According to myth, in the ancient time there was a couple. The most amazing couple; he the hero, she beckoning horse with flying wings attached to her side.

The couple were absolutely invincible in fight, they won this fight, then another, then another, then another. At the end, they felt so confident, Bellerophon and Pegasus, that they decided to wage war against the gods.

They flew against the sun, higher, and higher, and higher until the feathers started to fall off the wings of Pegasus. Bellerophon clung to the sides of his friend, with all his might. But, alas, to no avail. He fell off, spinned through the air, as a feather of silk, slowly floating through ether to the ground, where he rests until today, broken and weak.

We did the same, we, the europeans. After the french revolution, we reinvented democracy, reason, order, light and beauty, and we conquered the world with this knowledge. But we flew too close to the sun, and we named our ships after the Titans, and they sank. Democracy is now weakened, and needs a helping hand to reemerge.

History repeats itself

2400 years ago, a certain philosopher were booed at in a ring of persecutors. He stood up, old as he was, but yet erect and looked the prosecutors in there eyes, not blinking, and yet warm at heart. He said, as a reference to the story about Bellerophon; you! You want me to shut up, because you believe, that by shutting me up, you will be at a better state. In this you are so incredibly wrong, you may not like what I say, and you may hate me for stating my critique, against all who sincerely believe that they are better than others. But by sentencing me to the death, you will kill the best in yourself. Because I am the bee, that will sting you, as you emerge and fly to the sky. If I did not exist, you would end in the fall your own fallacy and hubris.

So the jury went into a frenzy. There was a great upheaval, all the so called noble Athenians, the most distinguished citizens of the most cultured city on earth, started cackling. They shouted; stop this man, tell him to shut up, this is not ok! They sentenced him to the most final sentence of all; the judgement of the cup. So Socrates took the cup, and drank it and perished, still with his honor intact. He preferred to take his life, rather than shut up. You can kill a bee, but you cannot convince it not to sting.

We are, in our democracies in a great crisis. We are lazy, slothful and without the most basic understanding of what our problems are. We are at the same stage as when Socrates was persecuted. Now, Athens finally fell to the supreme fighters of Alexander the Greats father; Philip. But today, the enemy at large, is not a benevolent supreme hellenic leader. It comes with the advance of the Koran, with the threat of Sharia and the Caliphate. It is sharpened at the edge of a Scimitar. It will lead to our destruction, if we do not accept the threat. It is a threat that is based on the word of G-d, and it is not understood with naught but the chains of one thing; submission. Evil and stupidity is threatening us, the rational argument is to no avail, the free dialogue is under a heavy pressure, by the sons of Sahara, the islamic imperialists.

But if we reach out, and connect with the examples of the past, do hold on to the wealth of ideas and principles of the hellenes, there is still hope. We can stop the hand of Socrates, just at the very point of no return. Base our world again on beauty, science, justice and intelligence.

Yes, the game of the horse and bee is with no mercy, as they float in conjunction and yet disconjunction at the very edge of the abyss. The ideas of man is boundless, but the repercussions of the public debate is as well with no ethics, no regret.

This book is a bite of the bee.

So be prepared to be stung. Be prepared to have all the skeletons of the multicultural society pulled out of the dark and put in front of your vision. Be prepared to look on the way we have constructed our society in such a destructive way. But bear with me, because it is not done to harm or to make anything that would be at the worse of our society. It is done to open your eyes, to arm you with new weapons of insight, to make you able and proud of yourself again.

I am so sorry my friend, but that is the way it is. Sometimes to grow you need to cut some scales away from your eyes, to see again.

And yet, I try to envision paradise on earth. As it stood when Socrates was young, a kind of utopia, that we can make today on our planet, the vast and unending natural habitat of man.

I try to make this paradise on more than just fake ideas. My aim is to construct it based on thoughts of Aristotle. Created with the very best of Plato. On the insights of Rousseau. Coated with the will of Animaxander. To remake democracy as it was at the height of its conception in the halls of Athens.

So it is not only negative, it is a vision of what is to come, if we try, as well.

Democracy is not just democracy, there are regional differences, each separate people should find its own, in regards to its understanding of democracy. We here in the cold north, have strived for, and worked upon ours for a millennia if not more. But there is the original version of democracy, as it was still in existence a thousand years ago on the storm clad islands of Iceland. We met, we discussed, we understood as we were the very first to embrace what we called a Freestate. In this work I have tried to combine the ideas of the Athenian democracy with the ideas of the original Freestate.

The Freestate

Out of the mist, a vague figure slowly appears to the eye. First the figure is incomplete, then traits are visualized slowly, lingering and menacing. The slow, moving rocking up and down is a movement of desolate desperation. The enigma is the boat, the boat is the enigma. As it is forcing its way through the mist.

The dragons head at he bow of the ship grins in a vicious way, as though it finds it funny that the boat has been floating on the deep sea, with only the whales and the sea lions as companion for at small week now. The boards and the roping queacks as it is gliding against each other in an intimate embrace.

The slither of compressed eyes staring into the mist from the head of the ship is a piercing look. It tries to, as a show of will, to part the mist, to see what is ahead. All of a sudden a slim line of shore appears behind the lifting mist. The eyes, compresses even more, as the man tries to part the veil of sea in front of him. But yes, it is something! It is there! We are at shore, finally.

The man, opens his eyes in a shout of joy. Screaming; ” We are there, we are there, all hands on deck. I see it, we have reached our final destination; Iceland!”

A flurry of feet steps unto the creaking and screaming boards, as they all run to the head of the boat. Yes! we are there do they all cry, in the unison joy of the son of Halfdan the Black, as it is written in Islendigabok. We are there, finally, we are free.

In the beginning the new icelanders did what they did best, put up a village, started to roam the nearby islands, in short; made a living. But the escape from Denmark and Norway gave them a special love for the freedom of their own person. As they met on “tinge”, they convened, they discussed, the bartered, as they were free.They had made a Freestate, were no tyrant would or could impose his will on the inhabitants of Iceland.

It was not a perfect system, but it illustrates how we northerners prefer to organize the lives of ours. An ideal that is still held high in the songbook of our ancestors. As they say:

Denmark, for a thousand years

for longer yet than saga tells us

the heritage of out tribe

destroyed and yet ripe

our home and the port of the world

so rich a heritage

Denmark, yet again

another spring of storms

with life and death

fighting or working

put upon our backbones strong

Lift us, our ancient flag

In life and death!

Denmark, for a thousand years

port of the sea and farmers lot

And, the inheritance of free men

Take us, man for man!

our country should stand

As the inheritance of a free man

The spirit of democracy

In their longboats did the vikings spread across the globe; Canute to England, The Rus til Rusland, the Goths to central Europe. From there on, it spread on; to America, to Australia, to Byzans. Like a vast horde of fighting men at the ready, did they conquer this, then this and then this. Today many call the vikings cruel barbarians. There are a bit of truth to this, but then again, the basic truth is also, that the virtues of the golden fighters are still the basic virtue we base our world upon today. And Balder, the God of light and poetry, was a favorite of many, as he sang of beauty, warmth and love. So was Tyr, who sacrificed himself for the rest of the Gods and the community.

No, we are not perfect, but there is one thing that, above all, define us as a community and gives us our basic value; we do love our freedom. The tall, untamed, wild and courageous vikings never wanted anyone to rule over them, they wanted to be able to decide for themselves. Still, this is how we like it to be.

This uncompromising attitude towards freedom, gives us an incentive to prefer democracy. We do not accept the sovereignty of others on ourselves, we prefer to live and meet in the vicinity of our tinge. Where we can discuss the issues at hand, and find a solution as equals. Democracy suits us, and is good for us.

The Athenians felt the same way, and I believe we can be inspired by the thoughts of the sailing greeks, as they are sailors and lovers of freedom, as we are.

The two parts of the Freestate

The most profound understanding of democracy, lies in the insight, that democracy is more than just a system of control. Democracy is a faith. Socrates was more than just a strange halfwit academic living in a remote city thousands of years ago. Socrates represents the spirit of democracy.

In the first part of the utopia, I try to reveal and understand the spirit of democracy.

But off cause democracy is much more than the spirit, it is a complex and sophisticated system, combining elements as, school, governance, rule of law, social state, municipalities, hospitals, infrastructure, banking and so on.

In the second part of the utopia, I try to envision a democratic society based on the ideas of Aristotle, Solon, Rousseau, Hal Koch and many more.

Part 1 – The spirit of democracy

Freedom of speech

We are at Athens again. Imagine the scene; we are talking about a huge theatre, classical statues everywhere, proud and soaring pillars, upholding the manifestation of Athenian power. Or rather, after a long extremely exhausting war with the archenemy Sparta, the feathers have fallen of the proud wings of Pegasus, and here we are, at the execution of Socrates, or perhaps he will bow to the might of the ten tyrants? In a way Socrates is the fall guy, the symbol that someone had to bring down in a wrath of anger against the core of Athens. Socrates is the symbol of democracy, that the Athenians have so purposefully fought for, therefor he has to go.

Plato is in the audience, and he takes notes of the speech in defense that Socrates calls for his person. So it is a bit like this.

Socrates:

”… my speech of defense is therefor not done in defense of myself, as one would think; it is about you. My purpose in life is to make you see, that you should not harm what G-d has given you, by sentencing me to the death. Because if you do so, it will be very difficult to find someone like me. Someone who, if I may use a bit of an exhilarating expression, has been, by G-d set on your city, like a bee on a great noble steed. A steed that is a bit slow and clumsy, and therefor has to be kept alive by beating and slapping. I believe that is what G-d saw fit for me to do. Because I use all my time to keep you awake, to move you forward, by annoying each and everyone of you. Like a bee flying from one part of the body to the next. 

Such a bee is difficult to acquire again, and therefor I advise you not to take my life. ”

It is only when we are ready to bear criticism and direct criticism towards other people, that we truly embrace democracy. The strength of this is the fact, that we may think that we know what is the right thing, but only through dialogue are we really able to understand this. Because the world is in many colors and in many variations. We as humans have an innate barrier, we tend to freeze into specific ideological positions. This is wrong, there are virtues and values, but the application of these values are always relative to the situation. This is why Socrates is such an important symbol to our democracies, because he himself, was willing to pay the highest price for this central freedom to speak. It is the core, because, if we are not able to find the truth in the situation, we are not really able to do good, or find goodness in the situation, because we are unable to really realize what it is. This is why the most important value of democracy is freedom of speech.

Now people often say, especially if the discussion rise onto heights we do not like in terms of volume and digressions, that we should show respect, and people have their honor to care about. This is true, but there is a fine line between enlightening the society, that is what you do when you speak the truth regardless of the consequences, and the threatening of violence. As Grundtvig said; the speech is free, but the hands are tied on the back. That is, we are, in principle allowed to say anything we want, but if we threaten others with violence, then it is wrong. Take an example; I do not like what you say, I have several options; 1. I can choose to put forth rational arguments to change your ideas. 2. I can threaten you with violence if you do not accept my idea of a worldwiev. Now, the democratic system only works, if there is no violence in the system. Because ideally, the democratic debate is a space we all have to create a new meaning based on our rational arguments. Therefor option two is not allowed, and should be brought to justice if it is done.

It is clear that the democratic societies, where we are able to discuss freely, are the most happy. Simply because a ban on your speech is a form of tyranny. Tyranny is the state of a organization where a tyrant will persecute all who do not like his ideas. It is a system of absolute control, and that is an unhappy state to be a part of.

Democracy works!

Socrates goes on like this:

“Dear fellow citizens, despite all the respect I bestow upon you, I would rather heed the word of G-d than the word of your assembly, that is my preposition. As long as I am able to breath, I will not stop my search for truth; I will not end the eternal prodding and questioning of your ideas, and when I meet you, I will speak to you as I have always done. Something like this; Listen dearest friend, you yourself are from Athens, I city famed for its culture and power. Do you not find it a bit sad, that you only show interest in acquiring money and honor, and only think about the size of your money pile, but do not care a tiny bit about justice and truth, and never care about the betterment of your soul.”

Socrates was not afraid to die for his principles. But there is more to the equation than meets the eye at the first look of his sacrifice. He also talks about the need to understand, and fight to reach an ethical point of view. Democracy is not about just saying what you want to say, but about the ability to reach an ethical point of view. To be able to understand what is the good and the valuable in the situation. He had a calling, a calling towards the good.

The true point of Socrates here, is the point that democracy is not the rules and the regulations. It is a way of life. Only if we heed the calling of Socrates, and do as he does; pursue the ethical path, will democracy work.

Democracy is the rule of the people, and only if the people are in a state of honesty and justice will democracy actually work. If the people is dishonest, full of themselves, cheating and lacking the basic interest in justice; so will the democracy be. This is the reason why we have so much emphasis on the ethical wellbeing of the people, because they, or we, constitute democracy ourselves.

Democracy ends and starts with the honesty of man.

As mentioned above, the freedom of speech, that drives the honesty of the debate is a point of almost absolute freedom, but at the other end of the spectrum lies the ethical stance that all citizens should reach and work for. Therefor democracy lies in a balance between freedom and conscience.

The conscience is a bit like a compass; it points to the direction of good, and it is our job to try to follow that needle as it swings from right to left in the daily grinding of our lives. Yet the compass of conscience is embedded into something more than just the mundane choices of life. It is a part of a greater machinery.

Our relatives so far back had another vision of society than what we have as of today. They saw the human race as a smallish being living in the middle of two opposites. Below them was a monstrous world, filled with trolls, undead and other vile beings of the netherworld. They called it Hel. Above them was a world of wonder and beauty. There the G-ds resided, Odin the war-father, Freya the goddess of sex, Thor the god of strength, Balder the god of poetry and lore. In the middle, man resided, in Middle earth. Here we either had the option to go up or down, based on the prowess of our lives. The worst off cause was to die of old age, the death of the straws, as it was called. We need to fight to reach heaven.

