorance” could also encompass the assumption that if the “political class” made these decisions, then “they know better” and everything must be okay or “they will take care of us.” [Your comment in the earlier piece on Muslim demographics about Barroso suggests that's a false assumption or misplaced trust in officialdom par excellence.]

  12. Buraq says:

    Wonderful interview! Enlightening!

    However, I must say I laughed out loud when I read: ‘The fact that almost half of all Muslims are inbred, often many generations in a row, also does not increase cognitive abilities.’

    I would’ve been tempted to say, ‘The fact that almost half of all Muslims are inbred, often many generations in a row, means they are as thick as two short planks.’

    More please!

  13. An excellent and insightful interview.

  14. SamIAm says:

    A great interview…

    “Sennels was threatened that if he were to discuss his experiences, he would risk losing his job.”

    political correctness is a form of dishonesty. We should tell it like it is. It is those who threaten his job who are being dishonest by suppressing the truth. The cost of this dishonesty that will cost them dearly.

    “Unfortunately, many Westerners go overboard with their self-responsibility and start to take responsibility for others’ behavior as well. ”

    i’m sure this is the case, however i also believe that we also it is more likely that westerners make the mistake of assuming that self-control is universal and liberally apply this principal, mistakenly believing that others subscribe to it also.

    “The only solution is to make the lack of integration so unpractical and economically non-beneficial that the only attractive choice is to receive our offer of state-sponsored repatriation.”

    I agree and believe that the solution may be found in using Muslim immigration tactics against them. In the west we are masters of the economy. Use the economy against them and make it too expensive not to integrate and they will be forced to live elsewhere.

    Thanks!

  15. blinker says:

    As I began to have more and more day to day encounters with male Muslim immigrants, mostly as storekeeprs, cab drivers etc, I noticed that they usually have a harsh edge to their speaking syle. At first I was a little put off by it, but then it occurred to me that there was nothing personal, it is just their normal way of communicating. Rarely have I encountered a Muslim male with a sunny disposition. By the way, love that word “Islamonausea” hope it catches on.

  16. “The only solution is to make the lack of integration so unpractical and economically non-beneficial that the only attractive choice is to receive our offer of state-sponsored repatriation.”–Sennels

    I fear that even if such measures were taken, Muslims in financial need in the west could get support from wealthy Muslims such as those in Saudi Arabia and other Arab oil countries.

    Repatriation of Muslims, or at least of those who fail to integrate, is one possibility. If we do that, there would also have to be a policy of ending immigration of Muslims, otherwise, as we already have seen in some cases, Muslims will take the payment when they leave, but then return to the Western country later. Thus the door must be slammed shut on Muslim immigration until our societies have some years, or decades, to recover from the damage that has already taken place.

    I am wary about integrating Muslims. Even if there was a moderation of Islam among Muslims in the West–which isn’t likely due to Islam’s recalcitrance–Islam also shows recidivist tendencies, as the world-wide revival of Islam, sharia, and jihad over the past approximately four decades has shown. If Muslim attain majorities in several major western countries several decades from now, whether they seem integrated or not, they will by then vote for sharia rule.

    Due to Muslims’ inability or unwillingness to reform Islam, and due to the growing Muslim population in the West (while the native Westerners are declining in population), the future prospects to me look quite bleak. We are heading for Muslim majorities, perhaps by mid-century in many cases, and that means Muslims will vote for sharia rule, as they always have done so when given the chance to do so freely. It seems to me the only solution is to, one way or another, get most Muslims (i.e., those who support sharia) out of the West. Yet at the same time, I realize that suggesting this is like suggesting we should wave a magic wand. This isn’t something the majority of Westerners and the politicians are going to accept.

    Just as the influx of Muslims into Europe and Canada has been one of the largest population changes in human history, getting the Muslims out will also have to be one of the largest expulsions ever seen. I have a hard time imagining that Westerners will ever agree to do this. And even if some European countries did reach the point where they agreed to expel most (or all) Muslims, I can also envision the U.S. stepping in to stop that from happening (as in the Balkans in the 1990s).

    To me the choice is clear: We either remove massive numbers of Muslims from the west–hopefully sooner rather than later–or we get used to the idea of living under sharia rule by the middle to later stages of this century, and get used to the hell Muslims are going to put us through while their population grows in the meantime.

    As bleak as the situation is, we of course must continue to press our case, continue to oppose Islamization.

  17. j_not_a says:

    LL – That sentence about muzlums being victims of izlum did not escape my notice. I think most people have just about had it “helping” muzlums. Yes I think we are all “helped out”.

    Billions upon billions for tsumani, flood, famine, disease etc. etc. relief given to them without requiring any effort by them to use this to better themselves. Most of Africa is a complete basket case, probably worse now than immediately post-colonialism. I think they were probably better off then than now. It is hard to think of how low they can stoop to take advantage of us and be so ungrateful, treacherous even.

    And then to take those billions, which would have been much better spent helping the genuinely deserving in our own communities and countries, they take this money to buy weapons and fund warfare, drug and demographic jihad AGAINST THE VERY ONES who “helped” them. If this doesn’t scream “insanity” on the west’s part, I don’t know what does.

