Europe's Muslims feel heat of backlash after Paris terror

[Bakeman]

And for these reasons, ARJUNDAWN, perhaps Christians will declare war (Crusades) and give Muslims a choice of Christianity or death as they do to others? This religion seems to be debated just as the right to own a pit bull dog. The dog kills uncontrollably and must be euthanized so one might believe if this religion is not peaceful or tolerant, kills uncontrollably and insists on world domination the ultimate thought pushes others to annihilate this religion? Tough spot to be in for sure.

[arjunadawn]

And for these reasons, ARJUNDAWN, perhaps Christians will declare war (Crusades) and give Muslims a choice of Christianity or death as they do to others? This religion seems to be debated just as the right to own a pit bull dog. The dog kills uncontrollably and must be euthanized so one might believe if this religion is not peaceful or tolerant, kills uncontrollably and insists on world domination the ultimate thought pushes others to annihilate this religion? Tough spot to be in for sure.

Well, as someone quite familiar with war, I never advocate violence, even where that seems to be the only option- I just avoid commenting on it. The christians could never again muster such forces as they did in the 11th century to finally respond to 400 years of islamic jihad and conquest and rape and slavery and torture and death all along the periphery of the Holy Roman Empire, and then penetrating deeply- Spain for example. Europe finally responded but self loathing revisionists in the west later painted a very vacant picture of why these wars were started. Perhaps the excesses of christians repulsed us so much as a post enlightenment civilization (and the absence of any real muslim knowledge after the failure at Vienna-a relative Ottoman dark age) that we began re writing history as christian aggressors, clearly forgetting how it all started. It should be noted that in the late 1600s Vienna was under siege as Islamic jihad again penetrated deep into Europe. Christians did not invite them, nor did they precipitate this, but this defeat of the aggressors is still to this day a rallying cry for remembrance, September 11th. They cannot be negotiated with. They seek nothing less than everything!

I have no use for any religion of today but I have always thought it was a stretch, indeed an error in reason, to declare islam a religion; perhaps there was no choice. It is a religion with most of the trappings, but it is so much more; I think it clearly deserves the title of both, religion and not, depending on which state of behavior is being acted out. Its sharia is ideology, no different than fascism, vacant, oppressive, and coercive. This why the Grand Mufti and Adolf Hitler got a long, with Hitler praising the muslims for their death embracing views and jew hatred.

It is simply dishonest to overlook that the koran is the greatest hate speech in the history of the world. It is not just cloaked divine mandate for aggression but it is practical mayhem that demands emulation and obedience. One could create a computer program, feed it the parameters of hate speech from Mein Kampf and any number of radical black militant theology speeches, Nation of Islam speeches, Anjem Choudary of UK, Hamas leaders, Qawadari from Qatar, and a thesaurus related to hate concepts and have the computer self learn what constitutes hate speech. Then run the Koran and Hadith through the baseline now established by known repugnant language. I am very confident that the software would rate these text as ghastly. How humans, contrary to overwhelming evidence, argue to the contrary reflects an intellectual bankruptcy on the speaker.

Christians do not possess the power in a fractured post reformation state to address this issue. This issue has to be addressed in a way that frankly evades me.

[Thorgal]

Agreed, but I still feel badly for the Muslims that just want live their lives peacefully and fit into Western society.

the problem is very few want to fit in to western society. They want us to fit in to sharia, the call to pray while annoying can be argued the same as Christian Church bells but my not being able to eat pork in front of them or buy it in my local Market because it is haram is bs, same with not allowed to buy alchohol, drinking or talking to a pretty woman. Where are the Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, or hindu prayer rooms in airports?

Wow... you don't know shit I presume...

95% of Muslims in France are completely "fitting in" in France, 4.9% don't try but stay in their apartments and are the older people and their kids brought to France in the 20's and 30's to build apartments that were given citizenship and parked in lousy apartments. the other part which represents less than 1% are stupid <deleted> claiming they are fighting in the name of Allah... exactly the same minority as the ones trowing stones and pig heads at Mosques...

Whenever someone requires rudeness to make their point you can be pretty certain that it will be dubious. Rudeness is just another form of scare tactic, designed in this case to deliver a faulty point by disarming the poster.

But I will bite: If there are 7.7 million muslims in France (Jean-Paul Gourévitch, La croisade islamiste, Pascal Galodé , 2011, p.136) and only 5%, according to you, don't "fit" in, that leaves over 350,000 muslims in France that pose a potential threat to both integration and security. Irrespective of the label minority, this poses an existential threat to France. Even if we toyed with the fantastical number 1%, we are still left with a staggering threat to civil society.