Now, everything was carried by a huge tree. The tree was an ash, and in the tree lived numerous enchanted animals; the squirrel Rattatosk, the eagle Vidofnir and the crows Hugin and Munin. At that time, we did live in a close relationship with nature. As it was everywhere.

Aristotle claims the same; we are all part of nature. Man is a natural being, as crows, eagles and squirrels. If we deny this outset, we will not be able to reach for a higher goal. It is only if we try to understand ourselves as animals, that we are able to reach for a higher civilization and status as men. It may be a humble point of departure, but yet it is the most sane and healthy.

Aristotle is of the opinion, as Socrates, that we have to propel the society towards the good side. Now, this is a common denomination of most religions, philosophies and justice systems. Who would disagree with that? But, there a huge but, we seldom discuss what good is. We take it a bit for granted, that good is something we would recognize as it is presented in front of our eyes, we feel it, or the compass of conscience will lead us the right way. Now, this may be true, but there are answers and ideas as to the character of goodness, that we can use in our lives to reach the right destination in our lives based on rational choices. If we know what good is, we can find the way to it. There are many answers, but the most usable, as I see it, and the most serious when it comes to the existence of us as human beings in a natural world is the answer of Plato.

Plato calls the existence of good a simple thing, something we all have in our lives, but sometimes looses. It is the state of being where we are in good health. Health as a positive entity, is the goodness of life. Say, if we run around and live our lives in the stress of the moment, with only a piece of pizza as meal and a bubbling soda as drink. Will we be healthy or unhealthy? The answer is simple. This goes on for society at large. Will the threats on live as we hear from evil persons be healthy or unhealthy to the one who receive it? The answer is simple, no. Therefor it is an act of evil. Now, if we however tend our school, check up on our grandparents, stay out of trouble, live our lives as responsible citizens, are we in a state of health or unhealth? Well the answer is given; we are in a state of health and that is good. We live to bring acts of unselfish love to the world, to make a face light up in a smile, to bring the best up in our mates and friends. That is good. But if we meet people who lie or steal, abuse others or even worse things as killing, raping and the like. We know that this is bad. This is evil.

We however also do realize, that the position of good and bad is relative to the situation. Sometimes an act of mercy will be an act of subjugation in another situation. Therefor we need to calibrate our understanding of good and evil in the speech and dialogue of the society. We need to understand the position of the other, to really understand the right action in the situation.

Therefor the happy world will be a world where free, joyous, conscientious, strong men, full of live in a good relationship to nature around them roam, is the goal of a good society.

Reason

Through the times, over and over again, a central tool and weapon of the philosophers has been reason. With this tool old worldwievs has been brought to an end, and new worldwievs, based on a more true understanding of all, has come into existence. The church was brought to an end, and democracy was envisioned and realized. The rational analysis of Aristotle can be a means as to reach truth. With truth we can again navigate in the world.

The first philosopher of Denmark, Boethius de Dacia, wrote it like this;

“The highest good of man, must come with the most noble tool it has. It cannot be found with the part of the soul that is unknowing, because that is the realm of plants. Neither can it be realized through the means of the part of the soul that is the residence of the feelings, because that part is the realm of animals. No, the most noble part of man is the part where resides the ability to reason. This part where it is called the realm of the conscious mind, lies the most advanced steering of man, in thought as well as action.”

Boethius de Dacia was a pupil of Thomas Aquinas, and a part of the first European renaissance. He was a most radical interpreter of the newly refound Aristotle.

The citation above was extremely provocative in the time of Bo, it cost him the persecution of the Catholic state. This is a bit the same as today, where reason is not brought down by the Catholic church, but brought down by the ambition of the Muslim Caliphate.

Let us continue.

According to Aristotle, reason is the prime difference between man and animal.

Reason is in the view of Thomas Locke the ability to think in abstract terms; we can project patterns in our mind, we can analyze, we can see the issues at hand from several perspectives. And thus understand reality in its details.

The ability to reason, is used in democracy to judge our actions and make new laws. We as members of the democratic constitution spar on arguments, to conclude based on reason. If for an instance a country decides to go to war, all members of the people should ideally enter the discussions of the pros and cons; what are the costs of the war, how many lives may we loose, is the target ok? And so on and so forth.

Reason should not be an aim in itself, but only and solely, a tool to find the best solution in the situation. To find logos; order.

Freedom of speech often is used to pose the “childish questions”. Often the most difficult issues to address are the most obvious. In this situation one can put oneself in the position of the child.

In the tale of H.C. Andersen called “The emperors new clothes”; a silly emperor strolls around bare naked, because the crafty tailors have conned him into believing he wears the most illustrious of garments. It was not until the child exclaimed; “The emperor does not wear any clothes!”, that everybody else had the guts to admit that the emperor was bare naked. In other words, there is a certain psychological mechanism, that will hinder man in realizing things with reason.

If you use this insight to reflect on the issues of today, it is easy to realize, that the mass immigration of muslims to our country is a bad thing. The Mohammad Cartoon crisis shoved this, in all its simple clarification. But because the common ideas of the multicultural society hinders the rational discussion of the issue at hand, most people tend to ignore the problem. Not until a grumpy social worker started to yell and shout about it, did we really begin the discussion in earnest. This was done, though the most of the senior politicians, literati, intellectuals and academics did their very best to hinder the truth to be heard.

This was why Socrates was so unpopular as well. He also asked the unwanted questions, and insisted on having a rational dialogue on the difficult issues, even though it was a unwanted thing to do. He kept asking the provocative questions.

Reason is a very difficult thing to realize, because it will demand a heart for the difficult discussion, and an ability to digress in the discussion. Often the effect of a serious true discussion will lead to a wild and ambitious witch hunt from the rightfully wronged. They will scream, shout, call you names and try, with the most evil and corrupt means, to bring you down. The discussion will turn emotional and sour, people do not like to realize that they have been conned by the emperors tailor of deception.

Today it is done through social exclusion, the persecution of the secret police, and the berufsverbot. It can be a very embarrassing and difficult situation to bear witness to. But luckily democracy has a way to earn the truth seekers a place among the winner. Sometimes the philosopher will survive other times the witch hunters will succeed in killing the bee. It is a 50/50 percent gamble.

However a true Socrates has the most potent weapon all all in the Freestate; he has the question. If he is met with resistance and disregard from the rest of the society, he can still defend himself by questioning the equilibrium of the times, and insist on this until he will find truth.

As we wandered out of the woods, and met at tinge, there was an interesting tradition that took place. Every year, and sometimes a bit more; we chose our king. This today resembles the system of United States of America, where the president is chosen every fourth year.

The construction of democracy

Danes are as the Athenians are travelers. We have roamed the sea through millennia, first in our longboats, then in proud schooners, now in immense container ships with our star marks on the brows of our ships. We are used to travel abroad, find new harbors and new ideas in faraway countries. The best songs of our minstrels are about the vanity of the seamen, the romance of a faraway land, and the struggle of man in the eyes of the typhoons. This tradition thousands of years in the making, has a certain influence on the character of the Danish people. There is a bit of a sailor in all of the Danes. We like to board our ships, sit in the harbor and listen to the melancholic tunes of yore, or wake up in the morning to the sound of water carefully caressing the hulls of our ships.

The wrath of the sea has toughened us up. We never know whether we will perish in the next wave, or we will live another day. When this is the reality, you might just say things as they are. I believe the sea has given a bit of magic to our poetry. All our films, furniture, literature, philosophy and dance carry a certain flicker of lightness, that would not be possible to obtain in a country without sea.

This poetry we share with the Athenians. Solon, the first philosopher of Athens got this message from the oracle of Pytho;

“Find your place in the vessel, accept the task of first mate

Steer the boat, and you will find many allies in Athens”

A great number of the Athenian institutions and ideas we carry already; democracy, rule of law, science philosophy, but we can, by approaching the ideas and wisdom of the Athenian world and the original Freestate  even more, make our societies better. The most defining difference between the Athenian world, the principles of the Freestate – and our current society, is the level of democratic control done by the citizens. Athens and the Freestate were much more free than what we have today, it was controlled by the citizens.

In Denmark we have a representative democracy, we have left the government of our states to a certain number of people.

We can do better than that.

The Alting

In Denmark, and in other Northern countries we still have a king. But in a hundred percent democracy, even the king is chosen.

I respect the queen very much in Denmark, but why not make the kings and queens eligible for a vote? It would strengthen the kingship of all the northern countries.

Our forefathers met and convened at what they called the Alting.

Not only did the forefathers meet and convene, they also made laws. We could enhance and be inspired by this tradition, and make the Alting again. We could learn from one of the most democratic countries in the world; Switzerland.

In Switzerland the citizens of Switzerland are allowed to initiate the commission of new laws and make them laws for all.

Inspired by the this system we could make three phases in our modern Alting:

1. Initiative

2. Debate

3. Vote

The rules could be:

1. Initiative

a. All citizens could propose new laws

b. New laws could be send to a central internet page

c. All citizens have three votes he/she can appoint to different proposals of law

d. Every year two to three proposals of law are chosen

e. Discussion of the laws could be made on the internet, communal houses, in family, on work and so on

f. The phase of initiative could take up to a month

2. Debate

a. The two to three three proposals of law could be brought to debate in the television, in radio, on the internet

b. The experts could tell us about the impact of the laws

3. Vote

a. The citizens of the given country could vote on the laws

After the vote, the parliament could work on the laws in specific terms, and implement it. The Alting has been reintroduced.

The day to day administration and minor laws should be run by the parliament. The local municipalities should each choose whether they want a local version of the Alting, or not. The local version of the Alting should be managed and built to fit the local framework and needs.

The new system would have the following drawbacks:

1. The system would perhaps tend to be a bit slow on remaking things and be quite conservative. Switzerland is one of the most conservative countries in the world

2. Denmark would not be able to work within a framework like the European Union, or rather it would be hard to fit in. At the other hand, there are several states in the US where they have direct democracy, so if it works in the US, it could work in the EU as well.

The new mode of state would have the following strengths:

1. It would give power to the people

2. It would strengthen the bond between people

3. It would strengthen the democratic culture

4. It would lead the democracies into the digital world. In many ways a modern Freestate is a consequence of the digital revolution

5. It would give Denmark a unique position in the international community. People around the world would travel to Denmark to see the super democratic state

6. It would give stability. Switzerland have worked as it is for 5 – 600 hundred years

7. It would weaken politics run by only political parties

8. It would be festive and joyful

9. It would healthy for the soul of the people

10. It would give the media a healthy democratic task

11. It would give academia a more potent say in the democratic process, and thereby inspire academia to enhance the democratic virtues of the society at large and the world of academy in general

All in all it would strengthen democracy.

The counterweight balance between the rule of law and the rule of the people

The very essence of the western civilization lies in a specific principle that is simple and yet enormous in its implications. That is the counterweighting balance between the rule of law and the rule of the people. In this very essence of our system, the man of democracy wins his freedom. The french philosopher Rousseau understands this in a simple and yet profound manner. We are, as Aristotle say, just animals. We are set in a world, where the strongest may survive by the strength of his arm. We know ourselves, from the schoolyard, where the strongest kids beat up the less strong. We know it from the rule of the villain in the brutal play in the backyard of a desolate city. We know it from the rule in the prison, where the gauntlet is put around the weaker inmates, and held by the brutal and vicious ruler of the stronger enemies of state. The beauty of the balance between the the rule of the people and the the rule of the law, is the simple fact, that it nullifies the rule of the strong. As Rousseau so beautifully states it;

“Man is born free, but everywhere it is in chains”

We win our freedom by leaving our power to the rule of the people and the rule of law. We could retain our individual freedom, but we give it away, so that it may rest in the hands of democracy. Instead of tyrannizing each other at the expense of the weak, we all decide to maintain a civil society, where conflicts are solved in dialogue, and we all obey the commonly defined rules in the Magna Carta of our time; the rule of the law.

Rousseau was a son of the continent, he was originally from Geneva, and he wrote his absolutely world dominating books in Paris/France. But I think that he put too much trust on the freedom by law. It is of cause true that we win our freedom by adhering to law, but my feeling is, that it gives us a bit of a hierarchical society. My point is, that in Athens, most citizens won their freedom, by using their freedom of speech in dialogue. Because in this instance we leave the rule of the strong by solving our conflicts in dialogue. We do respect the rule of law to an absolute perfection, but yet we prefer the democratic process to solve the conflicts we have. We do love to discuss this or that, sometimes we do even discuss too much. But, as Hal Koch said;

“Democracy is dialogue”

Rule of law

The Rule of law. This amazing system given to us by the forefather of our forefathers, spread through Europe by the advent of the Roman Empire. Lead by emperors as Caesar and Marcus Aurelius, intelligized by the most amazing and inspirational lawmakers of the ancient tribunals. The law of Rome was an act of control, it was not designed to wrap around local customs and traditions. It was a system where an intelligent framework created by the most wise ancients was distributed by decree, and it is, in some ways superior to the system we have today.

There is, however, another way to conduct and spread the rule of law; the way they did it in Athens. Rome really admired the Athenians, but they never really reached the same level of excellence as the Athenians, in my opinion.

In Athens the citizens were a part of the legal process, just as the men of Iceland was on tinge, by the law stone.