    Most westerners, scrambling all over themselves to desperately prove how morally superior they are, have taken “tolerance” and “diversitÿ” to absurd lengths, and are so open-minded that their brains have fallen out.

    They’ve had more than enought time and money to better themselves but their situation continues to deteriorate. It must be the will of ala. I hope western technology continues rapidly so that when we don’t need their oil anymore and they can go drink it.

    Trying to point of the dangers of izlumic appeasement falls on their deaf ears because they are too afraid to face the truth – that their busy but comfy lives are in grave danger to to the growing threat of izlum. By “helping” and “understanding” these savages, we are “loving” and “helping” ourselves to death.

    I’m not saying all humanitarian aid is bad, but let’s face it: we have so many of our own problems right here at home: abused kids and women, chronically unemployed or underemployed have to resort to food banks) elderly, serious chronically ill or disabled, homelessness (housing costs are sky high here in Toronto) we should be helping our own, not tossing it away to unthankful, bottomless pits called muzlums.

    Just today in the National Post, yet another article about how we (Canadians) should be helping all those immigrant doctors who drive cabs. I’ve lived in Toronto for 40 years and taken my fair share of cabs, and I can tell you I’ve NEVER met a cab driver who was a doctor back home. This is one of the biggest most repeated lies ever.

    My husband, with postsecondary education and 17 years experience in the digital printing industry, got downsized in December. Despite several interviews and sending countless resumes, all he could find was a part-time job at a car rental agency. Multiply this times millions in Canada. Yet we spend 23BILLION dollars a YEAR on immigrants and refugees, large part from muzlum countries; they are not benefitting us they are COSTING us. WHY??

    No matter who is in charge here, it’s always more of the same.

  18. j_not_a says:

    BC – perhaps Sennels needs to worry about (not being 85 or 90% real) but 100% real and not do ANY pussyfooting around when discussing problems with izlum. He is not benefitting himself nor anyone else with this approach. Being Mr. Innofensive Nice Guy just won’t cut it anymore, get those figurative gloves off …

  19. Champ says:

    Spencer: As a psychologist, what is your explanation as to why Muslims oppress women?

    Sennels: The other reason why Muslims oppress women and female sexuality, is the fact that women are simply stronger when it comes to sex.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~

    You consider women stronger when it comes to sex? Sennels, what are you basing this on? And I neither agree or disagree with your statement, but I’m rather curious why you’ve made this assertion. Anyone else have any thoughts as to why Sennels would make this claim? Thank you.

    Overall, the interview was very enlightening …

  20. Cole says:

    The inbreeding keeps coming up – what I noticed – was – as well as averages – these close family relations can produce extremes. You can find cousins of different ages – that do not just look similar – but like clones.

    One – might be slow – and even have that inbred look [criminal today] – while the other would be extreme, sharp – with impulsive behaviour.

    [Like the Toulouse shooter - not the first choice for bomb maker.]

    So the close family relations doesn’t necessarily produce – lower intelligence. For example, I met one family where the women were all super smart [the ones who could read].

    They simply do not respect or understand our preferred ways of communicating.

    And neither do we understand their’s.

    For example:

    Muslim societies only have to kill, rape, incarcerate, kidnap and beat a few, before the rest “voluntarily” prefer Sharia to integration.

    The more fundamentalist Muslims can call the others – who might choose integration – or modernity – apostates.

    And we just think – it’s similar to saying – oh, that’s not a very Christian thing to do… ~ but this is different – when a Muslim calls another an apostate – that’s a death threat.

    That’s inviting others to kill or attack them – for not keeping with Islamic doctrine.

    No one’s legs have to be broken. This is the problem with introducing the Shari’a in western society – the fundamentalists will quickly be in control of it.

    People coming from cultures that are aimed mainly at physical survival, and in which religious practice and adherence to cultural traditions give more social status than having a good education

    This point can’t be underplayed. In countries where Islamic law – is practised – means that you can not only be arrested for – petty crimes – as people do all over the world – you can also be arrested for disobeying the religion – or religious law. So that eating in the day – during Ramadan – is a criminal offense – like taking a purse.

    So that what makes a good law abiding citizen in the Islamic world – extends further than adherence to normal criminal law – one must also adhere to religious laws and norms. Which is something that western societies no matter how much they try to empathize with – cannot provide for and still call themselves free.

    We simply cannot arrest people for going on a date – or leaving their religion.

    We must also understand that when Muslims come to the western world – without the religious construct in the law – it may feel to some as if there is no law.

    [Like the communists entering west Germany - were bombarded with choice - those coming from the Muslim world - might very well feel bombarded by freedoms.]

    He continues:

    and being self-supporting, usually are not very productive if they can live on the state.

    Which is a European phenomena – because in the US families would have to provide for themselves. This is a trap the Europeans have got themselves into. Because of the culture of marriage within families – marriages are often aimed at – facilitating immigration – while – the state continues to pay for it all.

    These families would be careful to avoid integration – it would mean that the children would object to these distance arranged fetching marriages. As is happening – with the honor killings and honor crimes around – the continuation of the practise.

