Muslims dominate the natives on the streets of Norway

Gates of Vienna has an article showing just how unfathomably bad things are in Norway as a result of immigration and multiculturalism (“Everything You Have Learned in School Is Wrong“). The main story is the familiar one throughout the West: elites encourage immigration and are able to avoid the costs. As noted in Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech,  the costs are paid by those who can’t flee the areas impacted by immigration.  In Norway

well-off natives can afford to move to safe, pleasant white enclaves, where they may send their children to school among white native speakers of Norwegian. Less affluent citizens are not so fortunate, however, and are forced to endure the humiliation and degradation of the Multicultural behavioral sink in which their political masters have consigned them to live.

The costs for the less fortunate are dramatic. The article is important because it shows how aggressive the Muslim immigrants are, especially against the native boys. This is a Darwinian dominance struggle between males.

At TOO we often emphasize the individualism of Western societies and the collectivism of pretty much the  rest of the  world. This dichotomy is much on display here: Muslims have large social networks based on kinship and they are aggressive in groups, whereas they are cowardly when alone. The result is a very clear dominance hierarchy, with the natives at the bottom and groups of Muslims at the top. One of the informants, Andreas, says

“There is a hierarchy, where ethnic Norwegian boys are on the bottom rung on the ladder. They will be targeted unless they accede to their rules, if they don’t they become Norwegian immigrants. If a Norwegian boy gets into trouble, odds are that he has a small family and a tiny social network. Unlike a Pakistani or Somali boy, he doesn’t have a clan of brothers and cousins and uncles who come rushing to his aid in the event of a conflict. Most of the time the only thing he has is a single parent.”

An astute commenter on the article writes: “That atomisation and isolation celebrated as ultra-individualism and the contempt for association or commonweal, branded as socialist conspiracy in progressive conservative political dogma, is inhibiting the formation of a mass European opposition particularly at street level.”

The  article makes clear that not only are the Norwegians forced to encounter  hostile gangs of Muslims without social support from friends and relatives, they get no support from the schools (which accommodate Muslim culture and excuse Muslim aggression as resulting from war in their native countries) or the media (which refuses to publish accounts of the reality of life on the streets). (It should also be noted that the justice system fails native Norwegians by giving out lenient punishment and failing to invest resources against the epidemic of Muslim men raping Norwegian women).

So the Norwegians are completely isolated. The Muslims exist in large kinship networks that aid each other in times of need. The genius of Western societies is that individualism allows the construction of civil societies where kinship ties are much less important. This is  why Syria and  Iraq cannot construct civil societies but are riven by kinship groups that are in constant conflict.

Western societies have uniquely been high-trust societies, a point made, e.g., by Francis Fukuyama and a basic corollary of the psychology of Western individualism (see here, p. 27ff). The problem is that we think that everyone is “just like us”—willing and able to set up individualist societies with democratic and republican institutions. As Ian Morris writes in his Why the West Rules—For Now, people are pretty much the same the world over (see Brenton Sanderson’s review). We want to believe this so badly that it was easy to pull off the big lie. It’s the foundational lie of multi-culturalism. (see “The Iraq Nightmare”)

But collectivism is very effective in competition against individualists within a society. This is doubtless the main reason for the success of Judaism as a collectivist culture in relatively  atomized Western societies: Ethnic networking by Jews is very effective in the intellectual world (the theme of The Culture of Critique) and all the other  centers  of power throughout the West.

Highly disciplined, cooperative groups are able to outcompete individualist strategies. Indeed, an important thread in the following chapters is that Jewish intellectuals have formed highly cohesive groups whose influence to a great extent derives from the solidarity and cohesiveness of the group. Intellectual activity is like any other human endeavor: Cohesive groups outcompete individualist strategies. (CofC, Chapter 1, p.5)

The result is that as the collectivists become dominant, many of the individualists accept their subordination and begin to look up to the collectivists, just as so many Whites throughout the West admire Jews as a dominant group. As noted in The Culture of Critique:

