Mr. Sennels made extensive studies of the criminal behavior of young Danish Muslims while working in a Copenhagen prison. His experiences there caused him to conclude that “integration”, as it is presently understood and administered by the Danish social and juridical systems, cannot succeed.
Nicolai Sennels returns with a new essay for Gates of Vienna that examines the folly of worrying about the “stigmatization” of Muslim immigrants.
The “Stigmatization Argument”: The silliest argument in the integration debate
by Nicolai Sennels
For too long, the “Stigmatization Argument” has been allowed to dominate integration debate — without being challenged, despite the argument’s lack of logic and basic knowledge about human behavior.
Undocumented pocket psychology
The stigmatization argument is based on a round of undocumented amateurishly misunderstood Freudian nonsense that “pressure begets back pressure” and that the anti-social behavior of Muslim immigrants is therefore a natural (and thus fair?) response to criticism from their surroundings. Supporters of the stigmatization argument thus create their own illogical and self-confirming model of integration problems — since the anti-social behavior leads indeed to more criticism (citizens’ expressed doubts about the chances of successful integration; journalists reporting about crimes committed by Muslims — often described as “Asians”, “immigrants”, or simply “youths” in the media; politicians demanding stricter immigration rules and tougher laws), which then (according to the stigmatization argument) is the direct cause of even more anti-social behavior.
The stigmatization argument can be described as a false “fire triangle of integration” in this way:
| 1. | Criticism | |
| 2. | Feeling of stigmatization | |
| 3. | “Natural” anti-social reaction |
Leading to:
| 1. | More criticism… |
…and round and round we go.
According to “stigmatization theorists” this evil fire triangle of integration can only be broken if the media, politicians and non-Muslims stop criticizing Muslims’ anti-social behavior. As anyone with a minimum of knowledge of human behavior and psychology knows, long lasting-changes in behavior only occur when people themselves realize their problematic behavior, want to change, and have the emotional and intellectual surplus to change.
A realistic triangle of integration would look like this:
- - - - - - - - -
| 1. | Western societies natural demands for integration and adaptation to Western standards of behavior for immigrants | |
| 2. | Muslims’ feeling of victimization | |
| 3. | Muslims’ childish and socially unacceptable behavior |
Leading to:
| 1. | More demands for socially acceptable behavior (which most Muslims can not live up to) |
…and round and round we go.
Thus the only lasting and reasonable way to brake this circle is that that anti-social Muslims drop their victim mentality (called “sense of stigmatization” by the stigmatization theorists) and make use of democratic and socially acceptable ways of living and handling criticism. Clearly the followers of the stigmatization argument do not possess such natural and humane expectations of Muslims.
Instead they focus on the third corner of the triangle — the corner which is about criticism. This way of thinking thus argues that problems only end when we stop “stigmatizing” immigrants by criticizing them. Put it another way: If we stop pointing out the serious problems in Muslim families, Muslim-dominated areas, and Islam, then the problems will disappear by themselves.
Integration problems cannot be silenced to death. Actually, I would go so far as to suggest that the problems can only be solved by talking about them, by “saying the troll’s name”.
What do you think?
Nicolai Sennels is a Danish psychologist who worked for several years with young criminal Muslims in a Copenhagen prison. His book “Among Criminal Muslims: A psychologist’s experiences with the Copenhagen Municipality.” compares mental characteristics of Danish and Muslim teenagers. The book’s description of the psychological profile of the Muslim culture kick-started the Danish debate on Muslim culture and its relationship with high Muslim crime rates and raised the serious question: Will Muslim integration ever happen to the necessary extent? The book will be out in English later this year.
Mr. Sennels can be reached at nicolaisennels@gmail.com.
12 comments:
Put it another way: If we stop pointing out the serious problems in Muslim families, Muslim-dominated areas, and Islam, then the problems will disappear by themselves.
Congratulations to Mr. Sennels for so succinctly summarizing the "stigmatization" argument and, thereby, showing it to be absurd. When we add to "stigmatization" and "victim" strategy the ubiquitous Arab/Muslim supremacist ideology explicit in the teachings of Mohammed, we have explained I submit, the entire foundation of our current catastrophe.
The stigmatization argument is based on a round of undocumented amateurishly misunderstood Freudian nonsense that “pressure begets back pressure” and that the anti-social behavior of Muslim immigrants is therefore a natural (and thus fair?) response to criticism from their surroundings.