    An interesting study in Austria – with Turkish families – found that it was predominately those who engaged in the practise of fetching marriages – where one parent was an immigrant with each generation – were overhelmingly in favor of seeing Islamic sharia law in Austria – while the Turkish families – who were accustomed to finding partners within their community in Austria – were much less likely to favor shari’a law.

    ::

    So many things that come up with this article – and so many things to say!!

    On the PC side – a part of this is a culture of fear -

    for example, there was a state primary school headteacher in the UK who was accused of being a racist – because new Muslim board members [one convert] – among other suggestions requested that female teachers not wear short sleeved shirts – in school [more to it] – but it resulted in a court case – where she was eventually awarded a settlement – and the judge asked – why didn’t the local school governing authority back the headmistress – and they responded that they were more afraid of the anti-racism board.

    The racist charge could ruin people’s lives – and most just want to make it to retirement – so it becomes almost communist in nature – how the most ridiculous and non-nonsensical things – are upheld – out of fear.

    ::

    What is interesting though about it – is that the fear surrounding Islam in the western world – is the same fear that governs the Islamic world.

    It’s start as you mean to go on!

    If you are looking at the Islamic world – it doesn’t look good.

    If we want a way to look at it –

    and that’s the Muslims are under a kind of millennium long Stockholm Syndrome – and we must appreciate that they have identified with their Arab conquerors – of which they still live in a self-imposed fear of – so we should stand back from it – to set some healthy boundaries – where freedoms and the protection of rights can remain paramount – in our societies.

    Great article!!

  21. dewdds says:

    A great interview and incisive commentary by Nicolai Sennels. Thank you Robert for posting. More people need to see this to understand what is facing us.

  22. Sam Arisan says:

    This is an excellent interview. Thanks!

    In layman’s term I can summarize this interview in one sentence: Islam has nothing to offer but HATE. More concisely:ISLAM= EVIL.

  23. j_not_a says:

    “You consider women stronger when it comes to sex? Sennels, what are you basing this on? And I neither agree or disagree with your statement, but I’m rather curious why you’ve made this assertion. Anyone else have any thoughts as to why Sennels would make this claim? Thank you.”

    If I, as a woman, may venture to speculate on what Sennels may have meant by this remark. He may have meant stronger sex as in our capabilities as the female gender. Women, as has been proven scientifically, have stronger emotional resilience, are able to endure more than men (eg ability to withstand pain (I wish sometimes men could experience the physical pain equivalency of childbirth – they would dissolve into helpless crybabies in a few moments flat!) can endure more sleep deprivation, and can go longer without food and water) are fiercely protective of their family unit and offspring (think mama bear) Women are the backbone of the family unit and I would say civilization, being able to keep it thriving due to their putting their families well being ahead of their own.

    Before anyone accuses me of being a manhater, far from it, I have a loving husband of 15 years and he does it all, work, dishes, vacuuming, grocery shopping, laundry, I am a lucky gal.

    But I believe it is the self sacrificing spirit of women that makes the world go around, and that we are a God-given gift to men in that regard so guys, don’t forget to give us the appreciation we deserve. Cheers!

  24. Champ, j_not_a, Wellington

    It’s the birth giving. We men can’t give birth, hence we can’t endure the excruciating pain that women can, and ergo, we are weaker. At least this is the argument I’ve occasionally heard.

    (Runs & hides)

  25. How about five “youths” (wink-wink) entering the Childre’s Ward of a specialist hospital (meaning the children really are ill and not there for a stomach upset) with the purpose of acting provocatively and stealing from staff and patients?

    And resisting the Police, causing a minor battle?

    And making insolent gestures at the photographers as they were being dragged off the premises?

    It is one of the more extreme examples of “youths” (wink-wink) beyond sense and parental control.

  26. carpediadem says:

    “The mix of many Westerners being overly forgiving, their flexible attitude, and Muslim self-pity and blame is the psychological crowbar that has opened the West to Islamization.”

    I don’t think he’s read Eurabia.

    What opened the west to Islamisation is de Gaulle’s passion to be as powerful as America with Islamic aggression as the equaliser, and his and Europe’s Jew hatred which fueled the EU’s betrayal of Israel and support for Arabs and CHEAP OIL back in the OPEC days.

    In other words, ego and penis envy.

    His diagnosis is what is PERPETUATING Islamisation of the West, not what opened it.

  27. carpediadem says:

    “When among others, the most important thing is that you do not force your view upon them and are happy and relaxed when you express your opinions. Only share your knowledge and your feelings when it feels natural — wait until others mention the topic and use only a few words unless people really ask you several times what you think. If you are good, you can even use humor.”

    This coincides exactly with my feelings on the matter, and on the occasions when i’ve been able to share mky knowledge to a recpetive listener i ahve been able to feel, as well as sound, sane. :)

    Takes a lot of practice though, especially if arguing with a thick host on talkback radio who loves to protect Islam!! :)
    I have found that extreme focus and extreme calm is the key.
    also helps you remember things better and experess yourslef better.

    For anyone readign this who does want to ring talkback radio, if you’re nervous, just concentrate on exressing one or two points.
    Build up to longer statements if you feel like making them. You’d be surprised what you can express – coherently – in a few seconds.