When these numbers, however high or low, are considered in the context of ongoing, increasing global jihad under the banner of islam, then these numbers reveal an even more ominous sign.

Next time you start reading or study Gourevitch his fantastic figures more closely, you will realize that he talks about 1 to 2% of the French Muslims is or possibly are fanatic radicals. So, not so far from Amir his figures...

He estimates half of the Muslim population in France as active Muslims.

Why bringing figures from a French Jew and his known popularity to extreme right political fractions in France...

Edited January 14, 2015 by Thorgal

[Thorgal]

Agreed, but I still feel badly for the Muslims that just want live their lives peacefully and fit into Western society.

the problem is very few want to fit in to western society. They want us to fit in to sharia, the call to pray while annoying can be argued the same as Christian Church bells but my not being able to eat pork in front of them or buy it in my local Market because it is haram is bs, same with not allowed to buy alchohol, drinking or talking to a pretty woman. Where are the Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, or hindu prayer rooms in airports?

Wow... you don't know shit I presume...

95% of Muslims in France are completely "fitting in" in France, 4.9% don't try but stay in their apartments and are the older people and their kids brought to France in the 20's and 30's to build apartments that were given citizenship and parked in lousy apartments. the other part which represents less than 1% are stupid <deleted> claiming they are fighting in the name of Allah... exactly the same minority as the ones trowing stones and pig heads at Mosques...

I disagree Amir. Where are you getting your numbers from? Also where are you getting your definition of assimilation? Assimilation is the process of adapting or adjusting to the culture of a group or nation, or the state of being so adapted. Many Muslims migrate to other countries but never adapt religiously or fashionably. They set up their mosques and scream their religion for all to hear whether they want to or not. There is no ADAPTATION or TOLERANCE given by Muslims. Its their way or the highway. You can't go into someone else's country, not assimilate, and then retaliate when people don't adapt to Muslim culture or sharia law.

Advice;

When you go to another country you must tolerate and adapt as well. You must respect the countries way of life if you intend to settle there. Do the best you can and not fight the system or kill the people when they don't do as Muslims do.

The word is Hirjah, and this word, the injunction on behavior, spells out in detail the manner of living amongst non muslims. This doctrine is so central to Islam that it was actually created and mandated by no less than the prophet himself. Having been pretty much ran out of Mecca by his own tribe, the prophet Hirjah, or immigrated, to Medina. The same things they did to the people in Mecca that got them kicked out by their own tribe they now did to the people in Medina, but much more thoughtfully, with very skillful methods.

This is where the concept of the three levels of acting out the jihad developed- tolerance, defensive jihad, and finally offensive jihad. At first they just wished to be tolerated. No one objected. But then they began doing the same thing in Medina as Mecca, they started demanding accommodations and insulting the local gods- this insulting the local gods thing was the final straw for Meccans to chase him out. In Medina they feigned victim this time, insisting they were being persecuted where clearly they were demanding special protections. Early muslims in Medina were forbidden to mix with non muslims, have dealings with them and if forced they could feign friendship but only on limited terms to further islam.

The prophet bankrolled his new religion by sacking traders and plundering loot from caravans. As common criminals they did numerous of this robberies, but others noticed and also noted that the insular nature of muslims caring for muslims alone seemed attractive= the numbers grew. When they had sufficient numbers and no longer needed to protest defensively that they were being persecuted, they went on the offensive= offensive jihad, and aimed their ire at Mecca, where they sacked and destroyed and literally ran a river full of the blood of the beheaded, amongst other worthy acts to emulate.

These events established the mechanics for immigration. They are to remain insular, pray toward mecca, not take unbelievers as friends, consolidate power and arms and money, establish shar'ia, and then make shar'ia binding on the greater populace by special accommodations. There is absolutely nothing new that is happening. Modern current events read just like Buhkari and the early islamic writers. This practice of Hirjah jihad has been executed repeatedly for millennia. If one thinks the issue is this, or that, or failed integration, or poor assimilation policies, the entire substance is missed! They don't want to join you! They want you to join them!

This is not some arcane musing; this is the practice and mandate.

Is this the CNN or the FOX version of the Islam ?

[NeverSure]

Did anyone ever think their wouldn't be a backlash at some point?

As much as I disagree with it, I'm not at all surprised and once it has started I think it will roll.

The backlash will be protest only. The French people have no means for a revolution. Even a new government won't kick out the Muslims.

Western Europe is screwed and it's too late.