This brings us, with the words of Aristotle to the discussion of the citizens ability to understand a given item of discussion, compared to the ability of experts to understand the same item of discussion. At first glance, one would assume, that the experts are better at understanding an item of discussion, better than the citizen. Take the making of a chair. The carpenter definitely knows better, when it comes to the making of chairs. However when it comes to a general discussion of a subject, it is to the mind of Aristotle not so, because all participants bring the quality of insight into the discussion. One participant of the discussion might understand the process of cutting the wood, another how to put things together, yet another might understand how to bend the wood, and so on. Put together the quality of the collective intelligence of the people is higher than the individual intelligence of the experts.

The obvious solution to the discussion is to let the people choose who they want for carriers of the rule of law; the policemen, the judges, the prosecutors and advocates in general. As in Athens, in accordance with the idea of Solon.

The balance between the rule of law and the rule of the people therefor lies in the point, that the people will choose the direction of the rule of law, and has the ability, through the magistrate to influence the outcome of the judgmental process. But the judges and the sheriffs have the final word.

Justice

Justice is the basis of the rule of law. This system will through a beautiful advanced system with checks and balances give a precise judgement of the possible guilt of a man. The centre and beating heart is what is good. The aim of the justice system is not to make people suffer, but to give the society an opportunity to save the grace of either the condemned and itself.

As it is written in Jydske Lov, the first constitution of Denmark;

“Was it not for the upkeep of Law, thee who hath most would acquire most. This is the purpose as to the foundation of law, given so all can enjoy the equal protection, and because thee who is just and guiltless shall enjoy peace, and thee who is unjust and evil shall shall fear what is written in the Law, and thus will abstain from the evil intent of an unjust deed.”

“The law should be honest and just, reasonable according to the upkeep of the country. It should be acquiring, useful and clear, so that all men should be able to understand the letter of the Law. The Law should not be written to the advantage of any man, but to the betterment of all who live in the country.”

Ok, so law should, through justice protect all citizens of a country. But then, what is justice?

A little philosophy:

Immanuel Kant did, as many of his predecessors an tour de force of Aristotle. Kant concluded, based on Aristotle, that the basis of Law, is the good. The rule of law has as the means to the end, to bring goodness to society. This idea came from the books; the Nichomacean Ethics and Politics, since in both these books, the good is the aim of society. Thomas Aquinas, a catholic philosopher from the 12´th century, was, as Kant, inspired by Aristotle. He believed that the Law should follow nature; thus the term the law of nature. I believe, that Aquinas tried to bring the basic Aristotelian idea into Law. But then again, is it not a bit strange to insert nature into a system based on rationality?

The difficult part of using Aristotle in the rule of Law, is the fact that Aristotle did not focus that much on the Law, but more on the democratic process. As mentioned before, the focus of the Athenians was not the law, but democracy. That is why Aristotle is difficult to use in the discussion.

It is however absolutely correct of Aquinas to point out, that Aristotle bases his philosophy on nature, and I believe that the connection between the law and nature is absolutely fine. If however the rule of law should be seen from a Aristotelean perspective, it is most important that we understand the idea of justice of Aristotle.

Aristotle was a philosopher of virtues. He believed that the world is set in number of values. Values as courage, wisdom, humbleness and respect. In the classic Hellas, there was the notion that everything has its areté, its quality. If a man is respectful and loving, these qualities are the same as the mans areté. Areté is not only a thing of man, but all live in nature has its areté. The dolphins is good at swimming, an ant can carry four times the weight of itself, a bird cal fly. These qualities are the areté of the animals.

Justice is a kind of collective virtue, a kind of umbrella areté. In a specific situation the judge can asses whether an act is without respect, unloving or uncaring.

Now according to Plato, justice is what is healthy. We could combine those two definitions into one, as call good the same as what is healthy. It makes good sense, since justice is a part of nature, and the good in nature is the healthy. The healthy tree, standing with its branches stretching out into the air. The happy dog, waltzing along in a swagger. The proud swan erecting its aristocratic head above its outstretched wings, these are all healthy, and therefor the epitome of nature. We strife for that. The virtues of Aristotle, are basically principles we can choose to follow, as individuals or as a society, to create that health in our commune. Hereby the ultimate goal of Plato is health, but the path are virtues, as according to Aristotle.

It is, however, not so simple. There are many things that might influence an action. These are, again according to Aristotle.

– The goal

– The wish

– The means

– The reflections

– The choices

– The ethical choices

– Freedom or lack of freedom

If you are interested in a deeper understanding of the discussion that evolves around the ability and the rightness of choice, I really recommend the book The Nicomachean Ethics, he covers it in depth.

The true and sincere and very serious job of a judge, is to make an assessment in the interest of life, this is justice. Justice is a strengthening of life.

The wealthfare state

In the 1960´ties the Social democratic party initiated, with great support, the wealthfarestate. Everybody should now be supported in their old age. The weak should be taken care of, and all should have access to school and health. Truly a noble dream. The fact, that it theoretically not really did fit with the rest of the basis of society mattered less, it is still one of the noblest parts of danish societal progress. We were, and we were one of the best societies of the world because of the wealthfare state.

Theoretically we got a strange mix of Spartan control and Athenian democracy. Democracy, rule of Law, science and freedom of speech we kept. On top of this we built a state to care for the weak and give equality. What is really important to the feeling about the wealthfare state is however, that the aim of the wealthfarestate; to care for the dispossessed reflects a soft spot in the collective psyche. A point that Marxism in the outset actually rejected, and that is love. Marx did not like religion at all. Religion was “opium to the people”. Especially Christendom was a aberration to him, he was here inspired  by Feuerbachs break with Christianity. All this was however not an issue to the Danish people when Anker Jørgensen with his good heart persuaded the Danes to like the wealthfare state. The Danes, who are mostly Christians see the wealthfare state as a project of love. The Danes are so in to the project, that they are willing to deposit most of their income in taxes to keep it running.

My point is, the basis of the wealthfare state is not Marxist, it is Christian. When Anker Jørgensen talk about love as the basis of the wealthfarestate he cannot base this on the ideas of Marx, but he can base it on the Bible.

In this way the Danish society have combined two great systems of believe; the democratic Athens, and the Christian faith – in practice. And if a Christian would want to envision a democratic society, then the Danish society including the wealthfarestate could be a good ideal.

We just have a problem, and that is the fact, that there are no theoretical underpinning under our society. There is a combination of a Marxist state and democracy. But theoretically the combination does not really fit. That is why my idea is to see the wealthfarestate as what it also is; a society where Christian values are the fundament that the practical constitution of the society really rests on. In this way, the system is working again on a theoretical level. This would really make a difference to the wealthfarestate because then it would make sense in a more profound way.

Ownership

Ownership is one of the classic ideas, that has really been turned around in terms of discussion. In Sparta, the state owned everything, in Athens the citizens owned their each and every lot and possession. It gave two fundamentally different societies. Sparta was all focused on ethics and the law, Athens was all focused on the freedom of each individual. As today we have the difference between the conservative and the liberal. There are Athenians, or at least people living in Athens who were critical towards ownership as an idea, which I will cover beneath. Anyway, after the initial discussions in Athens, several points of interest are there to notice. When the templars invented the first banks, all of a sudden it was possible to put money in the bank. This created a minor revolution in the way we deal with economical matters. The entire stock markets and the possibility to raise money for new enterprises are a direct descendant to the Templar banks. Now then Luther was very critical to the amassment of money that created money. In his view banks should be controlled with a very hard hand. The last great battle with regards to ownership was the battle Marx initiated; the critical stance to capitalism. Marx did a lot of advanced analysis on the exploitation of the worker in a owner – worker relationship. He showed how harmful it was for the worker, if they lived in a system where money creates money. To conclude that we should, as Sparta, abolish the principle of ownership is perhaps a bit far to go. Because there is a freedom in the principle of ownership. It is the same freedom as in the freedom of democracy and the freedom of the rule of law; it is the freedom from the rule of the strong. If we did not have the ownership as a protection principle, the strong would violate the weak, and tyranny and oppression would occur.

Ownership as a rule of society does however have negative sides as well, there are reasons as to why Aristotle, Luther and Marx criticized it. In some situations the principle creates an unhealthy momentum. Aristotle reflects on it in this way:

“The transaction of the minor usurer is an example of contempt; because the transaction makes money on money, instead of supporting the process it was supposed to serve. Money is made to work as a media of transaction; usury is the process where the aim of the process is more money.”

These are strong, strong words, but right in a way. When money are the sole aim of the society, the rationale of society will be; create more money! Take the hedge funds, they buy the companies just to make a profit. That is not healthy to the company or the society at large. In the view of Marx; all conservatives were into making money only, which is a bit of an exaggeration, but he was right in the point that money as the sole aim is bad.

The consequence of a society based on the pursue of money only is a society where humanity disappears. Companies owned by shareholders only are always hard pressed to make more money. Because that is the sole purpose of the owners rationale. With this a tyranny of capital oppression initiates, the oppression of the individual worker and a process of moral degradation. It is better for the company, if the owner of the company is a part of the production process. A master builder who owns his own little company, and works in it. In this form of production process there is a direct connection between the economy and the ownership, and the prerequisites of humanity is prevalent. Capital has no loyalty to nation, people, folk, family, nature – people have.

In the real world however, not all commerce is depraved. There are often shareholders who do take an interest in the companies – and it can be good for the start ups to be able to raise money on the bourse. So in the real world, things are not always so black and white. That is why it is the object and mission of democracy and the rule of Law combined to keep an eye on the markets. If the owners get to focused on money, the nation has to act. Money does not create humanity, people create humanity.

The democratic family

One of the very negative consequences of the historical distance to Hellas today, is the fact that we are mixing things up that used to be separated. In the classical times there was a clear distinction between the different philosophies, and the philosophers really did disagree with the relative quality of the different ideas.

Basically there were two ideological counterpoints in Hellas, Athens and Sparta. Athens were the democratic part, Sparta was the communist. The two city states fought each other in physical war and in the field of ideology. Karl Marx were obviously inspired by Sparta and the analysis of Sparta done by Plato. Marx wanted, as the spartans to create a society without family, and the possibility to own something; hereby the term communism. Everything is shared; women, children and material wealth. The intellectual debate is presented later in the book, in the chapter; “The Freestate and Communism”.

In Denmark we joined the platonic, Voltarian intellectual development, that stemmed from France in the 17´th century. Ideas presented forcefully in the First French Republic. With the Højskole, these ideas were spread into all of Denmark, in a Danish version. And everything really were ok, we won much in terms of cultural progression. The country was strengthened in terms of democratic, scientific and cultural achievements. We strove for the achievement that would make us complete as men. But then the hippie revolution came in the 70´ties and the højskole was put in the defense. The Redstockings fought for the equality of women, and the Marxists fought to make the society socialistic. I had the honor to sit at the first row, without any personal will to defend myself against the onslaught of the hippies. I was a kid in the 70´ties. So you can say, that felt on my own body what the Redstockings really wanted to realize. For me it was not that bad, but the kids that were part of the Tvind empire, suddenly found themselves as common property, they could not call their mother – mother. For them it was a really bad situation. The worst crime against the kids, was the fact that they had to leave the kids so early in their childhood. It is humane to take away a child from the mother at the age of one. It ruins the soul of child. That was not the idea of Sparta. In Sparta you waited until the kid was five, before the kid became a part of the commonwealth.

The Redstockings and the following smallish communist revolution won in the sphere of family, and in the public sector. Parts of the Media, including the BBC of Denmark (DR), also became a socialist institution and mimicked the Soviet newspaper Pravda. But the control of the danish society remained democratic, the democratic spirit was too strong to be broken.

The end result is a strange mix og Sparta and Athens in Denmark. The marxist ideas are still in effect in the families. Still today, mom and dad delivers the little kid to the state when they are at the age of one, and goes to work. To be a housewife is taboo and degrading. The fight for equality is still very much the daily grind in many families. We raise our children to life in a Marxist state but the state is still democratic, it is a mess.

Now all of the ideas of Marx are not wrong to my mind, I agree that the view on children is inhuman, but the fight for equality between sexes is a good idea. Personally I am proud of the strong Danish women, I admire their power and energy. To my mind the Danish men are lucky to be able to discuss and share thought with our women. And instead of a continued fight amongst each other, I believe it is time we shed our weapons, and join each other in the fight against Islamism, because here women are really oppressed.

Strong women can have a family. You do not have to choose between a strong woman and a strong family. On the contrary a strong woman is the prerequisite of a strong family.

The discussions regarding the role of family in society is not new. In fact this discussion lies behind the discussion that was the primary argument for Aristotle against the “philosopher society” that Plato preferred. Aristotle was the pupil of Plato, but he was very much in defiance. I think perhaps Aristotle was bitter over the fact that Plato did not support democracy. The philosopher society was very much inspired by Sparta, and that was a betrayal of Athens. Athens was democratic, and had been democratic for hundreds of years. In this light, it does not make sense, that Athens should be a vague copy of Sparta. When Plato supposes, that Socrates had the same ideas that he had himself, then it is basically too much.

The arguments Aristotle puts against the philosopher society that Plato envisioned, are close to the same arguments one could put against Communism:

1. If the philosopher state was driven to its extreme, it would end up a one man state. That is what has happened in Cuba and North Korea.

2. In the state of Plato, there is not room for differentiation. Differentiation is necessary in a state, because differentiation is the prerequisite for sustainability in the long run

3. In a state where people have more than one parent, the connection between parent and child will be weaker, and this will lead to apathy. Here we exactly have the criticism of the modern society. The reason why were are so apathetic is not only “the modern”, but also the imperialisation of the lifeworld, as Habermas would put it. The apathy is well known in the old Soviet Union.