  28. sharia says:

    Re: women being stronger than men in a sexual context.

    In my opinion the meaning of this comment hinges on several other phrases of the author: Arab men are known for “not lasting long in bed,” men are “naked and vulnerable” in the bedroom, and Arab men worry about “not being able to satisfy their lustful wives.”

    In other words, men have to worry about impotency. Women don’t. It makes me feel limpwristed just thinking about the stress that men must be under to perform in the bedroom. And any woman who is meanspirited and/or has a jerk for a husband could easily play mind games with potentially deflating consequences.

    I don’t think we have to ponder it on a deeper level than that. Arab men feel insecure, and probably for good reason, poor things.

  29. sharia says:

    Re: women being stronger than men in a sexual context.

    In my opinion the meaning of this comment hinges on several other phrases of the author: Arab men are known for “not lasting long in bed,” men are “naked and vulnerable” in the bedroom, and Arab men worry about “not being able to satisfy their lustful wives.”

    In other words, men have to worry about impotency. Women don’t. It makes me feel limpwristed just thinking about the stress that men must be under to perform in the bedroom. And any woman who is meanspirited and/or has a jerk for a husband could easily play mind games with potentially deflating consequences.

    I don’t think we have to ponder it on a deeper level than that. Arab men feel insecure, and probably for good reason, poor things.

  30. Paula says:

    What’s meant by women being “stronger when it comes to sex”?
    The only thing I’ve read about Muslim women when it comes to sex is that most of them have had their clitorises removed.
    How could that make them “stronger when it comes to sex”? Or am I on the wrong track? I’m confused.

  31. LemonLime says:

    On this topic of the putative sexual superiority of women, I recall an amusing aside by one of my professors in Classics, teaching a class in Greek and Roman mythology. In explaining one particular Greek play (either a tragedy or a comedy, and I can’t remember the author — I suspect the mischievous comedian Aristophanes), my professor said that the playwright had one of the goddesses in the play, speaking to another goddess in confidence, ask that other goddess to make sure she never lets the Big Secret get out that women enjoy sex far more than men do — because if it got out, men would realize they have a bargaining chip they can at last turn around against women, instead of the other way around.

    P.S.: Don’t shoot Hermes (the Messenger).

  32. LemonLime says:

    Ah yes, thanks Wellington. The ancient comedians and tragedians, of course, used mythology as their main material.

  33. Jan says:

    Going back to the topic of “Muslims are taught to be aggressive, insecure, irresponsible and intolerant” .

    I’ve certainly found this to be true in my own experience – at Uni, I (single mum) and my daughter, stayed for a short time (thank God !) with an Arab muslima who was renting out a room in her house. She had two kids, boy and girl. Without question, the boy was allowed to get away with murder, including treating his mother and sister with grave disrespect. When he tried it on me and my daughter, he was brought up short and no mistake – resulting in myself and my daughter shaking the dust of her abode from our feet…

    Lots of other examples, but I won’t go on.

  34. LemonLime says:

    I’ve posted this information before either here or elsewhere, a couple of years back:

    Helping a friend about four years ago who was studying for an exam for nursing school, I purchased the main internationally accredited study guide Complete Review for NCLEX-RN, by Donna F. Gauwitz, 2007.

    Therein, in the Appendix, under the section “Unit IX” titled Legal and Ethical Issues in Nursing, sub-titled “Cultural Diversity” (of course!), page 1051, under the heading F. Health and Illness Beliefs, #8, with specific reference to one “cultural group” — “Arab-Americans” — we find:

    “Immediate pain relief is expected and may be persistently requested.”

    The manual does not prescribe this advice concerning any other “cultural group”. Only one: “Arab-Americans”.

    Fascinating. It’s obviously remarkable that an official nursing manual would find that characteristic sufficiently normative, and important, to be listed explicitly for concern to be noted by nursing candidates. Needless to say, that such a characteristic is normative for any culture is exceedingly strange. I’m not sure what it means, but my theory is that the reason why Muslims are so prone to torture their enemies is because they are inflicting one of their primary fears — physical pain — upon them. Why or how it got to be a primary phobia among a culture, and not just among certain individuals in that culture, is the interesting part.

    Note:

    a) While the manual refers to this cultural group as “Arab-Americans”, it’s clear from other parts of the section devoted to them (where they obliquely reference religious concerns that are clearly not Christian) that they are speaking of Muslims.

    b) One could not accuse the NCLEX-RN of being anti-Muslim or anti-Arab. In fact, it is highly likely they are dutifully PC MC about their anxious concern to “respect diversity” — thus, they could not help adding this particular feature about nursing care of Muslims likely because it is just that prevalent and typical.

  35. Moe Hammed says:

    Re: Judaism TODAY “not oppressing women,” consider this:

    Even in modern times, Jewish law treats women as less than fully human. Israel does not recognize civil marriage; God experts are granted complete control over marriage and divorce. In a 1969 case, a husband was sentenced to fourteen years in prison for committing six indecent assaults and three rapes. For some reason, this exhausted the patience of his wife, who sued for divorce. However, since the man refused, the couple remained married; the wife had no recourse under the religious law mandated in Israel. A former Israeli Minister of Religion explained that: “We have a legal system which has always sustained the people. It may contain within it some thorn that occasionally pricks the individual. We are not concerned with this or that individual, but with the totality of the people”….