[Publicus]

And for these reasons, ARJUNDAWN, perhaps Christians will declare war (Crusades) and give Muslims a choice of Christianity or death as they do to others? This religion seems to be debated just as the right to own a pit bull dog. The dog kills uncontrollably and must be euthanized so one might believe if this religion is not peaceful or tolerant, kills uncontrollably and insists on world domination the ultimate thought pushes others to annihilate this religion? Tough spot to be in for sure.

Well, as someone quite familiar with war, I never advocate violence, even where that seems to be the only option- I just avoid commenting on it. The christians could never again muster such forces as they did in the 11th century to finally respond to 400 years of islamic jihad and conquest and rape and slavery and torture and death all along the periphery of the Holy Roman Empire, and then penetrating deeply- Spain for example. Europe finally responded but self loathing revisionists in the west later painted a very vacant picture of why these wars were started. Perhaps the excesses of christians repulsed us so much as a post enlightenment civilization (and the absence of any real muslim knowledge after the failure at Vienna-a relative Ottoman dark age) that we began re writing history as christian aggressors, clearly forgetting how it all started. It should be noted that in the late 1600s Vienna was under siege as Islamic jihad again penetrated deep into Europe. Christians did not invite them, nor did they precipitate this, but this defeat of the aggressors is still to this day a rallying cry for remembrance, September 11th. They cannot be negotiated with. They seek nothing less than everything!

I have no use for any religion of today but I have always thought it was a stretch, indeed an error in reason, to declare islam a religion; perhaps there was no choice. It is a religion with most of the trappings, but it is so much more; I think it clearly deserves the title of both, religion and not, depending on which state of behavior is being acted out. Its sharia is ideology, no different than fascism, vacant, oppressive, and coercive. This why the Grand Mufti and Adolf Hitler got a long, with Hitler praising the muslims for their death embracing views and jew hatred.

It is simply dishonest to overlook that the koran is the greatest hate speech in the history of the world. It is not just cloaked divine mandate for aggression but it is practical mayhem that demands emulation and obedience. One could create a computer program, feed it the parameters of hate speech from Mein Kampf and any number of radical black militant theology speeches, Nation of Islam speeches, Anjem Choudary of UK, Hamas leaders, Qawadari from Qatar, and a thesaurus related to hate concepts and have the computer self learn what constitutes hate speech. Then run the Koran and Hadith through the baseline now established by known repugnant language. I am very confident that the software would rate these text as ghastly. How humans, contrary to overwhelming evidence, argue to the contrary reflects an intellectual bankruptcy on the speaker.

Christians do not possess the power in a fractured post reformation state to address this issue. This issue has to be addressed in a way that frankly evades me.

This issue has to be addressed in a way that frankly evades me.

I suppose it is possible or perhaps somewhat explainable to not have any suggested resolution or remedies for our consideration.

Even given that the presenter has unmistakably committed so much time and reading, research, discussion, analysis, synthesizing, evaluating and much else to undertake an Islam project of sorts, it might seem consistent that the analyst might have some insights or clues toward resolving such issues.

It could seem after all that given the accounts provided, some kind of intervention might be incumbent upon each of us. Relatively few of us would have any significant experience of the religion and, given the writer's attestations whatever other classification(s) Islam might be assigned, so some recommended pursuit or course of action could be welcome to consider.

Simultaneously, it is somewhat distasteful to see such terminology in the essay as this: "...self loathing revisionists in the west later painted a very vacant picture of why these wars were started..."

Based on having read a number of the poster's previous posts on the very topic, I would offer that if the reference is to the contemporary multi-culturalists, then it would be rejected outright as a false and manufactured reference and terminology. The reality is that in general the extreme right sector of society is critical of multiculturalism and of multiculturalists, so if the writer might want to clarify the choice and use of the characterization, "self-loathing revisionists in the west [sic]," that would be welcome.

I'm trying to get a firmer grip on this from the OP and the emphasis in bold font is mine......

An official who keeps track of Islamophobic attacks in France said there were 60 incidents — attacks and threats — in the six days since that attack.

A climate of fear is taking hold in Europe, stoked by rightist rhetoric equating the millions of peaceful Muslims with the few plotting murder and mayhem.

Edited January 14, 2015 by Publicus

[ExPratt]

Apparently a Documentary called Angry, White and Proud aired last night in the UK. Anti immigration , anti Muslim brigade being filmed by Channel 4 for a year. People have questioned the timing of the start of the documentary. I dont agree with this lot but imo they have a right to have their opinions aired,

[Choctastic]

And for these reasons, ARJUNDAWN, perhaps Christians will declare war (Crusades) and give Muslims a choice of Christianity or death as they do to others? This religion seems to be debated just as the right to own a pit bull dog. The dog kills uncontrollably and must be euthanized so one might believe if this religion is not peaceful or tolerant, kills uncontrollably and insists on world domination the ultimate thought pushes others to annihilate this religion? Tough spot to be in for sure.

