Header image  
Culture, politics, science, philosophy  


Thinking matters

Culture, politics, science, philosophy.

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

«There is a clash of civilizations»

13.04.2014. French society is under threat, argues philosopher Alain Finkielkraut in a controversial new book. The conservative spoke to SPIEGEL about what he sees as the failure of multiculturalism and the need for better integration of Muslim immigrants:

SPIEGEL: Mr. Finkielkraut, are you unhappy with today's France?

Finkielkraut: I am pained to see that the French mode of European civilization is threatened. France is in the process of transforming into a post-national and multicultural society. It seems to me that this enormous transformation does not bring anything good.

SPIEGEL: Why is that? Post-national and multicultural sounds rather promising.

Finkielkraut: It is presented to us as the model for the future. But multiculturalism does not mean that cultures blend. Mistrust prevails, communitarianism is rampant -- parallel societies are forming that continuously distance themselves from each other.


SPIEGEL: You yourself are the child of immigrants, the progeny of a persecuted family. Does your personal will to integrate explain your radical commitment to the values of the Republic?

Finkielkraut: I defend these values because I probably owe more to my schooling than do the Français de souche, the hereditary French. French traditions and history were not laid in my cradle. Anyone who does not bring along this heritage can acquire it in l'école républicaine, the French school system. It has expanded my horizons and allowed me to immerse myself in French civilization.

SPIEGEL: And made you into its apologist?

Finkielkraut: I can speak and write more openly than others precisely because I am not a hereditary Frenchman. The natives easily allow themselves to be unnerved by the prevailing discourse. I don't have such complexes.

SPIEGEL: How do you define this French civilization that you speak of?

Finkielkraut: I recently reread a book by the admirable Russian writer Isaac Babel. The story takes place in Paris. The narrator is in a hotel and at night he hears the lovemaking sounds of the couples next door. Babel writes: This has nothing to do with what one hears in Russia -- it's much more fiery. Then his French friend responds: We French created women, literature and cuisine. No one can take that from us.

SPIEGEL: Those are idealized clichés that nations create for themselves.

Finkielkraut: But it is true, or at least it was in the past. France can't allow itself to bask in its own glory. But it has evidence of its civilization, just like Germany -- it has its sights, its squares, its cafés, its wealth of literature and its artists. We can be proud of these ancestors, and we have to prove that we are worthy of them. I regret that Germany -- for reasons that are understandable -- has broken with this pride in its past. But I believe that German politicians who speak of Leitkultur -- the guiding national culture -- are right. The Leitkultur does not create an insurmountable barrier to newcomers.


SPIEGEL: Isn't it extremely easy to attribute all problems to poverty immigration from the developing world?

Finkielkraut: A public political debate on the issue is the least that one could expect. Instead, this field is ceded to the extreme right.

SPIEGEL: How do you view the political rise of Marine Le Pen and her far-right National Front party?

Finkielkraut: This disturbs me, of course. But the National Front would not be continuously on the rise if it had not discarded the old issues of the extreme right. Nowadays the National Front focuses on secularism and the republic.

SPIEGEL: That sounds as if you could imagine voting for the party.

Finkielkraut: No, I would never do that because this party appeals to people's base instincts and hatred. And these are easy to kindle among its supporters. We can't leave these issues to the National Front. It would also be up to the left, the party of the people, to take seriously the suffering and anxiety of ordinary people.

SPIEGEL: What do you say to people who call you a reactionary?

Finkielkraut: It has become impossible to see history as constant progress. I reserve the possibility to compare yesterday and today and ask the question: What do we retain, what do we abandon?

SPIEGEL: Is that really any more than nostalgia for a lost world?

Finkielkraut: Like Albert Camus, I am of the opinion that our generation's task is not to recreate the world, but to prevent its decline. We not only have to conserve nature, but also culture. There you have the reactionary.

SPIEGEL: When you see all these problems in France -- the debts, unemployment, educational crisis, identity crisis -- do you fear for the future?

Finkielkraut: I become sad and feel a growing sense of anxiety. Optimism would seem a bit ridiculous these days. I wish the politicians were able to speak the truth and look reality in the face. Then, I believe, France would be capable of a true awakening -- of contemplating a policy of civilization.

SPIEGEL: Mr. Finkielkraut, thank you for this interview.

Read the entire interview in Der Spiegel.

Alain Finkielkraut is one of France's most controversial essayists. His new book, "L'Identité Malheureuse" ("The Unhappy Identity," Éditions Stock ), has been the subject of heated debate. It comes at a time when France finds itself in the midst of an identity crisis. But rather than framing things from a social or political perspective, Finkielkraut explores what he sees as a hostile confrontation between indigenous French people and immigrants. He was interviewed in his Parisian apartment on the Left Bank.


Mozilla cannot tolerate diverging views on gay marriage

13.04.2014. The American CEO forced out for opposing gay marriage is a victim of ideological intolerance. Commenting on the forced resignation of her chief executive after he was found to have contributed $1,000 to a California movement against gay marriage, the executive chairwoman of Mozilla, the company that makes the Firefox web browser, apologised for not having pushed him out faster. [...] Mozilla’s treatment of the hapless CEO, Brendan Eich, is chilling. A man was kicked out of his job for having an opinion about a current, unrelated controversy. In the eyes of his boss, Mr Eich had become that social leper, a thought criminal. Some gay activists have professed shock that gay rights have been used in this way to destroy other rights. Such avowals of outraged liberalism cut no ice. Having hijacked the institution of marriage, stamped all over religious beliefs and smeared objectors as bigots, such activists can scarcely pose now as principled defenders of freedom. Thus writes Melanie Phillips in a recent article in The Times. She later concludes as follows:

This intolerance, however, extends far more widely. In the 1990s, when I started writing about the breakdown of the nuclear family, I quickly found certain things had become unsayable. Researchers who produced evidence of the harm often done to children by divorce or elective fatherlessness were not only vilified as “senile”, “sloppy” or — again — “Christian”, their grant funding dried up. At government level, statistics revealing that unmarried cohabitants abused women and children some 33 times more frequently than married couples simply vanished after the different categories of relationship were excised from official scrutiny.