    In Orthodox congregations even today, during menstrual periods, husband and wife may not touch each other, even by means of an intermediate object, nor pass objects between them. They may not share a bed nor sit together on a seat. The husband may not eat directly from his wife’s leftovers (though she may eat his); he may not see parts of his wife’s body that are usually covered, smell her perfume, gaze upon her clothing (whether or not it is being worn), listen to her singing, or discuss sexually exciting subjects with her. At the end of seven days, the wife must visit a ritual bath after nightfall, where she must remove all foreign objects from her body, comb her hair, blow her nose, and wash herself thoroughly, before spreading her legs for inspection to make sure she’s acceptable again. We’re not talking about the dark ages here: we’re talking about 21st century Israel and Brooklyn, USA.

    And you wonder why Sennels can’t “keep his atheism to himself,” eh?

  36. Guy Macher says:

    Mention sex and everyone takes their eyes off the ball. The point made by Sennels is that Muslims are not fit to live in civilization and that Westerners had better act now. As Churchill said, it is better to fight with no hope of winning than to lay down your arms and accept defeat.

    Now, no more sex talk. Gird thy loins!

  37. miriam rove says:

    yes. sons get away with murder but daughters are confined to the house. I saw this my self countless time living in Iran.
    M

  38. LemonLime says:

    j_not_a,

    Sennels is one of those analysts who has a lot of perceptive and useful insights about Muslims, but also has residues of PC MC himself. Under the right circumstances, and at the prompting of the right questions, it would come out more clearly; here, of course, he is being gently softballed by his interviewer, so it only comes out inadvertently as you noticed.

    And don’t forget the sentence before the semi-Equivalencist one you quoted:

    “And we know that the first and in many cases also the biggest victims of Islam are Muslims.”

    Didn’t Spencer just post a major article pertinently exposing and condemning the victimology of Muslims (and in fact he has done so quite often over the years)? But this “Muslims are the victims — indeed the “biggest” victims — of Islam” meme persists like an annoying nettle within the anti-Islam movement (such as it is); and its effect, whether intended or not, is to justify by explaining the Muslim pathology with an explanation that is a mere hypothesis erected into an axiom. Even if it were true, it serves to push out of the way the far more important fact of a mass Stockholm Syndrome throughout Muslim society and in the Muslim psyche that, more powerfully than anywhere else where that syndrome exerts itself, transforms the putative “victim” into a malevolent and deadly aggressor who is aided and abetted by his masochistically co-dependent enabler (i.e., the less active Muslims often misperceived as “moderate” or “ignorant of their own Islam”). So at the very least it doesn’t matter that the Muslim is a “victim”. So why bring it up? Unless you have some idea that this will become useful for managing the problem Muslims are causing. I.e., there is always lurking some kind of quasi-Wilsonianism, even within the anti-Islam movement (such as it is), where “helping the Muslim” figures as relevant to solving our #1 problem: protecting our societies from Muslims.

    I think a good part (perhaps half) of Sennels’ life, efforts and career has involved just this: helping Muslims. The other part has been noticing, then analyzing and diagnosis their pathology. He is thus one more example of the Glazovian type of anti-Jihad analyst: the kind who wrestles within himself between his liberal conscience and his reason which has opened his mind to noticing the data of the dots about Muslims and beginning to connect those dots. During that long dot-connection process, many of these Glazovian types continue their double-minded semi-incoherence; others graduate to put it behind them and take the next step — which is to stop wasting time trying to save Muslims from Islam and thinking that can be done in tandem with — or more preposterously, will be pragmatically useful in — the more important project of saving outselves from Muslims.

    But Muslims should not be our patients to help. They are our enemy to stop: and diagnosis should first and foremost serve the latter end; not the former.

  39. BC_Homegrown says:

    In defense of Mr.Sennels, I believe that in saying “We do not even have to use words like Islam or Muslims. We can just say that religions that oppress women and start holy wars make us sick” he was merely suggesting,as per Mr. Spencer’s question,a conversation tack that one may take to avoid offending people brought up in a culture that looks down on criticizing another’s beliefs( unless its Christian of course)rather than an example of Mr. Sennels engaging in PC equivalency. In the present day and age there can be no other religion that fits this description,and hopefully the person would realize this. Describing Islam this way in a discussion also defuses the immediate “equivalency between religion” rebuttal most apologetics enjoy employing.

    Great article, look forward to reading more!

  40. Kepha says:

    Re “religions that start holy wars make us sick”.
    _____________

    I pause and think here. As a hard-core Christian of the Reformed persuasion (in the sense of tracing my connection to Christ via the Swiss-Genevan-Rhenish-Puritan Reformation), I believe that war is sometimes justified in the eyes of Almighty God. If I question whether my co-religionists in the North of Ireland were justified in oppressing their Roman neighbors above and beyond the needs of protecting themselves from groups like the IRA, it is not because I am “enlightened” according to modern canons, but because I am impressed with Holy Scripture’s exhortations to peace and that it is possible for someone of the household of faith to wrong someone from the outside in terms of divine law.