Well, as someone quite familiar with war, I never advocate violence, even where that seems to be the only option- I just avoid commenting on it. The christians could never again muster such forces as they did in the 11th century to finally respond to 400 years of islamic jihad and conquest and rape and slavery and torture and death all along the periphery of the Holy Roman Empire, and then penetrating deeply- Spain for example. Europe finally responded but self loathing revisionists in the west later painted a very vacant picture of why these wars were started. Perhaps the excesses of christians repulsed us so much as a post enlightenment civilization (and the absence of any real muslim knowledge after the failure at Vienna-a relative Ottoman dark age) that we began re writing history as christian aggressors, clearly forgetting how it all started. It should be noted that in the late 1600s Vienna was under siege as Islamic jihad again penetrated deep into Europe. Christians did not invite them, nor did they precipitate this, but this defeat of the aggressors is still to this day a rallying cry for remembrance, September 11th. They cannot be negotiated with. They seek nothing less than everything!

I have no use for any religion of today but I have always thought it was a stretch, indeed an error in reason, to declare islam a religion; perhaps there was no choice. It is a religion with most of the trappings, but it is so much more; I think it clearly deserves the title of both, religion and not, depending on which state of behavior is being acted out. Its sharia is ideology, no different than fascism, vacant, oppressive, and coercive. This why the Grand Mufti and Adolf Hitler got a long, with Hitler praising the muslims for their death embracing views and jew hatred.

It is simply dishonest to overlook that the koran is the greatest hate speech in the history of the world. It is not just cloaked divine mandate for aggression but it is practical mayhem that demands emulation and obedience. One could create a computer program, feed it the parameters of hate speech from Mein Kampf and any number of radical black militant theology speeches, Nation of Islam speeches, Anjem Choudary of UK, Hamas leaders, Qawadari from Qatar, and a thesaurus related to hate concepts and have the computer self learn what constitutes hate speech. Then run the Koran and Hadith through the baseline now established by known repugnant language. I am very confident that the software would rate these text as ghastly. How humans, contrary to overwhelming evidence, argue to the contrary reflects an intellectual bankruptcy on the speaker.

Christians do not possess the power in a fractured post reformation state to address this issue. This issue has to be addressed in a way that frankly evades me.

I, too, am familiar with war and its effects on soldiers and their families and as a result, want no part of it. All those salivating for war are the usual keyboard chicken-hawks, who just love to send others sons to fight. They sit there masturbating as they ask you... 'Did you ever kill anyone?' 'What was it like?' Wide-eyed and clueless. Enchanted by the fireworks on CNN. They should either pick up a rifle or shut up.

It's disingenuous to pick on Islam when all 3 religions have 'the greatest hate speech' within their 'holy' books. The Old Testament incites violence and hate speech. The Babylonian Talmud is pure ***** evil.

[canman]

Wow... you don't know shit I presume...

95% of Muslims in France are completely "fitting in" in France, 4.9% don't try but stay in their apartments and are the older people and their kids brought to France in the 20's and 30's to build apartments that were given citizenship and parked in lousy apartments. the other part which represents less than 1% are stupid <deleted> claiming they are fighting in the name of Allah... exactly the same minority as the ones trowing stones and pig heads at Mosques...

"95% of Muslims in France are completely "fitting in" in France"

You just made that stat up; didn't you?

I am french and lived there before living here and I know. Of course I made that number up... Whether it's 95, 96 or 94% is irrelevant. You barely don't see people in France that don't want to "fit in", only "10" stupid guys that are shown on TV...

Take 100 people that are muslims in an office in Paris... you won't find one that is not integrated and feels french... Its only a very small minority and this is the one that is shown on TV...

16% of French Citizens Support ISIS, Poll Finds http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795

Thats 16% of all French citizens so what do you think the percentage is for the muslim community 50%, 60% 70%??

I can assure you that supporting ISIS does not "fit in" with France

Several polls (you can google them yourself) consistantly show that between 20-30% of muslims world wide support violent jihad. While it is true to say that not all of the 20-30% have the balls to actually do harm they are part of the enabling world of violent islam.

[shirtless]

here comes the pc fanatics

[Amir]

I spent over 30 years working and living in Saudi Arabia and 5 years in Iran. I expect my knowledge of Islamic thinking is just as reliable as your wild eyed estimates.

I lost one of my employees to Al Qaida in an attack precisely like the one in Paris so your living among them is hardly something I will find very impressive.

I suggest you retire and come back when you have some data that is backed up by some reliable source.