According to Aristotle, the ideas of Plato are so unnatural, that nature will, in the end, destroy the state. Until now, very few Communist states have survived for long, so perhaps Aristotle is right. I Yugoslavia everything just went crazy, people got so upset that they lost the family unit and nation, that they started killing each other.

Then again, you would have to accept that Aristotle were very critical towards Plato, he really had a problem with him, and Aristotle did not like Platos ideas at all. There are many good quality principles in the philosophy of Plato, one of the equality of sexes.

However I do agree, that the family should be the cornerstone of democracy.

So what would a good family look like?

The dénouement of family is to live for eternity as Plato calls it; to make new men.

Therefor the most central function of the family must be to watch out and take care of the children carried by the family. And most important to children is the care of love and the frame made by the virtue of respect. This then gives the quality of the family or the areté.

A good family must therefor strive to create a frame, where the members are in a state of plentyness when it comes to energy. It should focus on the needs of the children and not on the needs of the parents. This may be a bit harder for the parents, but the children do suffer, when their parents are experimenting too much. That is not acceptable in a conscientious society.

The state should also be a part of the family, but should be so, and could be so, if the family could and would use the methods and means of democracy. Dialogue should be the method of the family, to enhance the quality of the commune and realize peace between the family members. Children should be raised in a atmosphere where critique and questions should be encouraged, and should be counseled in the family matters. Children should off cause not be exposed for conflicts they cannot understand or solve, but should be able to solve problems at their level.

With this, the family would be the basis on which democracy could be built, it would be the basic frame of society.

To be able to uphold and support a family, the family needs at least one person to do all the work. There are many things to do, take children around to sports, buy groceries, make dinner and so on. Basically this gives the family two combinations to chose from: 1. One person takes care of the family, the other works. 2. Both parents have a job with a loose time schedule. If both parents have a demanding job, the family simply does not work. It should therefor be fully accepted that taking care of a family is a full-time job. Because this is important to the society as a whole. Whether it is the man or the woman who takes care of family is not, to me, important. People can do whatever they want. Today there are men who like to be able to take care of their family at home. They like caring for their children. Likewise, there are plenty of women who feel the same. The point is; it should be respected that you have the family as your main focus.

The defense of the Freestate

Any conflict – the aim should be to bring something toward something better – otherwise the result is tyranny , oppression .

Free State is under threat these days, primarily of Islamism – why?

Historically through makes a democracy a fixed course ; a sequence that has repeated itself in the classical Athens, the British Empire, USA, Holland, France, Israel and Denmark .

The process is :

Creating democracy
Democrats’ expansion
Hubris
Nemesis

Democracy is such a powerful idea that it brings wealth and prosperity with them . I would think that it is the combination of rule of law, democracy and science that creates this incredible momentum. A democracy at its peak is fantastic. There is something wonderful in the country who believe that it is: The home of the brave , the land of the free .

However, this is typical that new generations taking the democracy for granted , relaxing in the safe environment – and develop a belief in their own invulnerability and superiority. When the British Empire was at its height built a steamer – The English were so sure of themselves that they called the steamer Titanic. The Titans were Greek giants , who believed that they were worth more than the gods. In Empire builders’prepatory optics , they were so technically infallible that they thought the ship was unsinkable . And even halfway under water orchestra played on, because , yes , the sun never set over the British Empire.

After hubris comes nemesis.

In a similar development step find Denmark – Denmark is the global leader in LEGO is fantastic , Danish Design is cool, Maersk ships plowing through the oceans – we are the best and the first .

And yes, of course , all who come to Denmark will be transformed into new Danes , because we are the best.

After hubris comes nemesis.

Therefore, the first defense of democracy : Humility – it’s one of the things Socrates is trying to tell us in his defense . And that’s one of the reasons why it is important that the Socratic types are listened to – and that there are people who are prepared to fight for the good and truth in the public debate .

For a democracy will always meet dangers and will face the greatest dangers at the height of its development – and why?

The reason is very simple – a democracy, create prosperity, growth , security and freedom – something all people want. Therefore it seems a commonwealth at its peak, a magnet for all people who do not have these things. It’s nothing new, so it was the ancient Greeks . This means that democracy will be swamped by foreigners in search of a better life.

This obviously gives unrest , and it destroys democracy. This applies to many of the democracies today. Including England, Holland , France, Denmark and Belgium

And what should you do? Can we learn anything from the ancient Greeks , who had the same problem?

Yes we can , of course , they had experience with democracy which went for hundreds of years.

First, we need to ask ourselves another question that leads to the first :

What is a nation ?

Our democracy conferred by national law – which Athenian democracy was linked to the city-state of Athens. National Civil idea is inspired by the Greek city states .

A city-state , according to Aristotle not :

The people who live in the same place
The people who are subject to court

A nation is a collection of parts , components such as :

Flag
football
national Anthems
Believe
Traditions
Administration
Governance
Language

A nation ‘s culture .

In some ancient city sealed the city, and the rules remained the same for centuries – that it did not work in Athens, it was an open and democratic city . Denmark has served as Athens, we have mostly been open to new people and new ideas. And it has been to our advantage, democracy and science we got from France, retstaten we got from Bologne , Christianity got from Israel , the architecture of Hellas . We have skilled German workers in Denmark , we have been inspired by German philosophy, etc. etc.

It has of course not always been smooth , fellow citizens are sometimes quarrel or disagree on things.

Therefore, we have a set of basic rules of the game as all legally must follow – the constitution. And we have further ratified human rights. The two legal codes are similar to the confusion – except that the king is not mentioned in human rights.

Belonging to a nation is therefore a loyalty to the Constitution – or as Aristotle puts it : A nation’s identity is determined by its constitution.

As a citizen of a nation that is determined not by loyalty to all the traditions and cultural rules that are in a nation – but is determined by loyalty to the ground rules.

You could say that the nation must establish a set of basic rules of the game that everyone plays for. Player is not within the rules , then you will be disqualified.

And what determines the basic rules of the game in a democracy ?

Aristotle has this comment:

“We’re trying to figure out what makes a citizenship in its correct definition , a definition without defects , which is just right. The citizen … in this definition is best defined by a requirement that he participate in the administration of law and public office . Public offices can be one of two things . Some are limited … Others, however , has no time limit , for example, magistrates or members of the popular assembly.

One should therefore , according to Aristotle fulfill two conditions if you want to be a citizen , you must :

Participate in Democracy
Participate in the rule of law

And what determines so if you can participate in democracy ? I think the following rules should make absolutely true:

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression . This right shall include freedom and freedom to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.
All the rights and freedoms shall be secured without discrimination , based on sex , race, color, language , religion, political or other opinion , national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status
Citizens have the right to join in for the worship of God in a manner that is consistent with their beliefs, however, that nothing is taught or done contrary to morality or public order .

I believe that retstatens rules unconditionally should be:

Legal State laws defined by the Supreme People’s Assembly
Everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law when deciding whether a violation of his civil rights and obligations or of any charge against him for crime.
Everyone charged with a criminal offense shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law .
Anyone who is charged with a criminal offense shall at least have the right to have adequate time and facilities to prepare his defense
If a citizen does not accept or oppose the above, he may not be a citizen of the nation state.
Foreigners and citizens in the rule of law
In order to ensure fair treatment for all people living in a free state , the Free State have clear rules for distinguishing the football pitch yesterday. How Much Can Free State allow citizens to oppose this ?

In practice, the distinction between :

Utterances
Actions

Foreigners should not speak out or take action directly against democracy and the rule of law. Foreigners can of course stay in a Free State , but it can not be allowed to wear a desire to fight the Free State . Foreigners are visiting, and should adapt to the current rules. Foreigners are of course most welcome to participate in democracy. But a deliberate thwarting of democracy can not be allowed. For example, a Free State does not allow foreign imams calling for attacking the Danes.

For a citizen However, other rules , the citizen is a democratic player and should have full freedom of expression. There can not be constrained citizen and utterances . The citizen must say just what citizens want, all utterances are allowed.

It does not however mean that the citizen must act against democracy. There is a difference of :

Utterances – actions

For example, it prohibits the introduction of Sharia law with threats and violence in parts of the country – since the introduction of Sharia is an anti- democratic act . An individual may argue for Sharia and caliphate in democracy, but they can not impose it. An individual may argue for an idea , but not threatening violence , or perform any violence to get the idea implemented. In practice, determining the gap between discourse and action by the courts. It is for the courts .
Muslims and citizenship
Note : The following chapters have been the reason for the book has not found a publisher . Maybe because here presented methods that will effectively transform a modern democratic rule – and methods that can effectively deal with the problems of society with Islamists. It emphasized therefore that the rules are not aimed at all Muslims , but against individuals and ideologies that aim to destroy democracy. Muslims who fit their work , participate in the democratic debate , and conversations with others – will not be affected by the following , but rather be protected.

The basic principle for dealing with Islamists can , quite simply , to read as follows : If you do not like the smell of the bakery , then you have to find somewhere else to be. The smell of the bakery ‘s democracy and the rule of law, as described in the constitution and human rights. In other words, a democratic consensus , based on human rights, democracy and those should not relinquish .

The effect of anti-democratic behavior is thus expulsion. How anti-democratic action must be before expulsion becomes effective , a court decision. Examples of a clear deportation could be planning suicide bombing , the establishment of area control by Sharia law and the like.

The next key question is then: How many Muslims are anti-democratic ? How many are democratic ? And where are the intersections ?

I’m not an expert on Islam , and forced to lean on experts within Islam . Further , it is very difficult to find reele research data as it is a highly politicized area – there are not many who seek the truth in relation to Islam. Therefore, my analysis is defective.

I lean against the American scholar Daniel Pipes – he is the research it seems most knowledgeable in relation to Islam , but his analysis must of course be taken with a grain of salt. He is a Jew , and American conservative , so he is obviously not objective – but he is reasonably good.

According to Pipes , the Muslim countries are classified into 3 categories :

Old Muslim countries Saud’i arabia . These countries are absolutely no Western influence
Reform friendly countries like Egypt . These countries are trying to implement Western philosophy , but on their own terms. Emphasis is placed on the elements that are originally Athenian
Countries that have implemented Athenian civilization as developed in the West , including Turkey. Turkey has simply taken the Roman law and introduced democracy. Islam in Turkey are kept in very tight leash.

It does not explain the phenomenon of terrorism. This makes Pipes another analysis and history prevail. According to Pipes , there is a new movement within Islam , which occupies many Western ideological elements and make them their own. This direction he calls militant Islamism , and it is the same as terrorism. This new direction is not what most people think , an archaic movement, with oldarabiske scholars. It is the new generation smart , well-educated . Female emancipation , for example, fully implemented , many militant Islamist women take education as doctors and other . Under this category we also find fremtræende female Muslim politicians . These Muslims belong to the elite. Their project is to develop a modern version of Islam in opposition to the ” west” and especially the United States. The ultimate dream is to create a worldwide caliphate. This part of the Muslims should be 10 – 15% .

Approximately 50 % of the remaining Muslims support these Islam perk pickets , and the U.S. is hostile. There are more in the UK studies on Muslims desire the introduction of Sharia , and here said 60 %, according to Pipes, that they preferred the Sharia introduced. The rest is sort of a bit undefined and do not really know what they want.

Are we putting these figures into a Danish frame , it’s hard to tell anyone. It is clear that we have some terrorists in Denmark , we have already had convicted a few. Further , it became apparent during the Mohammed crisis that most Muslims do not support 100% up on democracy. Association of Democratic Muslims have almost more non-Muslims than Muslims affiliated.

When we play around with the numbers and transfer them to Denmark , it does not look so good. Officially, more than 220,000 Muslims in Denmark . Unofficially , there are as many as 900,000 Muslims in Denmark . It’s a bit hard to know exactly how many there are in Denmark, but the 220,000 must at least be some illegal immigrants , and then it’s a bit sobering to Danish statistics are so secret about their numbers. But we have all of the 120,000 Muslims in Denmark who probably would rather see Sharia introduced than Roman law , probably more . And we have at least 30,000 militants. It ‘s truly alarming.

Now, of course, take account of poor information , lack of research in this area and so on – but no matter how we look at it , then we have a very significant problem.

So far, the policy in relation to Muslims , been led to economic roads, it is believed that the solution is jobs for Muslims. It does not solve the problem we have with the very worst , the militant Muslims who do not have the big problem in terms of getting jobs because they are engineers and doctors.

But we can all choose to solve the problem by sorting the Muslims in proportion to their attachment to democracy. Keep democratic Muslims , and send the undemocratic Muslims out of the country . And we can do it in the Constitution and human rights grounds .

Specifically, it provides course a discussion of whether an individual can prove its commitment to democracy. I think that good can be done to investigate. If a citizen is well informed about current policy , participating in the debate , the attitudes, use dialogue to resolve conflicts – it is democratic sindedet . However, if they incite violence , are not interested in the country’s politics and participate in organizations working for theocracy they are not democratically minded , and it can be proved .

The burden of proof must of course lie with democracy.

Let’s go a little closer to Islam compared to Danish democracy and the rule of law .

If we consider specifically the institu tions traditionally associated with the Muslim countries are these in a hierarchy ( see also chapter on the Free State and Islam ) :

Quran
Sharia
caliphate

Let’s take these items one by one :

Quran
Much of the Koran is not compatible with democracy as freedom of expression is not a factor taken into account as an option for resolving conflict. Conflicts resolved in the Koran with violence.