    And, as I come to think of it, most wars are “religious”, in that they are launched in the names of people’s most cherished beliefs and the intellectual systems around which they organize their lives. My country had gone to war too many times to count during the 20th century for the sake of “democracy”–leaving an Old World festering in grievances in 1919 and making the world safe for Stalinism in 1941-45. And, as I consider our recent Mideastern misadventures, it seems we have swept away the national socialist despots of the mid-20th century to make way for militant Islam (which, admittedly, is a religion that loves war). And, as for others, how much misery has been inflicted on the world in the name of the “scientific dialectic” and “historical necessity” of so-called Scientific Socialism?

    @others:

    I am not sure that I’ve seen Muslims allowing their sons to run wild. I’ve known a large number of immigrant Muslim boys from various parts of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia who tend to be soft-spoken and well-mannered.

    The big issue remains that Islamic doctrine is blatantly supremacist and encourages the use of violence to ensure such supremacy; and its various “sins” don’t seem to be such if committed against either Kufr or those of lower status within the Dar-ul-Islam.

  41. Moe Hammed says:

    Christianity or Judaism or Buddhism TODAY is not starting the holy wars and oppressing women….

    Right, no pressure at all coming from counter-jihadist Christians for their women to have more babies, to compete with the growing Muslim population. Right….

    I grew up in a Mennonite community in southern Manitoba, in the mid-’80s. A few years out of high school, the “jock” from my graduating class of eight (students) got married.

    His hellfire-preacher father officiated the wedding. And the primary thing I remember about that event is that same pastor thundering on about how, per the Bible, women were basically meant to stand silently behind their men–preferably barefoot and pregnant, while making sandwiches in the kitchen.

    Cue the Deep South in America. Same attitudes, and I’m sure they’re widespread, down there.

  42. CGW says:

    Here are the jokes you requested:

    http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2008/09/more_offensive_muslim_jokes.html

    http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/2011/02/racist_muslim_jokes.html

    Many links to more at the above sites.

    My favorite:

    Q. What do Hiroshima and Tehran have in common?

    A. Nothing, yet.

  43. miriam rove says:

    inbred meaning close family memebrs marrying each other is common in the middle east and I am one of them. my mom and my dad were first cousins. this does create problems. there is no doubt about it. how vere this is becoming less and less the case and I am only talking about Iran. I am not sure about the rest of the middle east. in Iran it is now almost impossble to mary very close family memebr and to that end they require blood test to make sure apples and oranges are not mixed. but he is right. it is a probelem.
    M

  44. Buraq says:

    Hi Miriam! Thanks for your response.

    Inter-marriage between Muslims leads to all sorts of genetically inherited problems. These are well documented in Britain.
    Here is a ‘Daily Mail’ article that details the problems and the huge burden of costs on the local health services as a result of kids born with genetic defects.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1394119/Its-time-confront-taboo-First-cousin-marriages-Muslim-communities-putting-hundreds-children-risk.html

    All the best! Hope your son is well and that you still enjoy a stiff Scotch and a cigar!

  45. LemonLime says:

    “We either remove massive numbers of Muslims from the west–hopefully sooner rather than later–or we get used to the idea of living under sharia rule by the middle to later stages of this century, and get used to the hell Muslims are going to put us through while their population grows in the meantime.”

    There is a third scenario, which is almost surreal for Kinana to leave unmentioned: mass violence on both sides, caused primarily by Muslims, including anything from increasing crimes to riots to insurrection to semi-guerrilla street battles. Does Kinana think the hundreds of millions of Westerners are all sheep who will just allow Islam to escalate without putting up a fight — particularly when that escalation of Islam will involve lots of horrific violence perpetrated by Muslims themselves?

  46. LemonLime says:

    “perhaps Sennels needs to worry about (not being 85 or 90% real) but 100% real and not do ANY pussyfooting around when discussing problems with izlum. He is not benefitting himself nor anyone else with this approach. Being Mr. Innofensive Nice Guy just won’t cut it anymore, get those figurative gloves off …”

    Hear, hear!

    I look forward to the Jihad Watch community as a whole (and not just the rare exceptions like myself, j_not_a, Infidel Pride, Champ, and maybe one other) someday really feeling, thinking and expressing “Enough’s Enough”. I hope to live long enough to see that day; since, alas, it seems it still is a long time coming.

  47. Wellington says:

    Perhaps, Champ, Sennels has relied in part, wittingly or unwittingly, on Tiresias’ response in Greek mythology to the dispute between Hera and Zeus as to which gender experienced the greater pleasure in sexual activity.

    Tiresias replied that men have only one out of ten of such pleasures and women have the other nine. Sennels spoke about “stronger” and this could refer to what I related above, but my guess here is that he is not cognizant of this and only advanced the rather crude, but still realistic, concept that the penetrator can be worn out far more easily than the penetratee.

    Wow, I feel right now I’m in dangerous territory and so will close here by wishing you and yours my best. Take care, my friend.

  48. vnbushman says:

    I think he is refering to sexual concerns to do with inablity to perform or to be sexual satisfiing. Man are much more concerned about a good performance than woman are.