Pulling statistics out of your ear (or any other bodily orifice) aren't conducive to intelligent conversation

The subject and all comments are not really about muslims in Saudi arabia or Iran under Sharia law, but more over msulims and their integration or not in NON muslim countries...

Taking this country as example is absolutely not relevant as these are 2 of the worst islamic states in the world with extreme racist people and absolutely not tolerant muslims (at least for Saudi Arabia) that are not even tolerant to muslims from their neioghbouring countries.

My example is about France as everyone is talking about how Muslims are dangerous and not integrated due to Charlie Hebdo's unfortunate attack... You think I am wrong... fine, but it's strange from a person who has never lived there and argues only after having heard the news.

[Amir]

Wow... you don't know shit I presume...

95% of Muslims in France are completely "fitting in" in France, 4.9% don't try but stay in their apartments and are the older people and their kids brought to France in the 20's and 30's to build apartments that were given citizenship and parked in lousy apartments. the other part which represents less than 1% are stupid <deleted> claiming they are fighting in the name of Allah... exactly the same minority as the ones trowing stones and pig heads at Mosques...

"95% of Muslims in France are completely "fitting in" in France"

You just made that stat up; didn't you?

I am french and lived there before living here and I know. Of course I made that number up... Whether it's 95, 96 or 94% is irrelevant. You barely don't see people in France that don't want to "fit in", only "10" stupid guys that are shown on TV...

Take 100 people that are muslims in an office in Paris... you won't find one that is not integrated and feels french... Its only a very small minority and this is the one that is shown on TV...

16% of French Citizens Support ISIS, Poll Finds http://www.newsweek.com/16-french-citizens-support-isis-poll-finds-266795

Thats 16% of all French citizens so what do you think the percentage is for the muslim community 50%, 60% 70%??

I can assure you that supporting ISIS does not "fit in" with France

Several polls (you can google them yourself) consistantly show that between 20-30% of muslims world wide support violent jihad. While it is true to say that not all of the 20-30% have the balls to actually do harm they are part of the enabling world of violent islam.

Yes, I read that.

You can do what you want with polls... take 50 samples in a suburb in Paris so called no go Zone and yes 16% will say they support ISIS (which doesn t mean that they will come and kill even if they can considered as a threat by some)...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/08/27/do-1-in-6-french-citizens-really-support-islamic-state/

[arjunadawn]

Well, as someone quite familiar with war, I never advocate violence, even where that seems to be the only option- I just avoid commenting on it. The christians could never again muster such forces as they did in the 11th century to finally respond to 400 years of islamic jihad and conquest and rape and slavery and torture and death all along the periphery of the Holy Roman Empire, and then penetrating deeply- Spain for example. Europe finally responded but self loathing revisionists in the west later painted a very vacant picture of why these wars were started. Perhaps the excesses of christians repulsed us so much as a post enlightenment civilization (and the absence of any real muslim knowledge after the failure at Vienna-a relative Ottoman dark age) that we began re writing history as christian aggressors, clearly forgetting how it all started. It should be noted that in the late 1600s Vienna was under siege as Islamic jihad again penetrated deep into Europe. Christians did not invite them, nor did they precipitate this, but this defeat of the aggressors is still to this day a rallying cry for remembrance, September 11th. They cannot be negotiated with. They seek nothing less than everything!

I have no use for any religion of today but I have always thought it was a stretch, indeed an error in reason, to declare islam a religion; perhaps there was no choice. It is a religion with most of the trappings, but it is so much more; I think it clearly deserves the title of both, religion and not, depending on which state of behavior is being acted out. Its sharia is ideology, no different than fascism, vacant, oppressive, and coercive. This why the Grand Mufti and Adolf Hitler got a long, with Hitler praising the muslims for their death embracing views and jew hatred.

It is simply dishonest to overlook that the koran is the greatest hate speech in the history of the world. It is not just cloaked divine mandate for aggression but it is practical mayhem that demands emulation and obedience. One could create a computer program, feed it the parameters of hate speech from Mein Kampf and any number of radical black militant theology speeches, Nation of Islam speeches, Anjem Choudary of UK, Hamas leaders, Qawadari from Qatar, and a thesaurus related to hate concepts and have the computer self learn what constitutes hate speech. Then run the Koran and Hadith through the baseline now established by known repugnant language. I am very confident that the software would rate these text as ghastly. How humans, contrary to overwhelming evidence, argue to the contrary reflects an intellectual bankruptcy on the speaker.

Christians do not possess the power in a fractured post reformation state to address this issue. This issue has to be addressed in a way that frankly evades me.