Sharia
Sharia is a legal system developed by the Muslim philosopher Al- Ghazali , the system is based on the Koran. In a modern legal system based on the rule of law democratically enacted laws . The Authority is the voice of the people . Therefore, Sharia is not compatible with the rule of law – it is both philosophical systems developed , but the difference is that , Sharia is based on the Word of God , the rule of law based on the People’s Assembly .

caliphate
The caliphate is a prophet controlled state , the first caliphs were Mohammed’s successor. A Caliphate can thus be compared to a feudal regime , a state where the king controls by God’s grace . The caliphs were good enough elected by the people , but had power shall apply without restriction – so there was no question of a democracy. In practice, the caliphate a primitive theocracy. In any case, there is no comparison between a modern democracy and a theocracy – a modern democracy works best .

An individual who is consciously working to establish a caliphate is dangerous for democracy – such a Muslim can not be accepted. A democracy must defend itself against ideologies which basically wants to abolish democracy.

Free State should, therefore , specifically for Muslims claim that the above elements of their faith is not respected. The alternative is acceptance of the effective abolition of democracy, in the areas where Muslims live and build .

The actual legal work is of course no more than unreadable potentially be up to 500,000 people anticlockwise justice system. It goes without saying that it is confusing . But there is not much else to do than to start in a corner and get started . It will take many years , but the alternative is that we lose democracy.

The specific measures are legal and police operations, which I have not so terribly much sense of . However, with the above analysis , democracy a tool it really should have had from the start. Rousseau and Montesquie forgot to retrieve it from Athens – now we have it again.

The above comparison is only basic examples , there are also other Islamic institutions are not compatible with demokraitet – including the Islamic Ummah.
Citizens who oppose democracy
A major problem arises when people who have always lived in the country suddenly become anti- democrats – as we have seen with the Nazis and Marxists. In this case there is of course a long leash for individuals when their family has been in the country for many generations – but in the end also those losing their citizenship. If the choice is between violence and loss of citizenship for some individuals – it’s democratic duty to withdraw citizenship. The alternative is to democracy disappears. If Hitler had lost his citizenship in the Weimar Republic, we would have avoided World War II because he could not have take power by democratic elections .

There must of course be possible to reacquire citizenship again if the anti-democratic methods be shelved .
Nationals who marry foreign nationals
A citizen marries a foreign national does this , sometimes , a burden on the state. What does the state do? Here there is nothing else to say other than that it must be based on an assessment of the commonwealth ‘s ability and the ability to integrate new citizens – there are resources? Are there any advice? Will the new citizen would work with democracy ? To record a new citizen demands , possibly , a long education in the spirit of democracy and rules of Danish culture and so on. A child born in Denmark spends much of his schooling to learn how to discuss , it takes time.

Some foreign citizens will be better equipped to engage in democracy than others, therefore, democracy readiness to be a decisive factor in the foreign national’s residence permit .
Foreign children in the Free State
A specific problem may occur when foreign citizens are children of democracy. It has been shown that some foreign children get major identity problems because they do not know where they belong . As they get older , their rootlessness result in a strong commitment to the country and the religion of their parents come from. Everyone needs an identity – and if the country they live in is not theirs , they could find out anything else.

Democracy risk ending up in a situation that in democracy live foreign citizens can not attach itself to its new or its old homeland. It is an unfair situation to put a human being in.

They must either provide citizenship to young people if they are worthy of it , or you have to ask them to move back to their parents’ country. To me , this should be dependent on the young people’s commitment to democracy – if they do not want democracy , they must move if they are very committed to democracy , they must be .
Social state and citizenship
Today, the welfare state , as Anker Jørgensen created in deep crisis , it is not very popular , and most citizens are well aware that there is something wrong. The problem is as follows. Social State’s basic rationale is that it should take care of the weak citizens. Today fits the social state is not primarily on vulnerable citizens , but foreign citizens. The inclusion of the social state of foreigners is not determined by a citizenship , but only of a residence . This state of affairs has in practice meant that foreign citizens , especially poor foreign citizens have flocked to Denmark . If you are hungry , and there is a person who without requiring gives you food – so then you surely almost obliged to accept the offer. This option has had two consequences : 1 The weak citizens welfare state was set up to do not always get the help they need – because the resources to be shared with foreign citizens. 2 The basic rationale behind the welfare state has disappeared, the deal was that citizens pay to other citizens should be helped – not to foreign citizens were dependent in Denmark . It provides in other words, no longer makes sense to pay the high tax rate – for the weak we pay for, they do not get much help anymore.

Which clearly seen in the increasing number of homeless people – there is no profit to them anymore , the energy is used to take care of foreigners.

If not corrected this imbalance , one of the world’s finest communities being destroyed.

The solution is simple but hard:

Some residents will receive citizenship – and continue in the welfare state
Some foreigners will not receive citizenship – and will not continue in the welfare state

The assessment of the individual’s citizenship should , again , be – for the purpose of the alien’s fitness to engage in democracy. And if the alien will actually participate in democracy , he or she should have the chance to acquire the skills democracy . If the alien does not set on democracy, show violent behavior , want sharia imposed or otherwise – then lost the link to the social state .

There should also be humanitarian grounds – if the alien may lose their lives if they lose tilknytingen the welfare state , there should of course be taken into account . It must be based on an individual assessment .
How defends the Free State itself ?
A commonwealth must defend himself seriously if the defense neglected to Free State be in danger. There are 2 types of hazards:

External hazards
Internal hazards
External hazards
The external hazards can again be divided into two hazards :

Military threats
media threats

The military threat is self-evident and requires a well-equipped , dedicated defense – a defense that’s always ready and watchful . Throughout history, democracies lowered their guard , in ancient Rome, it happened several times , and it was one of the reasons why the Roman Empire fell . In Denmark we have over several laps had appeasement and the like – and it is naive to think that there are dangers around the world . The purpose of the military defense is not to oppress other people, but to defend the country , so there is nothing morally wrong in having a defense – it’s a necessity , and the soldiers who fall in battle for freedom is of course modern heroes .

A war are today not only by military means , but rather in the media. If a war face opposition in the media stop it – as we saw with the Vietnam War . And of course it is both a strength and a weakness – a strength because democracy can stop an injustice, and a weakness because one’s enemies can control oponionen in a democracy to their advantage if they are smart . In the war between Israel and Hamas manipulated Hamas rough with the Western media . Therefore, a Free State not only have a physical preparedness , but also a media alert that constantly monitors the enemies of democracy and sets in if it is threatened.

The trick is of course to take the media defense of democratic premises , detecting foreign propaganda , make room for it the Socratic opinions – a media defense should not be an oppressive institution , and must be verified by the Free State . The defense must be to free debate – and the ideal to be Socrates.
Internal hazards
Internal hazards consists of anti-democratic forces that Islamism , Nazism and radical socialism. Usually they use 2 weapons and external enemies of democracy :

Violence
media manipulation

Often, the internal and external enemies mixed together. For example, the Danish Islamists closely linked to Al- Qaeda or Hamas – and through Saudi Arabia and Iran. Therefore, they are of course not only internal enemies, but internal enemies who get outside help.

The internal enemies fought physically in the Free State of Police and the National Security Service . They are found, their networks are disrupted , they are put on trial , and they are deported if they are found to be enemies of democracy. Herein lies the basic police function, they are the defenders of democracy .

The danger of people are in police any violations of democratic citizens’ freedom. Therefore, the police must be subject to moral and practical control of courts, democracy and the media. The police are fighting for people’s freedom, and it would be useless if the police reducing civil liberties by monitoring the wrong monitors too much, or become corrupt.

Free State should also establish an institution that monitors the commonwealth enemies media game sets in if freedom of speech is threatened, or if there are manipulated by the media. For example, it would have been good if the Free State had monitored Abu Laban in Denmark and the Middle East during the Mohammed crisis.

The purpose of an internal media defense is fighting anti- democrats – and the fight should happen by democratic means. Thus, a public media defense and foremost duty is to detect anti- democrats, and then inform the public accordingly . The internal media defense should have no practical possibility of limiting citizens or other media, freedom of expression, but only operate by using speech. This institution should also have Socrates as ideal : Participants in the institution should exist by choice – either by parliament or by popular election .
Boundary and citizenship
Since the granting and withdrawal of citizenship is democracy ‘s best weapon against anti- democrats, should a commonwealth ensure the following :

Complete control over borders
Complete control of citizenship

In practice this means that a commonwealth should never loosen control of its borders . Expulsion is only meaningful if it showed unable to enter the borders again .

Limits must be ensured as far as possible , this should be the Free State in no way compromise. If a union created by the United States or the EU, should each state have complete control over its borders , and there should be clear management of the external borders too – this ensures that enemies can not move from nation to nation , and thus avoid the authorities.

Verification of citizenship is the police task. If successful foreigners to enter the country , bypassing controls the police find them and expel them.

Obviously this results in a restriction of the freedom of the citizens, as they may risk being stopped on the street and be chekked . But it survives citizens enough. The Democratic mental freedom is not tampered with – it is on the contrary strengthened when citizens are not spared from being terrorized by foreign anti- democrats, Islam fascists . Thus , the control of the bourgeoisie ensure the conservation of the actual freedom.

Analysis

The Freestate and Jesus Christ

Christ and Socrates have something fundamental in common : they reject the nonsensical rules – hear what happened when the Pharisees tried to tie Christ with a ‘ how to’ :

” Jesus entered again into the synagogue. There was a man with a withered hand. And they watched to see whether he would heal him on the Sabbath , that they might accuse him. And he said to the man with the withered hand, ” Get up and came in the middle! ” Then he said to them, ” Is it lawful to do good or do harm on the Sabbath , to save life or to kill? ” But they held their peace . He looked around at them with anger and grieved at their hardened hearts , he said to the man, ” Stretch out your hand ! ” He stretched it out , and his hand was restored . Then went the Pharisees him out, and along with the Herodians took the decision to kill him . ”

Herein lies , in my view , the reason why Christianity works so great with democracy – because the basic idea of ​​both democracy and Christianity are the same , namely to find the good in the situation , regardless of the current rules.

Some philosophers believe that Jesus may have been inspired by the traveling sokratikere cynics . Jesus is known to cynics , and shares much with the cynics ; asceticism and rebellion against the rules.

Whether Jesus was inspired by cynics , of course guesswork – but my point , that Christianity is made for democracy, is true. What we see in practice .

Specifically works Christianity in Protestant countries , in preparation for democracy. The priests preach trust and charity – and this basic setting are so its expression in a positive collaboration within democratic framework. Of course there are Christian sects around who call themselves Protestants without acknowledging Luther separation between church and state , but they are very limited in number.

Similar works most other religions fine with democracy, Buddhism , Hinduism , Judaism , Zoroastrianism , African animists , etc. Some obviously better than others , but they work because religion does not have built a state government.

However, there are two exceptions:

Islam
Konfusianismen

Islam works deprived of democracy, including because it includes a form of government in advance ; caliphate. The caliphate is a feudalstyre , ie, a kingdom ruled by the Caliph in cooperation with imams . So if a country must take Islam seriously , it can not be democratic – only in combination with strong control can be a Muslim country be democratic. In Turkey, for example . Controls the state religion with an iron fist – every mosque is under strict government control. See Islam and the Free State including the further analysis.

China’s ideology Konfusianismen , or rather China’s combination of Confucianism and Taoism does not work either terribly well with democracy. Konfusianismen is very orderly and Taoism are the opposite , so the whole set of rules is fundamentally different from the Socratic ideal. In modern Taiwan does democracy not in cooperation with konfusianismen , but independent of it . But it works , however . In fact, Confucianism is much closer to socialism than democracy , which we of course can see in China which today is a Confucian / Marxist regime.

Christianity is seen today in many versions ; Catholicism , ortodoksisme , Protestantism , etc. Broadly considered follow Christianity either a platonic state or a Socratic state. The Catholic Church has through the years followed the Platonic ideals – an eternal quest for perfection in a hierarchy – with the philosophers ( the pope and cardinals ) at the top . In Protestantism , democracy found its local expressions in Switzerland , England, Denmark , Germany , Australia, USA and The Netherlands.

However, it is unquestionably the Protestant democracies that have been the most prosperous and democratic . It is also the Protestant democracies that have shown the greatest resistance strength against both Islam and Marxism. Yes, it was actually the Protestant democracy in the United States who won against the Soviet -Russian Marxism, and it is the U.S. that has taken the lead in the fight against Islamism. The U.S. is not perfect, and behave sometimes without much understanding other ideas than democratic – but the U.S. has never failed their first law , freedom of expression .

For me , it’s poetic in this situation, it is the governance that will control at least – is the strongest .
Free State and Communism
Communism has performed an infinite number of ondkabsfulde actions. Communism has led to distress , suffering, oppression and a solid lock of freedom – although communism claiming that it would otherwise. The communist state’s paramount power, had and has its tentacles deep into many people’s lives.

The communist training and oppression is through the state , schools , kindergartens , public media art – the works .