    That could be considerd a weakness on the mans sexual strength. Woman don’t worry about that as much.

  49. LemonLime/Hesperado,

    You missed what I wrote in what you quoted. For violence, that would be one of the things covered under “the hell Muslims are going to put us through…”

    Perhaps I should append ten pages of explanatory notes just for Hesperado, with his erroneous and reckless assumptions, every time I post something.

  50. Champ says:

    Hi, Wellington …thank you for your input, but I think that Sennels meant gender, not sexual intercourse; given the context of the points he made on the whole in that paragraph. But due to how he phrased his first sentence, then I can certainly see how you read it to mean sexual intercourse–or perhaps you just have a one track mind, lol! …just kiddin’ =)

  51. Champ says:

    J_not_a and Infidel Pride …

    I’ve given birth to four children, so I tend to agree with you both …but of course we’ll never know for sure. And my husband has a high pain threshold, so perhaps giving birth would be like skipping through the park for someone like him. Yeah, right?

  52. LemonLime says:

    Regis Philbin has adamantly insisted that chidlbirth is peanuts compared with the tragic agony of passing a kidney stone.

  53. Champ says:

    “Enough is Enough”

    You’ve really hit the nail on the head, LemonLime! ..islam & company be GONE, already!

  54. carpediadem says:

    If it’s any consolation, Africa has been begging the West for years NOT to send them foreign aid, to let them stand on their own feet and work out their own problems.

  55. LemonLime says:

    You missed what I wrote in what you quoted. For violence, that would be one of the things covered under “the hell Muslims are going to put us through…”

    From what I’ve seen on various quasi-anti-Islam discussion forums, “hell” could be simply the intolerable indignity of having to put up with foot-washings in airport bathrooms, or supermarket checkers refusing to handle pork and wine — with nary any physical violence in sight.

  56. LemonLime says:

    If it’s any consolation, Africa has been begging the West for years NOT to send them foreign aid, to let them stand on their own feet and work out their own problems.

    There was an old political cartoon in the 60s I believe depicting a villager in India shaking his fist at a helicopter that had the American flag on it (a helicopter no doubt delivering CARE packages and such), with the caption:

    Yankee go home — but not yet!

    That captured with exquisite pith the self-contradictory ungrateful incoherent hypocrisy of the typically anti-Western (and, par excellence, anti-American) Third Worlder.

  57. LemonLime says:

    Paula,

    Sennels is claiming that women are stronger in sex, and that therefore Muslim men feel threatened by them, and that’s one major reason why Muslim men are misogynistic and abuse and try to control their women — in order to try to suppress and control that putative sexual superiority.

    So the issue to be examined here is composed of two parts, not one:

    1) Sennels’ claim

    2) Sennels’ analysis of how Muslim men deal with #1.

  58. Wellington says:

    Please see my 6:30 P.M. post to champ from yesterday, assuming your’re still interested in this topic.

  59. LemonLime,

    What was I thinking? You’re right! Unbeknownst to myself and the other readers, I am really recommending cutting Muslim immigration and deporting massive numbers of Muslims from the west, one of the largest population transfers in human history, all to avoid the “hell” of increasing non-violent requests for foot-baths and halal check-out lines. I’m not concerned about violence, because, after all, sharia, jihad, and Islamization are all non-violent.

  60. Champ says:

    You’re right; after thinking it over, I believe that you, Wellington and LemonLime are right …

    Sorry, Wellington, my bad :)

  61. I suspect that any woman would argue ‘How would he know?’

  62. You can try to equivalence Judaism and Christianity with Islam as oppressing women.

    But you can’t alter the observable facts.

    1. Neither Christians nor Jews practise ‘honor’ murders. There are ‘crimes of passion’ – which are viewed as *crimes*, as *murder*, by the members of those faiths; but Phyllis Chesler – a red-hot Jewish feminist, by the way, and not one to be silent about the sins of our *own* societies – has done a lot of study of the ‘honor’ murder, and she clearly distinguishes it from the types of ‘family violence’ that happen in non-Muslim – particularly ‘western’ – societies. A study into family violence done in the UK in the early 1990s, and mentioned by Geraldine Brooks in her book ‘Nine Parts of Desire’, found that in the UK, women with Muslim husbands were 8 times more likely to be killed by their spouses, than women with husbands from any other religio/cultural background.

    2. Christianity from the very beginning has always practised and very, very strongly encouraged monogamy. Judaism despite the polygyny practised by *some* of its founding figures (though not all – both Isaac and Moses were monogamists – also seems to have been largely monogamous in the time of Christ (indeed, Jesus the founder of Christianity was, of course, Jewish, and uses a key foundational passage in the Hebrew scriptures, in order to define marriage, with what weight of authority among his followers can be gauged by the fact that no serious early Christian theologian *ever* considered anything else), though it took another 1000 years for Jewish rabbis to formally and officially make monogamy the norm (only a few Jewish communities deep inside heavily-polygynous dar al Islam continued to permit polygyny after that date).

    And no matter what people may like to say, monogamy seems to be the ‘gold standard’ if you want, generally speaking, a stable, peaceful, productive society marked by cooperation more often than competition. Islam, on the other hand, is the only major world religion still obstinately practising and zealously *promoting* polygyny…with disastrous results on the psychological, social, economic and political fronts.