This issue has to be addressed in a way that frankly evades me.

I suppose it is possible or perhaps somewhat explainable to not have any suggested resolution or remedies for our consideration.

Even given that the presenter has unmistakably committed so much time and reading, research, discussion, analysis, synthesizing, evaluating and much else to undertake an Islam project of sorts, it might seem consistent that the analyst might have some insights or clues toward resolving such issues.

It could seem after all that given the accounts provided, some kind of intervention might be incumbent upon each of us. Relatively few of us would have any significant experience of the religion and, given the writer's attestations whatever other classification(s) Islam might be assigned, so some recommended pursuit or course of action could be welcome to consider.

Simultaneously, it is somewhat distasteful to see such terminology in the essay as this: "...self loathing revisionists in the west later painted a very vacant picture of why these wars were started..."

Based on having read a number of the poster's previous posts on the very topic, I would offer that if the reference is to the contemporary multi-culturalists, then it would be rejected outright as a false and manufactured reference and terminology. The reality is that in general the extreme right sector of society is critical of multiculturalism and of multiculturalists, so if the writer might want to clarify the choice and use of the characterization, "self-loathing revisionists in the west [sic]," that would be welcome.

I'm trying to get a firmer grip on this from the OP and the emphasis in bold font is mine......

An official who keeps track of Islamophobic attacks in France said there were 60 incidents — attacks and threats — in the six days since that attack.

A climate of fear is taking hold in Europe, stoked by rightist rhetoric equating the millions of peaceful Muslims with the few plotting murder and mayhem.

It is fair when someone offers so much insight on a subject that they then be asked to provide a resolution. Fair. I will state again, "I am not doing that." It does not matter what choices I think must take place in order to stop this mounting problem; they will not take place. This drama will unfold in a way contrary to what I think will solve the problem. Regardless, there will be groaning and gnashing of teeth in the world over the next 30 years! I offer no solutions because no one will listen and objectors will backwards peddle from my solutions impugning my observations; I would rather stick with observations and leave conclusions for younger men than me. I have zero obligation to provide such a thing and my premises and observations remain valid with or without further remedies suggested.

"...self loathing revisionists in the west later painted a very vacant picture of why these wars were started..." Its irrelevant to me that you find this distasteful; this statement was inserted because I find such revisionists distasteful; more importantly, dishonest. There is a self loathing cultural void that is sweeping various parts of the western world inculcating in American children the sins of their forebears, elevating the tribal and make relative all cultural norms- BS! All cultures are not equal! Period! In some countries they have had public discussions on the absence of a cultural fabric that defines them because of self loathing, and actually choose to argue islamic immigration informs their culture- just look at Sweden. Yes, self loathing revisionists are distasteful. These are the same people that Harper Collins appeals to when they erase Israel from the map of text books (you think Harper Collins would accidentally erase Israel and write Palestine on all their countless history books was there not an audience?). ...the same people who require Texas school books to have special passages on Islam, but not equal and complimentary passages on other religions; they can take such actions because there is a considerable body of revisionists and loyalists in the self loathing community that wish to subsume the host values into a bath of cultural relativity.

Yes, I find historical self loathing revisionists distasteful. The facts regarding the crusades, its impetus and its excesses are available to historians, only the cause of the crusades has been degraded in the public perception. Why do the facts indicate quite clearly that the crusades were a final response to 400 years of islamic aggression yet popular perception suggest the crusades were an aggressive christian act? Because with revision there is an awful lot to clean up and destroy and the grand sweep of data overwhelmingly makes clear what happened in the 11th century- it voluminous. So, culturally, the west has drilled into children this false narrative that the crusades were xyz, when history is clear what happened. This is revision. It is, IMO, self loathing. To subsume the history of your own people into a false recollection is simply madness.

It is clear I object to multiculturalism. I, like Merkel, find multiculturalism has "utterly failed." Yet you imply I am the extreme right wing. How vacant. Multiculturalism can only be said to be successful around the fringes, in multiple societies. Many integrate. Many assimilation, and a lot of folks enrich a culture that they now call home. Sadly, multiculturalism of some sort may be the only thing that could (theoretically) save the west from its population decline; yet, it is not working. The price we are paying for this benefit and humanity is a loss of identity, in many cases freedom, and in other cases lives.

I wont respond to your last part. That is not my quote. But you know this is not my quote. It is less than subtle character assassination to have such a non attributable quote as part of your exchange with me. Clearly readers will think that is my quote. You account as OP and declare the bold is yours, but what has this to do with me unless you are painting my argument with this broad brush?