The notion of “pressure begets back pressure” is akin to that of “killing terrorists only creates more terrorists”. Both are as popular as they are patently false. Muslim “back pressure” occurs precisely for no other reason other than because they are allowed to get away with it. Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan proclaims that Muslim assimilation is “a crime against humanity” and yet he is not just as promptly shouted down with collateral threats of denying Turkey’s accession to the EU and similar curbs on immigration from that country. Thus is such non-integration being de facto rewarded.
According to “stigmatization theorists” this evil fire triangle of integration can only be broken if the media, politicians and non-Muslims stop criticizing Muslims’ anti-social behavior.
This tidy little experiment is already in progress all across Europe with startlingly consistent results in the form of even more aggressive assertions of Muslim entitlement. As Pat Condell so fond of pointing out:
”… every concession to Islam is the thin end of an even bigger wedge."
To concede any part of the stigmatization argument is to enable and invite even less Muslim integration in addition to an even greater degree of agitation for increased freedom to practice barbaric shari’a in places where much of that Islamic legal code is in direct violation of pre-existing laws and simple common decency.
Clearly the followers of the stigmatization argument do not possess such natural and humane expectations of Muslims.
It is increasingly apparent that “followers of the stigmatization argument” have absolutely no intention or desire that Muslims should successfully integrate into Western cultures. Such assimilation would defeat not only their goal of deconstructing Judeo-Christian societies but expose the abject racism of Liberal desires that Muslims remain the barbaric thugs which these overly-sympathetic dystopian frauds continue to worship as their oh-so precious Noble Savages™.
This way of thinking thus argues that problems only end when we stop “stigmatizing” immigrants by criticizing them.
The foregoing “logic” precludes any notion that criticism might have some value. It in turn stigmatizes all types of such feedback, even the ultimately useful and valuable form of constructive criticism. This is a direct reflection of the Magical Thinking™ that renders invalid the bulk of Liberal arguments as they are so often unable to withstand even passing scrutiny. Thus do Muslims and Liberals alike find themselves stigmatized by any criticism. Oh woe!
If we stop pointing out the serious problems in Muslim families, Muslim-dominated areas, and Islam, then the problems will disappear by themselves.
This is very true but not in the way it was meant. If Islam is shielded from all criticism and scrutiny, it eventually overthrows all sources of such awkward interference and, presto, the problem disappears by itself.
Integration problems cannot be silenced to death.
Quite to the contrary, they can and, given half a chance, Islam does a rather splendid job of it. Just ask the Persians.
Actually, it looks like a free market mechanism:
If complaints about 'stigmatization' ('discrimination', 'racism' etc. ad nauseum) yields material benefits, we will see more of it.
On the other hand, if we (metaphorically) let the thief come to an empty house, the bickering will die out on its own.
Don't feed the problems, feed the solutions.
This reasoning can be easily applied to a more commonly recognized social problem - alcoholics and their dependents.
"Enablers" - dependents of alcoholics who fail to confront the alcoholic about his behavior indeed subscribe to the stigmatization theory. In such family atmosphere, any criticism of the alcoholic becomes an excuse for continued drinking, in exactly the same way as the article describes.
This is a strong argument: The stigmatization theorists and their followers are behaving like the enablers of alcoholics.
mriggs: The stigmatization theorists and their followers are behaving like the enablers of alcoholics.
This analogy holds true in many important respects. Islam's Liberal enablers are well known for insisting that alcoholism is a disease. Might it then follow that we should view their pet Muslims as being mentally ill?
2. Muslims’ feeling of victimization
3. Muslims’ childish and socially unacceptable behavior
That just about sums it up!
I wonder what's more illogical and evil... Them living here and not assimilating or us being idiots and allowing them in hoping that they do? I mean, the Turkish PM is right in a way that them integrating is a 'crime against humanity'.
If they dont want to assimilate then they can hit the road for 57 Muslim states of their choice. No crime against humanity there. Bon voyage!
Hit the road Jackhmed and don't you come back nomore, nomore, nomore, nomore. Sounds great to me.
German translation also available on Europenews
http://europenews.dk/de/node/31160
Best, Liz
According to Stephen Coughlin, an expert who spoke at this year's CPAC, the goal of Islam is to further the cause of Islam. Therefore, any criticism of Islam (or revealing of unpalatable truths about Islam) is hate speech because such speech fails to further the cause of Islam.
The real kicker is that the cause of Islam is the establishment of a worldwide caliphate ruled by Sharia Law.
The West's failure to criticize Islam is a HUGE mistake which is interpreted by Muslims as weakness to be exploited until Muslims are able to outright conquer the West.
Dear friends
It is a joy to follow your comments.
All the best from Denmark!
Nicolai Sennels
Post a Comment