    See this summary of a very interesting University of Columbia social anthropological study – undertaken by a that compared polygynous societies (contemporary and historical) with monogamous societies (whether Christian or non-Christian).

    http://www.newenglishreview.org/blog_direct_link.cfm/blog_id/40214

    Wednesday, 25 January 2012
    From The Philosophical Transactions Of The Royal Society

    ‘Monogamy reduces major social problems of polygamist cultures’ [poorly worded headline, by the way - it would read better as 'monogamist cultures have fewer social problems than polygynous cultures']
    University of British Columbia | January 25, 2012

    ‘In cultures that permit men to take multiple wives, the intra-sexual competition that occurs causes greater levels of crime, violence, poverty and gender inequality than in societies that institutionalize and practice monogamous marriage.

    ‘That is a key finding of a new University of British Columbia-led study that explores the global rise of monogamous marriage as a dominant cultural institution.

    ‘The study suggests that institutionalized monogamous marriage is rapidly replacing polygamy because it has lower levels of inherent social problems…’.

    I read the entire original study, footnotes and all, in a pdf that seems now to have disappeared from the web; but I printed off a copy. It’s very, very interesting and very, very telling, and seems to be thoroughly well researched.

    Basically: women and kids live longer, are healthier and do better, all things considered, in monogamous societies.

    By promoting monogamy, Christianity benefited women and girls. There is just no argument.

    (It should also be added that both Judaism and Christianity were remarkable, in the ancient Greco-Roman world, for the fact that they had a flat ban on every kind of infanticide. Girl babies, in just about every society that has ever practised infanticide, ancient and modern – and most human societies, both ‘civilised’ and ‘primitive’, seem to have done so, from the wealthy Greek and Roman and Chinese ruling elites, all the way to the tribes of Australia – have tended to be killed more often than boy babies. But Christians and Jews *reared their girls*.

    If you were to be born into a pre-modern society, say, even a pre-medieval society, say, around AD 300, and you were to be born female, where would you choose to be born? Or, say, if you were going to be born a girl in BC 500?

    The only way to be reasonably sure of not being killed immediately after birth, by your own parents, would be to be born into a Christian (any time from AD 50 on) or (if in BC 500) Jewish family.

    3/ *The* central texts of Islam explicitly prescribe beating of wives by husbands. There is *no* text equivalent to Quran 4;34, in either the TaNaKh or in the Christian scriptures. Nor is there, in fact, any scene from the historic portions of scripture that depicts a major figure from the history of either – Israel, or the Christians – flogging, hitting or thrashing his wife. Any Christian theologians or popular writers who advised corporal punishment of wives – and, shamefully – there were some – had NO core scriptures they could use to justify their teaching. I’ve seen their ‘arguments’ and they are shoddy and ‘thin’.

    4/ Islam explicitly permits – the texts are strong enough to even argue that it *teaches* – marital rape.

    Judaism at least from the 12th century AD expressly FORBADE marital rape. One of their greatest theologians, Maimonides, condemns it in the strongest possible terms. The wife must *want* to do it, or, well, it’s just not on. (Tragically, Christians took longer to catch up with our Elder Brothers the Jews, on this matter – but, again, at bottom, there is NO scriptural text commanding or justifying marital rape, and the centre and heart of Christian ethical teaching really runs counter to it; ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’).

    5/ Stoning of women for ‘adultery’ (or in the Islamic case, ‘zina’, illegal sexual activity, which in many cases may not be anything that we in the west would recognise as ‘adultery’ or even as ‘criminal’ or ‘immoral’).

    The Hadiths of Islam expressly teach stoning; Iran and Saudi Arabia, most notably, practise it regularly TODAY.

    Christianity, because of the sheer power of the story of Jesus and the woman taken in adultery – ‘he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone’..and when they all slink off, he finally says to the woman, ‘neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more’ – never even considered this practice. It was simply OUT. Jesus refused to endorse it, and that was that. Some societies went in for shaming and so on – as famously depicted in ‘The Scarlet Letter’ – and Tolstoy excoriates the double standard for male and female adultery, in Anna Karenina – but: no Christian woman had to fear being put into a pit and pelted with big rocks by a howling mob.

    By the time Islam was being cooked up, the Jews seem to have dispensed with the practice of stoning adulterers, as well. Curiously enough, one piece of evidence for this is from the *Islamic* tradition, where Mohammed finds out that the Jews are not doing it. They are represented, from the Mohammedan POV, as terrible slackers, disobeying their own law.

    Me, I think the Jews had thought things through and reached the same sort of conclusion Jesus (who is Jewish) had done, some time earlier. I don’t think there’s any serious record of stoning of adulterous women by Jews, from anywhere – even in Muslim lands – in the past 2000 years.

    Me, I think a Mennonite or Amishwoman, or an Orthodox Jewish wife (whose husband, by the way, is obligated – by rabbinical instruction, no less! – to endeavour to see that *she* achieves sexual satisfaction *first*, before *he* does) is waaay better off than a Muslim female chattel.

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Top