I ask this of you as I have of others: Isn't it possible I am not a right wing extremist? Isn't it possible I just look at the data and reach a different conclusion? You can read all my posts and however repugnant they clearly stop before that place that one would be labeled such. Because a person's point of view differs does not make them extremist. This is totally bankrupt thinking.

[arjunadawn]

the problem is very few want to fit in to western society. They want us to fit in to sharia, the call to pray while annoying can be argued the same as Christian Church bells but my not being able to eat pork in front of them or buy it in my local Market because it is haram is bs, same with not allowed to buy alchohol, drinking or talking to a pretty woman. Where are the Jewish, Christian, Buddhist, or hindu prayer rooms in airports?

Wow... you don't know shit I presume...

95% of Muslims in France are completely "fitting in" in France, 4.9% don't try but stay in their apartments and are the older people and their kids brought to France in the 20's and 30's to build apartments that were given citizenship and parked in lousy apartments. the other part which represents less than 1% are stupid <deleted> claiming they are fighting in the name of Allah... exactly the same minority as the ones trowing stones and pig heads at Mosques...

Whenever someone requires rudeness to make their point you can be pretty certain that it will be dubious. Rudeness is just another form of scare tactic, designed in this case to deliver a faulty point by disarming the poster.

But I will bite: If there are 7.7 million muslims in France (Jean-Paul Gourévitch, La croisade islamiste, Pascal Galodé , 2011, p.136) and only 5%, according to you, don't "fit" in, that leaves over 350,000 muslims in France that pose a potential threat to both integration and security. Irrespective of the label minority, this poses an existential threat to France. Even if we toyed with the fantastical number 1%, we are still left with a staggering threat to civil society.

When these numbers, however high or low, are considered in the context of ongoing, increasing global jihad under the banner of islam, then these numbers reveal an even more ominous sign.

Next time you start reading or study Gourevitch his fantastic figures more closely, you will realize that he talks about 1 to 2% of the French Muslims is or possibly are fanatic radicals. So, not so far from Amir his figures...

He estimates half of the Muslim population in France as active Muslims.

Why bringing figures from a French Jew and his known popularity to extreme right political fractions in France...

You rebutted my point with the figures of this same french jew- they were good enough for you to rebut but then you had to circle and impugn the very source you used because he is a jew?

Its easy to feign an argument, less easy to mask disdain.

Next time either rebut me with facts or impugn the jew, but don't embarrass yourself by doing both.

(I am uncertain how you got off my ignore list)

Edited January 15, 2015 by arjunadawn

[Publicus]

Well, as someone quite familiar with war, I never advocate violence, even where that seems to be the only option- I just avoid commenting on it. The christians could never again muster such forces as they did in the 11th century to finally respond to 400 years of islamic jihad and conquest and rape and slavery and torture and death all along the periphery of the Holy Roman Empire, and then penetrating deeply- Spain for example. Europe finally responded but self loathing revisionists in the west later painted a very vacant picture of why these wars were started. Perhaps the excesses of christians repulsed us so much as a post enlightenment civilization (and the absence of any real muslim knowledge after the failure at Vienna-a relative Ottoman dark age) that we began re writing history as christian aggressors, clearly forgetting how it all started. It should be noted that in the late 1600s Vienna was under siege as Islamic jihad again penetrated deep into Europe. Christians did not invite them, nor did they precipitate this, but this defeat of the aggressors is still to this day a rallying cry for remembrance, September 11th. They cannot be negotiated with. They seek nothing less than everything!

I have no use for any religion of today but I have always thought it was a stretch, indeed an error in reason, to declare islam a religion; perhaps there was no choice. It is a religion with most of the trappings, but it is so much more; I think it clearly deserves the title of both, religion and not, depending on which state of behavior is being acted out. Its sharia is ideology, no different than fascism, vacant, oppressive, and coercive. This why the Grand Mufti and Adolf Hitler got a long, with Hitler praising the muslims for their death embracing views and jew hatred.

It is simply dishonest to overlook that the koran is the greatest hate speech in the history of the world. It is not just cloaked divine mandate for aggression but it is practical mayhem that demands emulation and obedience. One could create a computer program, feed it the parameters of hate speech from Mein Kampf and any number of radical black militant theology speeches, Nation of Islam speeches, Anjem Choudary of UK, Hamas leaders, Qawadari from Qatar, and a thesaurus related to hate concepts and have the computer self learn what constitutes hate speech. Then run the Koran and Hadith through the baseline now established by known repugnant language. I am very confident that the software would rate these text as ghastly. How humans, contrary to overwhelming evidence, argue to the contrary reflects an intellectual bankruptcy on the speaker.

