Header image  
Culture, politics, science, philosophy  


Thinking matters

Culture, politics, science, philosophy.

General manifesto ***** Immigration manifesto
The deep Crisis of the West


Where does it lead?

27.06.2012. In his 2008 book Et Delt Folk (“A Nation Divided”), The Danish historian and writer Morten Uhrskov Jensen carefully went through publicly available sources. He demonstrated that the opening up of his country for mass immigration was arranged by just part of the population, sometimes in the face of considerable popular opposition.

Roughly speaking, those representing the political and media establishment and the upper classes were in favor of open borders, whereas those from the lower classes were often opposed. This divide is viewed by those from the upper segments of society as caused mainly by racism, prejudice, ignorance and xenophobia.

Since the educated classes enjoyed a virtual hegemony over public debate, they were able to define all opposition as hate and intolerance, exemplified by people such as Pia Kjærsgaard of the Danish People’s Party. The well-to-do themselves rarely lived in areas with many immigrants and could afford to move, at least for a while, if that was needed. They focused on the abstract and allegedly humanitarian aspects of mass migration.

Thus begins Fjordman his latest article in FrontPage Magazine.


Should 'undermine national homogeneity' says UN migration chief

24.06.2012. The EU should "do its best to undermine" the "homogeneity" of its member states, the UN's special representative for migration has said, according to BBC.

HonestThinking comments: So this isn't just conspiracy fantasies, after all, then?


Islam critics spared

21.06.2012. Well, as it turned out, I didn't end up testifying at the trial of Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik after all. As I reported here back in April, Breivik's lawyers put together a long list of Islam critics, myself included, whom they were calling as "expert witnesses." The summonses we were sent in the mail made it clear that under Norwegian law we were obliged to testify. If we refused to comply, we would be subject to fine and imprisonment, writes Bruce Bawer. He continues:

The alleged reason for calling us as witnesses was to demonstrate that Breivik is not alone in taking a skeptical view of multiculturalism, of Islam, and of mass Muslim immigration -- and that he is therefore sane, and should be sent to a prison (as he wishes) and not to a psychiatric hospital. This purported strategy made absolutely no logical sense. Does it really need to be proven to anyone that such views are widespread? And what, in any case, does any of this have to do with the mental state of this wacko who remorselessly gunned down dozens of teenagers? Plainly, the real reason for dragging some of Norway's most prominent critics of Islam into court was to establish guilt by association -- to link all of us, in the minds of Norwegians, with the most reviled creep in modern Norwegian history -- and to send out the message that if you publicly criticize Islam in Norway, you can end up being dragged into court.

In May, as I also reported here, religious scholar Hanne Nabintu Herland, one of us "expert witnesses," announced her refusal to obey the defense team's summons, declaring that she'd rather go to jail than be a part of the "circus" at the Oslo courthouse.

Shortly thereafter -- and I haven't previously reported this here -- the court issued an extraordinary decision in which it divided the list of defense witnesses in two. Norwegian television, the judges ordered, would not be allowed to air the testimony of those of us who are critical of Islam; it would, however, be permitted to broadcast the testimony of our critics, the people who describe us as Islamophobes and racists. In their written statement, the judges justified this outrageous decision by saying that I and other Islam critics have "indirect connections" to Breivik though "the extreme right-wing milieu" -- the point presumably being that the views of people like me are so noxious, so offensive, so dangerous, that it would be inappropriate to expose Norwegian TV viewers to them. (At the same time, however, it was perfectly acceptable to broadcast comments by the Islam-friendly authors and professors who routinely smear people like me and misrepresent our views.) I found it staggering that the judges felt free to describe me, without evidence and without anything remotely resembling proper legal procedure, as a member of some "extreme right-wing milieu" to which this mass murderer also belongs.

The next big development was nothing less than a bombshell. After all these weeks, somebody looked at Norwegian criminal law and found out that you can't force "expert witnesses" to testify. That this little fact had apparently escaped the notice of all the judges, lawyers, and journalists involved in the case, not to mention every last member of the country's legal establishment, all of whom were following the case assiduously, was, to say the very least, pretty embarrassing. When this news hit the papers, I shot off an e-mail to the defense lawyers saying that, given this new information, I was hereby withdrawing my name from the witness list.

Continue reading at aina.org.


Awakening the reptile brain

17.06.2012. Professor Thomas Hylland Eriksen is preoccupied with what he refers to as the reptile brain’s siren song in his op-ed on June 7 (Norwegian link). In it he talks about instincts which make people want to live in societies with individuals similar to themselves. I agree with him that in the most basic human nature there are instincts and tendencies which must be kept in check. But at the same time, I believe that social anthropologists and their peers have an unfortunate tendency to underestimate the challenges we face in this field.

Thus begins my reply to professor Hylland Eriksen (in the newspaper VG), kindly translated from Norwegian into English by The Observer (pseudonym) at Gates of Vienna. Scandinavian readers may want to refer to an extended reply at Verdidebatt.no.



Permalinks to older articles



Search HonestThinking


Norsk stoff - Norwegian material

Norske og skandinaviske lesere vil kunne finne stoff på norsk her.



HonestThinking is dedicated and committed to the art of thinking honestly. Yet honest thinking is not the same as true thinking, for it is possible to think honestly, but be mistaken. For the same reason, honest thinking is not identical with objective thinking either. Honest thinking is striving to get things right. This involves being truthful about whatever one publishes, but just as importantly, it involves an uncompromising dedication never to suppress relevant data, even when data collides with dearly held prejudices. Such an approach may sometimes cause hurtful revisions in one’s belief system. That’s what HonestThinking is all about! Read the entire manifesto.

Provoked or enthusiastic?

Please send e-mail to postmaster at honestThinking.org (replacing ' at ' with '@') if you would like to tip us about a web resource that we should link to, or if you wish to submit an article for publication here. Quality contributions are welcome from anyone.



The current European immigration and integration policy is profoundly disrespectful of both Muslims and Islam, because it is built on the tacit assumption that the Muslims will become like us. One claims to have respect for Islam and for Muslims, but one also expects Muslims to give up their orthodox faith when they come here. At the same time one is assuming that Islam will be reformed and modernized as soon as the Muslims become integrated and understand and appreciate how superior our Western culture is compared to their own. This is cultural shauvinism and arrogance indeed! The unspoken premise for this scenario is that Western socities are superior to Islam. Read more.




Human rights and democracy are under pressure. One threat comes from the Western world, in the form of lack of or dishonest thinking. There exists a peculiar Western "tolerance" which is so "tolerant" that it even tolerates totalitarian or anti-democratic ideologies. A tacit assumption underlying such an attitude is that all cultures, world views, and religions are really equally good. As a consequence of this assumption one is cut off from the possibility of critically examining the above mentioned ideologies. Read more.