Once Jews had attained intellectual predominance, it is not surprising that gentiles would be attracted to Jewish intellectuals as members of a socially dominant and prestigious group and as dispensers of valued resources. Such a perspective fits well with an evolutionary perspective on group dynamics: Gentiles negotiating the intellectual status hierarchy would be attracted to the characteristics of the most dominant members of the hierarchy, especially if they viewed the hierarchy as permeable. Writer William Barrett, a gentile editor of Partisan Review, describes his “awe and admiration” of the New York Intellectuals (a group of predominantly Jewish intellectuals discussed in Chapter 6) early in his career. “They were beings invested in my eyes with a strange and mysterious glamour” (in Cooney 1986, 227). (previous link, p. 3)

A similar phenomenon can be seen with Andreas when he encounters Muslim groups:

He lowers his gaze, he wants to be like them, talk like them, he alters his language, limits his vocabulary, makes deliberate spelling mistakes — ‘an school’, kebab-Norwegian, buys a soft gun, wants to be like the older, tougher, cool Pakistani guys that have cars and money and no job, why not become a Muslim, become a brother?

He wants to be like them, but he doesn’t become like them, something inside him is resisting.

Fragments: the bad grades in the Norwegian classes, the bad friends, Islam, he notices how they view women, as an object, how they react when he tries to discuss Islam with them, how they talk about respect, but don’t show any respect, how they refer to Norwegians as f***ing Norwegians, whitey, potato; something inside him resists.

He withdraws. They notice that he withdraws. Then it starts.

Others respond to the dominance of the Muslims with fear.

“They are afraid. They don’t dare to speak out. You should have a look at the number of principals that have come and gone at Vestliveien school in recent years, and ask them why they left. They don’t have control, but they do everything to accommodate the Muslim students. In home economics classes everybody has to prepare halal meat. Immigrants do not have to attend ‘NyNorsk’ classes [literally New-Norwegian, which is a different dialect and a different way to write Norwegian — there are two forms of written Norwegian]. I have to attend these classes. The Muslim girls do not have to attend the physical activity classes; because of course they cannot undress in front of other girls. We have to adapt to their culture. They don’t have to adapt to ours.”

Others  stand up to this onslaught, but the result  is the same:

[Marius] doesn’t lower his head. He refuses to take any crap. He answers back. He’s loudmouthed. He is who he is. It does not matter. But that’s not why they target him. It is an autumn evening in seventh grade. He is playing tennis. When he leaves the court to collect some tennis balls they appear. They are seven or eight Somalis. The beat the crap out of him, he has to get new teeth put in.

Marius doesn’t slow down. He calls a Roma girl a gypsy, something that isn’t appreciated. When her brothers and cousins come for him, he hides in the principal’s office.

And girls naturally look up to socially dominant males:

“There is one thing that annoys the hell out of me. They can start chasing Norwegian girls, but we cannot go after theirs. It’s something you learn early on. You just don’t go after a Pakistani girl, but Norwegian girls are available to immigrant boys. Norwegian girls prefer them. I don’t know why. I guess it must be that brown skin. That they are tough, that they have money despite not having jobs. They don’t see that they fight in packs, that they are cowards. I asked my best female friend if we could get romantically involved, and she told me that I have the right personality, but the problem was that I’m Norwegian. She wants to become involved with a foreigner.”

The domination of native Norwegian women by the  Muslim men is the ultimate evolutionary disaster for Norwegian men. (And, as noted in Andreus’s comment above, Muslims view women as objects, whereas in the West the position of women has always been much higher—a result of monogamy putting a damper on sexual competition among males.)

This sexual dominance is played out in little ways. When journalists accompany Andreas to the  subway station, they encounter two Muslims who stare at them. “We lower our gaze first.” Another example:  A  group of Muslims yells, “‘Hey Marius have you got yourself a girlfriend,’ and it’s not the words that are threatening, but the way they are being uttered, do you understand, how they look at me and my girlfriend who starts to cry, do you understand?”

Girls don’t want  to be with boys who are made fun of by other males.

Immigration and multiculturalism are a disaster for the West.