Communism is a simple system, it is officially defined by the following elements:

1 Property Court’s cancellation:

“In this sense, the Communists summarize their theory in one expression: the abolition of private property ”

2 State takeover of the family :

“Family elimination ! ”

“But , you say , we abrogate the tenderest of all conditions , when we replace home education in the society upbringing ”

3 Women’s equality :

” But you Communists would introduce community women , screams the whole bourgeoisie in chorus after us ”

4 Nations cancellation:

” It has also blamed the Communists that they should have to abolish the homeland and nationality.
The workers have no country . You can not take from them what they have not. Since the proletariat must first conquer political supremacy , rise up to the national class , constitute themselves as a nation , it is therefore itself national, though it is in a completely different meaning than the bourgeois ”

5 State management of the forces of production :

” The proletariat will use its political supremacy to gradually wrest from the bourgeoisie all capital , to centralize all instruments of production in state hands , ie in the hands of the proletariat organized as the ruling class ”

6 Production of coercion :

” Just work compulsion for all , creation of industrial armies, especially for agriculture ”

In practice, a system where the state controls the family, means of production, all property and forcing people to work – and this should , in theory, give freedom and equality. Well, when you come from the Aristotelian world, so it seems hopelessly naive – it is simply too shallow. And how could Marx and the Communists in their wildest dreams believe that it could give freedom and equality ? They could because communism was perhaps inspired by ancient Sparta. The Communists may have concluded that if Spartan condominium might work, could communism too. Additional had the bourgeois ( the bourgeoisie ) handed in a democracy , so this idea could Communists did not use. This was the struggle between democracy and communism , civil and red , left and right – a repeat of the rivalry was going on in ancient Greece between :

The Athenian democracy
The austere common control

Communism is similar to the Spartan regime, for better or worse . Or one could say that communism is a poor imitation of Sparta. Let’s go through principles :

1 Property waiver :

” The second and most revolutionary of Lycurgus ( Sparta’s founder Ed.) Reforms was the redistribution of land … , Lycurgus persuaded them ( the Spartans Ed.) To put all the country in a common fund , and then redistribute it so that everyone could exist on an equal conditions and with the same amount of property to make money on ”

The property was not entirely in state hands , as in communism , but were evenly distributed and thus an effective shield against greed – as greed does not really pay off. The result was that the Spartans were more concerned with acting noble than making money .

2 State takeover of the family :

“The point is … that of Lycurgus understanding belonged to children not their fathers , but generally belonged to the state”

As in communism existed families in Sparta, but the state intervened in the family and handle especially in child rearing .

The two basic principles of a communist society are all very close to the fundamental principles of Sparta .

3 Female emancipation could be inspired by Plato , Socrates says:

” So let us follow the same train of thought and let women born and brought up in almost the same way …
They have to share everything ( with the men ed. )
Therefore, if we need women to the same as the men , we have to educate them in the same way ”

Nations repeal the state’s control of the forces of production , and production by force is something Marx himself made ​​up. It could Hell shall never dream of proposing – and the Greeks were very bypatriotiske . Forcing people to work would probably be the idea that there would have been long gone for the Spartans – it would simply have been bad style.

The Spartans were known throughout Hellas as fair if there was a war between some of the city-states , a single Spartan resolve conflicts by its mere presence . Everyone respected the Spartans , because the Greeks knew that they were fair.

Sparta was a war culture that had the sole purpose of preparing citizens for war. Spartans lived a very hard life – except when they went to war , so they let their hair grow , and put flowers on the armor . Their training was so tough that the war was actually a bit of a holiday for them.

The austere controlled rules were defined by the philosopher Lycurgus and Sparta remained unchanged for 500 years – until Sparta disappeared because there were more people back .

Sparta had a pretty strong culture , and they were good fighters . When the Persians tried to conquer Hellas , was the Spartans clearly contributed to the overall Hellas won . And in the war against Athens won Sparta too.

The downside of the Spartan society was the secret police Kryptaea . A prerequisite for the strict discipline , was an anti- dissidence . Kryptaea had mastered all of Sparta. Kryptaea had not only mastered all citizens , but also led track of helots , Spartan agricultural slaves.

Sparta had obviously no scientific development as it as a society was static – the science was created in Athens, Sparta competitor.

Sparta and communism had many things in common , but there are several reasons why Sparta did not work but communism failed .

Firstly, it seemed Spartan society solely because it was a small, homogeneous entity. Everyone knew each other , and everyone agreed work of Sparta – if there would be a single dissident, took the secret police after him. In a society like the Soviet , there were too many people for it to work. There were too many dissidents and the secret police came in overtime.

Second, it included neither the Spartan or communist state rule of law, so the conviction was random – or left to the KGB.

Third, international communism , and it was the Spartan society does not – the Spartan society was rather incredible closed, unchanging and locally. It was a very conscious strategy of Lycurgus , when he had noticed that new ideas creates conflict and resistance – and it can be a static state not handle .

This created Marx an idea that will always be doomed , a fixed state that is constantly exposed to changes. Because it is international, and thus constantly meet with new ideas.

In Scandinavia , we have had a mixture of Marxism and Athenian democracy , social democracy . The idea was to take the good elements from both systems and combine them into a welfare state. The problem with this tactic is that it should not be able to do – the systems are created in opposition to each other , and it was never intended that they should be mixed . The fact that some might think that it works incredibly well, and one of this book’s projects is not doing terribly much about our society , but to create a deeper understanding of why it works, creating a philosophical foundation of the welfare state , or the Free State . The result of social democracy is a good but superficial society. It does not take a position on what role , family, nature, science , morality, the soul and the people have to society, and as society becomes shallow and lacking momentum.

The superficial approach to the world also allows for weird theories marched in society. One of the most absurd theoretical constructs that have infested the lately, is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism does not address , democracy , faith , family, rule of law , freedom of speech – it does not address the foundation of the modern state . The idea is that, if exercised tolerance , then all cultures interact, actually creates the cultural exchange positive dynamics . In multicultural ideology they do not commit not to rule because of the game , they are so say forgotten. A prerequisite for the functioning of a democracy is a wide range of skills , the ability to discuss , respect for others’ arguments , a belief in the conversation , a belief in democracy. The rule of law requires a law-abiding people and a commitment to democracy – as the law of the state is defined in democracy. Mohammed crisis hit the multicultural ideology on his first try and it did not go well , multiculturalism failed .

For me , it is important that all citizens play in democratic playing field , otherwise breaks the community together . Which all experience also suggests that the only functioning multicultural society in verdenh , Switzerland works because everyone agrees to participate in democracy , Protestants , Catholics , Germans, French , Italians .

In the long run communism not compete with democracy :

As democracy has science to develop society. Scientists create jobs , development and movement
Democracy is based locally – in Hellas , in each town , and in Renaissance Europe in the individual nations.
Democracy is based on the family and not the state
Democratic are able to embrace a very large number of people and of the differences in the U.S.
Democracy is able to adapt
Democracy is based on a deeper philosophy
The Athenian democracy means freedom
Communism and Islam
The different philosophical systems find the truth in different parts of reality – Plato found the truth in mathematics and nature, atomists in the physical, Aristotle did – I – the truth of nature, and Marx found the truth in the economy.

The greatness of Marx’s project is , in fact, that he found a whole new philosophical field and examined it. As Aritstoteliker I strongly disagree with his fundamental focus, I do not think the truth lies in the economy, it provides an incredibly cold world, everything is seen in money.

It is clear that Marxism can not quite handle Islam , the explanations Marxists join, they seem like not really. And it’s so much of a mouthful for the Marxists that their whole system is about to collapse . Marxists are simply blind to the angle Islamists bringing to the court . Traditionally, Marxists written off religion as ” the opium of the people” and thus basically refused to understand what religion really is. For some strange reason, the Marxists , this time not selected , Marx’s original approach towards religion, but decided to try to understand the SEPARATE CONSIGNMENTS WITHIN economic philosophy. The obvious explanation for Islamist fremhærgen is a Marxist – that this development represents poverty – that is lack of money. Therefore, taking Marxists often Islamists to him and try to fight their case.

The fundamental problem with this understanding of the problem is that it is untrue. Islamism flourishes pt . not in poor Muslim countries , but rather in the rich Muslim countries Saud ‘ Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and of course Europe. Typically, the young rising star , bright well-educated who are Islamists – Osama Bin Laden , for example . of a very wealthy Saudi family .

Islamism represents these bright youngsters a quick rise to power – bypassing all the established power structures. And it gives the young smart people a direct link to profonde .

It is a rather simple solution of Marx that he just write off all religion as nonsense – and as a metaphysician , I am also deeply disagree with Marx.

But Marxists today face a fundamental challenge to their philosophy – if the economic calculus does not hold, then what? So they’re very welcome over here in my little boat that is otherwise quite empty , so there is plenty of space. Nature , seen in Aristotle’s perspective , now provides even deeper and healthier perspective on the world than money.
Free State and Islam
Coming from Athens life-giving light, and must deal with Islam – it is like a journey into the heart of darkness . An experience of the lights turned off , and human nature in its most primitive form emerges . As in Joseph Conrad’s novel “The Heart of Darkness ” to travel down the river, closer and closer to ” Mr. Short ” . Slowly it dawns on one, that Islam is not for children – and the actions taken in the name of Islam is so unpleasant to hear about that one uværligt want to turn the boat to get back to the light again . At the same time we are confronted with one’s culture dark – like the Islam we white men have also been imperialists . The methods have been different , but the actions we have done has also been terrible . The heart of darkness that is at the end of Joseph Conrad’s river was created by King Leopold in the Congo.

The last and most vivid example of our own imperial past is Jewish extermination in the gas chambers of Auschwitz and before it is a string of popular extinctions . The fundamental difference between Islamic imperialism , and Western imperialism ‘s methods . The white man beat can just kill people , Muslims forced the conquered territories people to convert to Islam.

And it did not ask for it , Islam spread a trail of blood across most of the globe. Here are some examples :

Jerusalem 634-48 :

The Patriarch of Jerusalem Sofronius experiencing the mulimske invaders as ” godless barbarians” they burn churches, destroying monasteries, the ravaging , raping and pillaging – thousands die of plague and famine.

Mesopotamia, Elam , Susa 635-642 :

Monofyttiske Arabs being forced to convert to Islam , or cut down

Cyprus 643 :

Mikael Syrian tells of violent looting and massacres since Caliph Muawiya conquer Cyprus

Egypt 693-700 :

Anyone who surrender to the conquering Muslims are being massacred , they spared neither old , women or children.

India 712 :

Commander Muhammad ibn Qasim is ordered to to ” bring destruction to the infidels … to invite the unbelievers to believe the only true faith in God’s unity … and anyone who do not submit to Islam must be treated badly and added injury until he submit to ”

In the port of the city of Debal merely commander to kill for 3 days , and then he thought that it might be enough. Which gave him a reprimand from his superiors, who did not think he had beaten to death enough , because as it says in the Koran , Sura 47.4 : ” Oh the true believers when in meetings infidels , cut as heads of them ”

India 971 – 1030 :

Mahmud of Ghazni dragons like a whirlwind through India, he is described as follows : ” Mahmud was a zealous Muslim of the wild type, which then prevailed , and felt it a duty as well as a pleasure to kill the idolaters . He was also greedy for booty and was careful to acquire a generous prifit of its holy wars ”

India , Bihar in 1193 :

The Muslim general Muhammad Khilji chipper in Bihar most Buddhist monks down , as they are considered profane , a large library is destroyed :

” The ashes of the Buddhist sanctuaries at Sarnath near Benares still bear witness to the fury of iconoclasm ”

Morocco 1232 :

All Jews in Marrakesh massacred .

The Ottoman Empire 1326-59 :

Sultan Orkhan create a slave armies of Christian children , the so-called Janitsarer . The Christian children taken from the Greek aristocracy , Serbs , Bulgarians , Armenians and Albanians – often among the priests’ children. The system abolished in 1656th At the same time created a system where girls are taken from their parents at six to ten year age to work at the Sultan’s harem . This custom continues to the 18th century .

India 1351 :

Firuz Shah, a Muslim ruler of India has this observation to a Hindu celebration : “I gave orders that the leaders of these people and those who were behind this blasphemy should be killed . I forbade severe punishments for Hindus in general, but I destroyed their afgudstempler and acted instead mosques ”

Georgia 1403 :

The ” bloody and insatiable Timur the lame ” destroys 700 villages, massacring the inhabitants , and will direct all Tiflis Christian churches to the ground – in Tamerlane combined the mongoske ferocity with Jihad . Tamerlane continues into India, where he believes that the Muslim rulers are too nice against the pagans .

India 1618 – 1707 :

The Muslim ruler Aurangzeb is in contrast to his father Muslim puritan ; temples are destroyed , dhimmi status imposed again campaign against the cities of Udaipur and Jaipur Chitor performed.

Iran 1642 – 1666 :

All Iranian Jews suffer waves of forced conversion and persecution .

1840 Damascus :

Jews subjected to ritual murder

Turkey 1894.1895 and 1896 :

Armenian Christians are persecuted and exterminated about . 250,000 door .

Turkey in 1904 and 1909 :

30,000 Armenians massacred in Adana

Turkey 1915

The first genocide of the century was done , approx. 1 million Armenians are shot , drowned and thrown out from the rocks , survivors are enslaved .

The Islamic imperialism was only seriously hamstrung by the West’s expansion – and it’s still the vest that keeps the Muslim countries in place, calling for human rights and decent behavior .

This does not mean that Islamic imperialism is stopped, it is executed just a little more discreet. The movement we call ” terrorism ” is really Islamic fundamentalists who are trying to keep the old Islamic virtues on – a kind of ” purists ” . The Islamic imperialism is not limited to the western world , wherever there are Muslims running the war, Thailand , Afghanistan , Russia, India , Pakistan and so on. The reason there is so much hype about them is that they also attacked the rulers of the world , the western world. And in fact behave Islamists like cherubs in the West , in relation to the behavior they exhibit in predominantly Muslim countries. The Copts in Egypt are daily being persecuted in Thailand leading Islamic holy war against the Buddhists , the Middle East persecute Christians and Jews in Pakistan persecuted Christians.

And in Denmark ? Well, it assesses you .
The western world and imperialism
For the western world , there was no conclusive after 2 World War – which broke the light from Athens in earnest through the mists of murder and mayhem . Those in power , the Western world wrote down human rights – rules that are like an echo of Socrates ideas , rules that can be almost directly attributed to Aristotle’s works. This light is soon found in every corner of the world , Russia, China , South America, North America , Europe, Japan – we decided to put our imperial past behind us and try to live together in freedom and peace.

