I had just posted on Twitter:
The bodies are still warm in NZ and the @hsfi is politicizing it. The overwhelming majority of world criticism of Islam, is aimed at Islam itself, not Muslims. @villesimila purposefully conflates Muslims with their ideology to add another layer of victimhood. Pathetic.
I meant every word of it. What happened in New Zealand was horrific, anathema to anyone who believes in the rule of law, common decency, and in individual liberty and freedom in general. That much is a given, at least in my opinion. What I won’t do here, unlike the Helsingin Sanomat, is to try and score political points and cast blame on whomever other than on the perpetrators of this horrendous outrage.
While I detest the ideology of Islam, I do not detest those who have fallen to its propaganda and fill its membership rolls, they are to be pitied, helped to leave it, but not despised. What the creep of a writer did in this latest HS screed, is to lay blame for the monstrous deeds of these murderous perps at the feet of those who are sounding the alarm about Islam in general. What I have been saying, that like National Socialism, Marxist Communist Socialism and the whole plethora of statist (centralized all-powerful government) ideologies, Islam is a threat to the civil society in the long run.
I am against identity politics as well, always have been long before the Islam phenomenon came into public discourse. I do not agree with those who say that they’re protecting the “white race”, for they are as much of a danger to me as the people that they say they’re against. It’s not just that they’re morally wrong, but also because in order to implement their utopia, they must use the instrument of a centralized government to dictate to the individual on his or her choices. It’s an anathema to me.
Read the sidebar on this website: “There Is No Such Thing As White Cultural Heritage. The West’s Legacy Is Open To All…” It explains my thinking 100%.
But here’s something else to ponder, writers that appear in papers like the HS promote identity politics all the time, telling the public that we should rejoice in “the browning of our country” as if there’s something intrinsically wrong with the whiteness of our country. They themselves are giving fodder to the nut-jobs that carry out these horrendous acts. If for example, the “browning of Finland” happens in a natural way, not artificially engineered/imposed by state government, then that’s not immoral. What is immoral, however, and very dangerous, is for state actors to impose their world view upon the rest of us. We now see the results of their policies, extremists are now radicalized enough to massacre innocent people, and they still try and lecture us.
Ville Similä writing for the Helsingin Sanomat states:
IN recent years, JEWISH HATRED has raised its head. Anti-Semitic stereotypes are tackled quickly, rigorously, and spectacularly as they should. No anti-Semitism has been talked about too much and not too harshly.
At the same time, we have a large number of Muslim hatred in view. There is still an absurd claim that Islam and Muslims should not be critically speaking. It is hard to find out what kind of muslim rumor won’t be attracting attention.
Muslim-hatred differs significantly from anti-Semitism: Muslim hate is politically mainstream. The most famous example is sitting in the Washington White House.
Here Similä lets his mask slip. He purposefully conflates legitimate criticism of Islam, with Muslims in general, as illegitimate fear of Islam (Islamofauxbia) as much as the Muslim Brotherhood and as the host of practitioners of Islam 101 (fundamental/basic Islam) i.e. “Islamists”. He’s taking an extremist position wrapped in legitimate feelings for those just slaughtered. I have never targeted Muslims per say, just because they’re Muslims, but the ideology that they promote. That’s legitimate. I have the exact same attitude towards people regardless of their Marxist/Fascist/Islamic pov’s. They’re of the totalitarian mindset, and people have to be warned about the dangers their world views holds for the rest of us.
Similä also takes a pot shot at President Trump, obviously promoting the false narrative that Trump imposed a “Muslim ban” when in fact these were the exact same countries Obama imposed a travel ban (due to terror threats) on during his term in office. The rest of the Islamic world had no ban on them whatsoever. Why would Similä do that? I’ll tell you why, he has a very simplified Marxist view of the world.
“…the Left clings to this illusion: Islam, rebaptized as the religion of the poor, becomes the last utopia, replacing those of Communism and decolonization for disenchanted militants. The Muslim takes the place of the proletarian” — Pascal Bruckner
“I am not talking about anti-Semitism and Muslim hatred in order to set one against the other, but to place them side by side. They are two sides of the same coin. Jews are not protected by oppressing Muslims. On the extreme right, anti-Muslim rhetoric combines with the ancient theories of Jewish conspiracies, and both are bundled with demo speeches. This is the core of the extreme right. US extreme right in Charlottesville, integrated in the autumn of 2017 the slogan of the march groups is not by chance: “Jews will not replace us.” October 11 in Pittsburgh, shot a man in the synagogue justified the fact that the Jews had brought Muslims into the country. “
It is true that with the rise in Muslim immigration to the West, Jews as a whole are being blamed for it by hard-core Alt-Rightists, I have seen it with my own two eyes, have argued with them for spouting this latest outburst of classical antisemitism. But while irrational Jew-hatred has no foundation whatsoever, the fear of canonical Islam does have a valid foundation, and many Jews that I know will tell you so. Canonical Islamic Jew-hatred is most certainly on many Jews’ radar screen. Dhimmitude, the status of Jews and Christians who have lived under the sharia in Islamic lands, is still a vivid memory for many these Jews driven from those lands.
As far as the so-called “far-right” in the US are concerned, they are socialists, national socialists to be exact, having nothing philosophically in common with conservatives whatsoever. Similä, of course, couldn’t care less about that, he needs to draw that all important red thread.
I could hold members of the media, like Similä and the Helsingin Sanomat morally responsible for the spreading of Jew-hatred in Finland in their failure to report on Islam in a factual way. Their smearing of people like myself (in the Breivik massacre in Oslo) as promoting conspiracy theories and hatred, when the opposite is the case. If the subject of Islam was properly handled, much of the problems we currently face with it would have been diffused already. People would see that our leaders and institutions could be trusted to protect our societies, not endanger them.
Ville Similä’s thinking represents the thinking of the existing status quo, and sadly it appears to now have been bolstered by this recent madness.