When it comes to man-made global warming, the totalitarians seem to have taken over the House of Commons. Last week its Science and Technology Committee declared that ministers who questioned the “majority” view among scientists about climate change should “shut up”, and that BBC editors should seek special clearance to interview climate sceptics.

That’s nothing compared to what many distinguished sceptical scientists go through on the front lines of the green battlefield. They are subjected to death threats, calls to try them for war crimes in “some sort of climate Nuremberg” or proposals to subject them to aversion therapy to produce correct thinking. Professor Richard Lindzen, a former expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has described how scientists working in the IPCC process were forced to tell lies and victimised if they refused.

Here’s the really striking thing. Although such issues arise from secular ideologies, their proponents resemble the medieval Church which, believing in the imminent perfection of the world, had to get rid of heretics who might get in the way. Today’s heretics, global warming sceptics, defenders of traditional marriage, opponents of elective fatherlessness and others, stand in the way of secular ideas aimed at purging human nature and the world of all bad things.

Medieval Christianity stamped out dissent by killing or conversion. Western liberals do it by social, professional and legal ostracism. So conscientious objectors to gay rights are the equivalent of racists; global warming sceptics are likened to Holocaust deniers.

With both communism and fascism defeated, the West has succumbed to yet another variant of a world view that brooks no dissent. Back in 1952, J. L. Talmon identified it as “totalitarian democracy”, which he characterised as “a dictatorship based on ideology and the enthusiasm of the masses”.

We now have a culture of ideological intolerance, stamping out not just dissent but free inquiry, all under the guise of creating a kinder, more inclusive and progressive world. Which all goes to show there’s no one more illiberal than those who wear liberalism on their sleeve.

The entire article has been republished by Document.no.


Fjordman on the situation of the West

22.03.2014. My viewpoint is very simple: I desire a normalization of Europe. We should not colonize other countries, and they should not colonize us. Anyone holding this eminently sensible position now risks being branded an “extremist.” But which is more extreme? Is it supporting policies that will gradually displace the native peoples across an entire continent — Europe — or is it opposing these policies? These are the words of Fjordman (boldface in original) in his article Icebergophobia on the Titanic. He concludes as follows (emphasis added, link in original):

Today we have intercontinental air travel, the Internet and satellite TV. People can travel across the planet within hours, and live there mentally as if they never left home.

In both speed and sheer numbers, the current waves of migration are totally unprecedented in recorded human history. They easily exceed those we associate with the fall of the Roman Empire. Illegal immigrants enter by the tens of thousands. Meanwhile, the response of Western authorities is to ease border controls. With the Schengen Agreement, the EU all but abolished internal border control across much of the European continent at a time when people-smuggling has become one of the world’s largest industries. This is suicidal.

When our governments and mass media know fully well how many negative side effects there are to the current immigration, they should no longer be able to promote the same policies with a straight face. Yet far too often they do precisely that.

We’ve already seen major riots involving immigrants in Western Europe. Not just in Paris, France or in London, England, but in 2013 also in Sweden. Marseilles, France’s second largest city, is increasingly becoming an Arab and African city. Street crime there is so bad that even Socialists from an immigrant background want the army to be set in to tackle gang warfare and restore order; the local police lost effective control long ago.

If this is the situation today, what will it be like 20 to 40 years from now if we continue further down the same path? The sensible thing to do would be to halt mass immigration and attempt to fix the problems we have now, instead of adding more problems. Yet Western authorities don’t do that. Despite mounting evidence of how harmful it is, they continue promoting an open border policy as before. At most they make cosmetic changes to appease increasingly frustrated citizens, but rarely do anything substantial. This is no longer acceptable or excusable.

The Titanic hit an iceberg and sank in 1912. This tragedy has often been used as to illustrate what is happening to Western civilization. Europe plunged into a devastating war merely two years after the Titanic went down. It would be tempting to compare present-day Europe to the Titanic, but even this would not be accurate. Those in control of the Titanic tried to steer away from the iceberg as soon as they spotted it. It was too late; they hit it and sank, anyway.

Yet at the very least they made an attempt to change course, once they realized that disaster was imminent.

Those ruling Europe and the Western world today simply go full speed ahead, straight for the iceberg. Any objections are shouted down with accusations of ignorance, bigotry and icebergophobia.

We now need a change of course, not merely a change of rhetoric. If that doesn’t happen, it is unclear how much of European civilization will still exist by the end of this century.

Read the entire article at GoV.


First direct evidence of inflation and primordial gravitational waves

18.03.2014. Astronomers announced today that they have acquired the first direct evidence that gravitational waves rippled through our infant universe during an explosive period of growth called inflation. This is the strongest confirmation yet of cosmic inflation theories, which say the universe expanded by 100 trillion trillion times in less than the blink of an eye. Continue reading at CalTech.edu. See also Scientific American.



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.