Beneath the surface of our society , there is a constant anxiety to return to imperialism – when the slightest hint of imperialism emerges , gathers much of the world in a total rejection . It has been one of the reflexes that have been behind the charges against racism against critics of Muslims. The unfortunate thing about this little unconscious reaction has been that those in power have not been aware that with what has protected another form of imperialism – the Islamic imperialism. The great danger right now is that the Western world falls back into his old habits . Many ordinary people might conclude , democracy can not protect us against the growth of Islamic imperialism , and so we must deal with them the good old fashioned way – we kill them . This reaction will have incalculable consequences for the whole world – if democracy authors, Europeans suddenly start killing people – so weakened democratic idea , we can run the risk of smoking into a new Middle Ages, with kings, ecclesiastical power, and freedom of expression .

To avoid loss of the civilization we have painstakingly built up , so it is important that civilization responds to the Islamic imperialist threat and deal with it with democratic tools .
Islam and democracy
When a Hellenistic philosopher from one of the world ‘s most advanced and wealthy countries relate to Islam – you feel a bit like a boxer who has penetrated another boxer up in the ring corner with his hand ready to put the decisive battle into . How is Islam situtation today – penetrated and humiliated. Western civilization has ordered about Islam in the last 2-300 years, most recently in Afghanistan and Iraq. Therefore, Islam is behaving a little like wounded animals. Pressed up in the corner making the Muslim world are actions that it might not otherwise do .

The Muslim countries are struggling basically also to preserve their self-respect.

But it does not change the fact that Islam was born as a war machine – and therefore basically it difficult to operate within democratic frameworks play .

Specifically, there is now following elements of Islam that oppose democracy :

Islam’s glorification of violence
Islamic theocratic traditions
Islam nature of lovreligion
Islam’s lack of tolerance for dissent

In the Qur’an it says in the second Sura :

7 But those who disbelieve – for them it does not matter whether you warn them or do not warn them – they will not believe .

8 Allah has sealed their hearts and their ears , and over their eyes ( there is ) a veil – and they will get a severe punishment.

11 In their hearts is a disease , and Allah has caused their disease increase , and they will have a painful punishment because they lied .

12 And when it is said unto them: Anstift not strife on earth – they reply : We are just people who make peace .

And in Surah 22 :

20 … But for the unbelievers should be cut garments of fire,
(and ) boiling water is poured over their heads.

21 What is in their bellies and (also) their skin will melt thereby .

22 And there will be clubs of iron for them!

23 Every time they want to go out ( fire ) of anxiety,
they will be sent back in it, and ( it must be said to them):
Taste the burning ILDs punishment.

So, in paragraph 8, and 11 believe Mohammed to unbelievers will have pain, it is an expression of violence. In a democratic society resolve problems with the conversation, not with violence, and a Muslim should function in a democracy they are forced to disregard the above parts of the Koran .

A prerequisite for being able to function in a democracy is an additional tolerance for diversity. Rational debate only works if both discussion partners take each other seriously. If the starting point of the discussion is that piece of 8 , so that Mohammed is the truth, and the listener is sick because they can not understand it – then the dialogue is difficult.

22 sura speaks for itself .

Islam is obviously a world religion , and has evolved a lot since it started – the term for Islam is different for Sunnis , Shi’ites , Sufis , followers of the various legal schools, etc. , etc. – but the basic text characterize a religion , and sends in a particular direction.

Islam developed after Mohammed’s revelations quickly to a theocratic regime. It did not specifically planned, but was a natural result of Islam’s expansion. The head of an Islamic state was a Caliph, a person who followed Mohammed’s example. In AFFILIATES soon a team of theologians / lawyers called ” Ulamaer ” .

Around the year 1100 defined the Muslim philosopher al- Shafi Sharia system and formed out its own religiously -based law school . Sharia law was never put into practice the ubiquity and the first reele Sharia judgments in areas such as theft and adultery is a modern phenomenon .

In practice, the Muslim countries have , historically , been theocracies , guided by a religious leaders and jurists – society based on the Quran.

Islamic Fascism is the dream of returning to this state of affairs – as it is the reality of such . Iran.

Since then emerged democracies with a Muslim majority population , as in the example . Indonesia. These democracies are often in opposition to Muslim scholars and Islamic organizations .

Democracy is therefore not in opposition to all Muslims, but in opposition to interpretations of Islam that prevents democracy execution.
History
One of the basic problems in the relationship between many Muslims and Europe, is the lack of confidence . Europeans and Muslims have periodically fought against each other. Southern Spain was, for example . under Muslim rule for 700 years . Wars have often been extremely violent, and included ethnic cleansing . When the Moors were expelled from Spain in 1500 , all the Muslims killed each and every one .

Our own Holger Danish led in all probability an army against the Saracens . Then there were the crusades end , and the Turks attempt to conquer Europe in the 1600s – in 1683 stood at Viens ports.

So we have been enemies for over 1300 years and it is therefore no wonder that distrust is widespread.

Often, the hostility led to complete ethnic cleansing – and if history should be taken to mean , the probability of another ethnic cleansing great. It happened the other times , why should it not happen again?

In fact , Europeans have been less able to tolerate Muslims than Muslims has been to tolerate Christians. Europeans have simply enabled the Muslims to death. Muslims designed a system where they were men, and Christians were slaves . The Christians were “protected ” in an inferior position , they were ” dhimmis ” and had to humble himself to the Muslims , pay taxes and was also without rights.

To me , it reflects an incredible arrogance that Muslims move in such large numbers to Europe. It is no more than approx. 60 years ago the Europeans systematically exterminated Jews – a people who have no hostility with the Europeans as Muslims. Today, Muslims living in Europe practice left entirely to the whim of Europeans , Muslims are outnumbered and with no real military power to stand against a government attack. If Europeans take back to their old habits, so Muslims are completely at the mercy .

It is important that the problems of Islam solved within the rules of democracy , and the problem is solved as humanely as possible.
Islam and philosophy
The Muslim and the vestige world have one thing in common , a problem child for someone and light source to others. We are enthusiastic about this thing that confused moths on a night light – sometimes close, sometimes far away. We are often afraid to get too close to the light , but always enthralled by its magical attraction : Hellas . The stunning Mediterranean culture as we both has buyers . The light and the road to the stars – literally .

Now I’m not Muslim philosopher , so I ‘m not familiar with the details of the Muslim philosophy – but seen from the outside , there was a significant shift around 11-1200 century. The Muslim world had experienced a minor renaissance with great philosophers like Averroes (Ibn Rushd ) and Avicenna (Ibn Sina ) . They were so good that even in Western universities were studied carefully , especially Avicenna was something unique. Avicenna was deeply concerned with Aristotle, he did the classic renæssancefilosofs movement that sprang from book to book in the series of Aristotle’s book publishing . Exactly the same movement as the Danish filsosof Bo of Denmark did a few hundred years later. Avicenna was radical Aristoteliker .

The reaction against radical aristotelikere took two different directions in Islam and Europe and was crucial for the two cultures development. Bo of Denmark was good enough persecuted by the church, but he was never seriously refuted by religious philosophers. He helped to lay the foundations of Western civilization, planted a seed that 600 years later would allow philosophers like Montesqieu , Voltaire and Rousseau to introduce real Atheniensk democracy in France without the church’s power .

But in the Muslim world Aristotelikerne met stiff resistance and was felled by philosophers such as Al- Ghazali . The main argument against Aristotelikerne were:

If not aristotelikerne can prove the existence of God , then there is the case of a heretical ideology. Well, Al- Ghazali would probably not prove God’s existence , so it is a poor argument. It is a classic discussion we last had it here in the West , Nietzsche and Feuerbach did their best to kill God , and it was successful , actually.

The point is simply , that it is impossible either to prove or disprove the existence of God , it remains a matter of faith , a personal conviction.

Ayatollah Khomenis version of Islam , a new and somewhat strenuous switching to philosophy , he should , according to Morten Krasnik , inspired by Plato and Plato’s philosopher society. Plato’s mathematics is now replaced with God and the Koran. This becomes Islamism yet another version of a thinned Sparta , like communism and the Catholic state. Therefore, Islamism is likely to meet all the same problems as the other republics met.

It has been tried and it does not work very well, on the contrary , it creates decline and apathy. Which , incidentally, is the case in Iran here over 40 after the Platonic Republic of Iran was established . Islamists are well underway to make exactly the same mistake as the Communists , they choose the next best option – because the best solution is taken.

Practice has proved that a society based on the Athenienske democracy prospers . It is better to build a society in deep, reele experience rather than solving ideas – as Plato .

As soon as society moves too far away from the Hellenic foundation , it goes into decline. When the decay has been going on for some time , the society back to Heller are creating a new renaissance , a new rebirth of the Hellenic , a new age of enlightenment .

For me , the western world by being ready for a new Renaissance, the academic community are due to a superficial multiculturalism, and the philosophy of science instruments are dulled . Socrates and Aristotle takes up almost nothing in universities today. The result is a highly irrational policy , such as uncontrolled immigration , lack of respect for science constitutional freedom of expression.

We thus face a new revitalization of European civilization, and it could be great if there were a young Muslim philosopher or two who, like myself could fight for the Athenian . So that we can cripple kleresiets power, and create a world of freedom, democracy and peace.

And , yes , I know what it takes to Islam taking the plunge into the Athenian civilization – but it’s a secret that I only share with the Muslim philosophers who dare to hear it.

This is the hand stretched out .

Multiculturalism dark heart
A particularly dark chapter of the socialist / multicultural ideology unfolds daily in some of the Danish schools . Here, Muslim and Danish culture strongly – as school culture constantly nydannes – it does not work like many other institutions where the culture is more or less fixed . Culture restore all the time because children do not know their own culture, but creates a culture from the impressions they get around it. The result is a kind of new mixed culture of Danish / Muslim – as seen most strongly in areas such as the North Bridge and Vollsmose .

I’ve only seen the phenomenon from a distance , but there is probably obvious to everyone that something is completely wrong , including mass rapes , stabbings , harassment – and probably a mysterious multicultural melting pot of the most sinister kind . The most tragic is that it is children who are involved – that is vulnerable , protecting solve creatures as well expect that their parents take care of them . And we do not when they are mistreated as they do.

One of the most frightening is the emergence of new gender roles , in many traditionally Muslim countries is the woman a demure size that fits on her virtue. The ideal is eternal fidelity and chastity – which is the argument for the veil. This gender ideal is a far cry from the modern Danish , free sex and exposure of sexuality . The result is a culture clash of an incredibly destructive force – the young Muslim men concludes that the Danish girls are whores , and treat them as such. Mass Rape is just the tip of the iceberg – below the water’s surface is a world of contempt , inhuman behavior and constant conflict . It helps so does not mean that some imams support young Muslims in their attitude to Danish girls.

This traditional Muslim culture blends with the hip hop culture that also glorifies pimping and skøgeri . The result is a new culture where many Muslim and Danish boys idealize pimp Ministry and the Danish girls idealize skøgeriet . They invent a world where men are pimps and girls are whores. It goes without saying that it is extremely destructive to all concerned. For the girls, it basically degrading, and extremely dangerous for their mental health – and for the boys is the first step towards crime. For once you’re pimp might as well do all the other criminal acts.

The result is an eerie pariah community as all involved are looking at – a sort of a limbo . The conclusion many young Muslims draw is that Danish society is evil – and they try to escape into their parents’ religion. In order to preserve their mental health – in this situation are the easy targets for extremist views – as it makes good sense to take revenge on the society that is evil . That would remove it from the ground – bomb it.

For me , it is totally nonsense to entrust our children to the multicultural experiment – especially when it has consequences as above.

We have come so far that the police have to intervene at classroom – and we can not offer our children. Neither the Danish or Muslim .

The multicultural school is one of the most frightening chapters in Danish history , surpassed only by the concentration camps during the occupation and the poor neighborhoods in Copenhagen before the ramparts looping.

Most resourceful parents vote with their feet and send their children to private schools . Muslims in Muslim private schools , Danes Danish private schools . So the separation is already in practice on track . This leaves the disadvantaged families, the families society is obligated to help – in the ruins of a school. Abandoned and hated by the rest of society.

Many Muslim private schools do not prepare children for democracy, but educate children to a Muslim society – at worst a caliphate . But it is better than the kids getting involved in crime , it’s just untenable for democracy in the long run – when the Caliphate stand in the place of democracy.

We are now in the unfortunate situation that we have children in the country ( in Copenhagen up to 30% ) will not be included in democracy when they grow up . It does not take much imagination to imagine what that might impact on democracy for 10-15 years it will simply cease to function .

The Future
We are facing a dividing line , either we take the Islamic imperialism seriously and do something about it – or we wait for Islamofascism attempted introduced by revolution. Today, we still have the opportunity to fight Islamofascism by peaceful means , but may not have so much time left . We have already seen the first act with Mohammed crisis , burning of cars in Paris and popular struggle in Scania. It will not be long before than there are more Muslims in Malmo than there are Swedes – and then there is some chance of a theocratic coup.

We have in Scandinavia had peace for so long that we have almost forgotten what war is all about – it is hard for us to understand what war is . War is always something happening elsewhere.

Let me try to describe what kind of future we risk going against – I got it first though , after reading Thycudides ” The Pelleponesiske War”. The book has just written to warn against the consequences of a war between democracy and another statsidé .

Basically , Athens was incredibly strong , rich , dynamic – invincible . But the other Hellenes ; Corintherne , Euboeerne , Sicilians and the Spartans were tired of them – the Athenians were self-important and thought they would control everything .

Athenians had allies , but the Hellenes were generally quite tired of them .

The Pelloponesiske war broke out between Athens and the Spartan league – and it was terrible. The blows were not so much as bad warriors were brave commanders tactical masters, and many a heroic deed was done . It was eerie public role during the war.

What happened was that cities either chose to follow Sparta or Athens – and in many cities there were a lot of Sparta and a lot of Athens. These parties warring physically and mentally – it was a civil war . Friends who had previously loved each other were suddenly enemies , families were torn apart . And in many places led civil war killings and riots. General broke law and order together , you could not walk safely in the streets – the same daughters or wives were raped – each party tried to gain the upper hand .

It was an insidious process that culminated in a bloodbath – and tapped Hellas as much force that the Macedonian king Philip could conquer all Hellas as easy as nothing.

Civil war signs are beginning to emerge , with Sweden ‘s voldtægtstraten creepy, France stands towns often on fire, in England bombed buses. The authorities react by sticking their heads in the sand – and forcing their denial over society as a whole . If the population is critical to the civil war signs , they are mocked and called racists .

If we take the beginning theocratic revolution seriously , we can still manage to stop it peacefully , if not , we may get war.

Thycudides wrote his work to other cultures could avoid the blunders that the Athenians had done. We can choose to listen to him and avoid the mistakes Hell are made ​​- or risk repeating the story again.

And freedom of speech light will turn off.
People soul
Lately , it has often been, Dane are racists ! Danes are xenophobes ! Danes must apologize !

And it is vertical , directly and completely wrong, it reflects a dogmatic, unthinking interpretation of the relationship between minorities and majorities . Let me try to explain the logic behind the attack on the Danish people :

According to the philosopher John Stuart Mill ‘s democracy a threat to the majority oppresses the minority. The logic is that in a democratic assembly , the majority an opportunity to always outvote the minority. Of importance for minority protection .

In parts of the Danish intelligentsia , this principle is elevated to a verified truth that can not be discussed. That’s the truth , the majority always oppresses the minority. There is therefore a dogma , a taboo if you will.

Stuart Mill would probably turn grave if he knew how his ideas are being used today – for he was a wise philosopher . A lot has happened in the world since Stuart Mill wrote his treatise On freedom. Let’s take arguments :

Stuart Mill pointed to a mechanism within democracy – the majority of Islamists are not part of democracy, so they can not be subject to the principle
In Stuart Mill’s time was a state a closed loop – there was no internet , sms, phones and televisions. Today, the Danish Islamists part of an international movement that is in constant contact and coordination. During the Mohammed crisis was not the Danish Muslims who were in the minority and in danger of being oppressed – but the Danes were minorities compared to the worldwide Muslim opponion . 5 million people against 1.5 billion , it is in truth a minority

Minorities should of course be protected, but it is in the globalized world a much more complex and utydigt concept – a minority in a country can be a global majority. It is after all logic completely reasonable to Denmark are fighting against Al – Qaeda and Hizb – Ut -Tahrir since they represent strong international movements like it in for you . And they do not represent a constant minority , but often one of Denmark , life-threatening majority.

But what are the Danes ?
Let me start somewhere else entirely , we need something positive – in the midst of all this talk of war and terrorism.

The starting point of the Hellenistic philosophy was a study of life – what is life really? Some philosophers believed that life was in the spirit , that is when man is breathing is life in one way or another in the breath . Perhaps because life disappears when the breath stops.

Other philosophers believed that life was in the blood, while others felt that life was the fire or earth. Of the four elements of earth , fire, water and air.

It was obviously out of the above ideas did not really work – although some of the ideas continued to inspire philosophers. Nietzsche, for example, was inspired by Heraclitus , who believed that life comes out of the fire – the fire cleans out in life, and thus lays the groundwork for stronger life.

But I think that the beauty of the whole thinking is that it has an eye for something substantial human world – Kierkegaard would probably call it human existence . And it is that there are people in life .

The highlight of the Hellenes discussion of life, Aristotle defined it – he thought that life can distinguish between body and soul. The body is the physical and the soul ‘s life. When life has left a human being , there is only the body back – and the difference between the dead body and the living man , it is the soul . The soul is everything that is the life of man.

Man is thus part of the life that takes place on the ground – there really is much more to life than just man. The trees have life , birds have life , yes there is actually life over the place – and a great beauty in this life – in existence .

Rousseau was very interested in the discussion about the life and soul – and he made a mental quantum leap , he argued that the human soul was not completely isolated entity , but associated with other souls. Just like ants in an anthill . Ants have something in common , which is more than themselves. Dolphins swim also in groups , penguins meet at the South Pole each winter , etc., etc.

Grundtvig was very inspired by Rousseau , and he pondered much over what it meant for Denmark . He believed that all of Denmark share something in common, a common life – and this he called the national soul .

Grundtvig as the Danish people as a cheerful , singing , freedom-loving , positive people – a people who could jointly promise much.

And the beautiful soul , is worth fighting for .

Litterature

Filosofi

Aristoteles, Den Nikomacheiske Etik, 1995, Frederiksberg, DET lille FORLAG

Aristoteles etiske hovedværk, i dette værk gennemgår Aristoteles etikkens ”mekanik” alle etikkens regler.

Aristotle, De Anima, (On the Soul), 1986, London, Penguin Books

Aristoteles “mundtlige overleveringer”. Alexander den Store var elev af Aristoteles, og udførte hans ideer i praksis. Disse ideer havde Aristoteles lovet ikke at fortælle til nogen, men gjorde det alligevel – i denne bog. Bogen handler om sjæl og liv.

Aristotle, Politics, 1995, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Aristoteles var en meget brugt filosof I sin tid, han deltog I mange konstitutioners udførelse og revidering. I denne bog giver han sin erfaringer videre. Bogen beskriver i detaljer opbyggelsen af et demokrati.

Feuerbach, Ludwig, The essence of Christianity, 1989, New York, Prometheus Books

Denne bog inspirerede Marx til at afskrive al religion – denne bog er så at sige atheismens grundbog.

Foss, Otto et.al. , Udvalg af Platons skrifter, 1970, C.A. Reitzels Forlag

Glebe-Møller, Jens, Jürgen Habermas en protestantisk filosof, 1996, Danmark, Gyldendal

Jürgen Habermas er min ”pendant” i Tyskland, ligesom jeg er han kommet til den konklusion at vi skal finde tilbage til de antikke grækere. En god introduktionsbog.

Hartnack, Justus, et. al. (red.), De store tænkere – Kant, 1996, København, Munskgaard

Jørgensen, Dorthe, Viden og Visdom – spørgsmålet om de intellektuelle, 2002, Frederiksberg, DET lille FORLAG

Kierkegaard, Søren, Begrebet Angest, 1960, Danmark, Gyldendals Uglebøger

Kierkegaard, Søren, Enten Eller 1, 1962, København, Nordisk Forlag

Kierkegaard, Søren, Enten Eller 2, 1962, København, Nordisk Forlag

Koch, Hal, Luther, 1962, København, GAD

Levi, Primo, De druknede og de frelste, 1992, København, Forum

Denne bog beskriver den jødiske KZ fanges oplevelser i Auswitch.

Lindqvist, Sven, Udryd de sataner, 1993, Danmark, Gyldendal

Sven Lindqvist beskriver i denne bog den barbariske vestlige imperialisme

Løgstrup, K.E., Den Etiske Fordring, 1991, Købanhavn, Gyldendal

Løgstrups hovedværk, en fantastisk forsvar for det Gode.

Løgstrup, K.E. Solidaritet og Kærlighed, 1987, Danmark, Gyldendal

En essaysamling af Løgstrup, min inspiration til afsnittet den demokratiske familie. Her beskriver Løgstrup bl.a. kærlighedens væsen.

Maurois, André, Voltaire, 1964, Ringsted, Martins Forlag

Mill, John Stuart, On Liberty, 1998, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Montesquieu, The Spirit of The Laws, 2006, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press

Dette af Montesquieus hovedværk er en fantastisk samling af ideer I forhold til refærdighed, demokrati og lov. 

Nietzsche, Friedrich, The Genealogy of Morals, 2003, New York, Dover thrift Editions

Nietzches opgør med aristokratiet, en argumentation for egoisme – men et fantastiske velskrevet værk.

Plato, Early Socratic Dialogues, 1987, England, Penguin Classics

Nogle af de første dialoger Platon nedskrev, man mener at disse dialoger ligger tæt på Sokrates´ lære – idet Platon nedskrev dem kort tid efter Sokrates død. I disse dialoger kommer man tæt på demokratiets væsen.

Plato, Republic, 1993, Oxford, Oxford World Classics

Platons definition af et idealsamfund.

Plato, Symposium and Phaedrus, 1993, New York, Dover Thrift Editions

Platons forsøg på at koble kærlighed til sin idélære – vel den smukkeste bog der nogensinde er skrevet.

Plutarch, Roman Lives, 1999, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Plutarch var Athener han levede 200 efter Kristi, I en af romerrigets rolige faser. Han beskrev et sæt romerske og græske helte. Fantastisk læsning, disse bøger er en af Rousseaus hovedinspirationskilder. Han skulle efter sigende ikke have læst andet end disse bøger i sin barndom. 

Plutarch, Greek Lives, 1998, Oxford, Oxford University Press

Rousseau, Jean-Jacques, The Social Contract 1998, Hertfordshire, Wordsworth

En af den franske renæssances vigtigste filosoffer. I denne bog beskriver Rousseau nogle af sine væsentligste ideer i forhold til europæisk civilisation. 

Sartre, Jean-Paul, Eksistentialisme er Humanisme, 1984, København, Vinten Forlag

Schleifstein, Josef, Indføring i studiet af Marx, Engels og Lenin, 1975, Forlaget Tiden

Tamm, Ditlev, Retshistorie, 2002, Danmark, Jurist- og Økonomforbundets Forlag

Thielst, Peter, Man bør tvivle om alt – og tro på meget, 1996, Danmark, Gyldendals bogklubber

En fantastisk gennemgang af filosofihistorien, Peter Thielst kender sin filosoffer.

Thucydides, History of the Peloponnesian War, 1972, London, Penguin Books

Thucydides var en græsk general og historiker, denne bog er skrevet efter den Peloponnesiske krig. Han skriver let og spændende – en fantastisk historiker. Flere af de taler de forskellige deltagere i krigen holdt, er med – bl.a. en fantastisk tale af Perikles, den ”første borger”

Weber, Max, Den protestantiske etik, og kapitalismens ånd, 1995, København, Nansensgade Antikvariat

Max Weber skriver med vid og typisk tysk encyclopædisk vingefang. En lille velsskrevet bog der beskriver forholdet imellem protestantisme og ”kapitalisme”. En skarp kritik.

Nordiske samfund

Larsen, Thøger (Oversættelse), Edda-Myterne – Nordens Gudekvad & Snorris Eddasagn, 1995, København, Sphinx

Meulengracht Sørensen, Preben, Saga og Samfund, 1977, Danmark, Berlingske Forlag

Islam

Grøndahl, Malene et. al., Hizb ut-Tahrir I Danmark – Farlig fundamentalisme eller uskyldigt ungdomsoprør?, 2003, Århus, Århus Universitetsforlag

Krasnik, Morten, 2005, De Retfærdige – En Islamisk Stafet, Viborg, Gyldendal Paperback

Morten Krasnik er en modig mand, han har rejst det meste af den islamistiske verden rundt, og snakket med mange ledende islamister. En spændende og oplysende bog.

Madsen, A.S. (Noter og oversættelse) Koranen, 2001, København, Borgens Forlag

Lewis, Bernard, What Went, Wrong?, 2002, Great Britain, Phoenix

Bernard Lewis er en fantastisk historiker, ingen anden end han har så stor viden om den mellemøstlige historie. Han skriver også fuldstændig flydende, der er lidt Thycudides over ham. Lewis er en lidt diskuteret akademiker, han står bag ideen om ”clash of civilizations” – altså at vi i den vestlige verden står midt i det tredje erobringsforsøg fra Islams side. Hans ideer skulle efter sigende ligge bag Irak krigen. Lewis er respekteret i den muslimske verden, han forstår muslimerne, og har stor respekt for Islams historie. 

Lewis, Bernard, The Middle East, 1995, Great Britain, Phoenix

Oz, Amos, Hvordan man kurerer en fanatiker, 2002, Danmark, Gyldendal

Oz er jøde, bor i Israel og har nogle interessante kommentarer til fanatismen.

Pipes, Daniel, Militant Islam reaches America, 2002, United States of America, W W Norton

En historiker af Lewis skuffe, ikke nær så dygtig, men meget kritisk overfor Islam – hvilket har reddet ham mange fjender I de amerikansk akademiske kredse. Han klart en af de mest seriøse Islam forskere.

Rumi, Djelalddin, Der er vinduer mellem menneskers hjerter, 2001, Viborg, Vangsgaard

Muslisms poesi når det er bedst.

Simonsen, Jørgen Bæk, Hvad er Islam? 2006, København, Akademisk Forlag

Steffensen, Jens M., Islam – fra beduinkult til verdensreligion, 2001, Århus, Systime

Sandahl, Nils, Islams Ansigter, 2004, København, Tiderne Skifte

Tagore, Rabindranath, The Heart of God, 1997, United States of America, Tuttle

Endnu en af mine muslimske yndlingsforfattere, Tagore er en fantastisk poet. I denne lille bog har Tagore samlet en lille samling bønner.

Warraq, Ibn, Derfor er jeg ikke muslim, 2004, Danmark, Lindhardt og Ringhof

Warraq er en modig mand, i denne bog afsløres Islams imperialisme i al sin gru.