Christians do not possess the power in a fractured post reformation state to address this issue. This issue has to be addressed in a way that frankly evades me.

This issue has to be addressed in a way that frankly evades me.

I suppose it is possible or perhaps somewhat explainable to not have any suggested resolution or remedies for our consideration.

Even given that the presenter has unmistakably committed so much time and reading, research, discussion, analysis, synthesizing, evaluating and much else to undertake an Islam project of sorts, it might seem consistent that the analyst might have some insights or clues toward resolving such issues.

It could seem after all that given the accounts provided, some kind of intervention might be incumbent upon each of us. Relatively few of us would have any significant experience of the religion and, given the writer's attestations whatever other classification(s) Islam might be assigned, so some recommended pursuit or course of action could be welcome to consider.

Simultaneously, it is somewhat distasteful to see such terminology in the essay as this: "...self loathing revisionists in the west later painted a very vacant picture of why these wars were started..."

Based on having read a number of the poster's previous posts on the very topic, I would offer that if the reference is to the contemporary multi-culturalists, then it would be rejected outright as a false and manufactured reference and terminology. The reality is that in general the extreme right sector of society is critical of multiculturalism and of multiculturalists, so if the writer might want to clarify the choice and use of the characterization, "self-loathing revisionists in the west [sic]," that would be welcome.

I'm trying to get a firmer grip on this from the OP and the emphasis in bold font is mine......

An official who keeps track of Islamophobic attacks in France said there were 60 incidents — attacks and threats — in the six days since that attack.

A climate of fear is taking hold in Europe, stoked by rightist rhetoric equating the millions of peaceful Muslims with the few plotting murder and mayhem.

It is fair when someone offers so much insight on a subject that they then be asked to provide a resolution. Fair. I will state again, "I am not doing that." It does not matter what choices I think must take place in order to stop this mounting problem; they will not take place. This drama will unfold in a way contrary to what I think will solve the problem. Regardless, there will be groaning and gnashing of teeth in the world over the next 30 years! I offer no solutions because no one will listen and objectors will backwards peddle from my solutions impugning my observations; I would rather stick with observations and leave conclusions for younger men than me. I have zero obligation to provide such a thing and my premises and observations remain valid with or without further remedies suggested.

"...self loathing revisionists in the west later painted a very vacant picture of why these wars were started..." Its irrelevant to me that you find this distasteful; this statement was inserted because I find such revisionists distasteful; more importantly, dishonest. There is a self loathing cultural void that is sweeping various parts of the western world inculcating in American children the sins of their forebears, elevating the tribal and make relative all cultural norms- BS! All cultures are not equal! Period! In some countries they have had public discussions on the absence of a cultural fabric that defines them because of self loathing, and actually choose to argue islamic immigration informs their culture- just look at Sweden. Yes, self loathing revisionists are distasteful. These are the same people that Harper Collins appeals to when they erase Israel from the map of text books (you think Harper Collins would accidentally erase Israel and write Palestine on all their countless history books was there not an audience?). ...the same people who require Texas school books to have special passages on Islam, but not equal and complimentary passages on other religions; they can take such actions because there is a considerable body of revisionists and loyalists in the self loathing community that wish to subsume the host values into a bath of cultural relativity.

Yes, I find historical self loathing revisionists distasteful. The facts regarding the crusades, its impetus and its excesses are available to historians, only the cause of the crusades has been degraded in the public perception. Why do the facts indicate quite clearly that the crusades were a final response to 400 years of islamic aggression yet popular perception suggest the crusades were an aggressive christian act? Because with revision there is an awful lot to clean up and destroy and the grand sweep of data overwhelmingly makes clear what happened in the 11th century- it voluminous. So, culturally, the west has drilled into children this false narrative that the crusades were xyz, when history is clear what happened. This is revision. It is, IMO, self loathing. To subsume the history of your own people into a false recollection is simply madness.

It is clear I object to multiculturalism. I, like Merkel, find multiculturalism has "utterly failed." Yet you imply I am the extreme right wing. How vacant. Multiculturalism can only be said to be successful around the fringes, in multiple societies. Many integrate. Many assimilation, and a lot of folks enrich a culture that they now call home. Sadly, multiculturalism of some sort may be the only thing that could (theoretically) save the west from its population decline; yet, it is not working. The price we are paying for this benefit and humanity is a loss of identity, in many cases freedom, and in other cases lives.

I wont respond to your last part. That is not my quote. But you know this is not my quote. It is less than subtle character assassination to have such a non attributable quote as part of your exchange with me. Clearly readers will think that is my quote. You account as OP and declare the bold is yours, but what has this to do with me unless you are painting my argument with this broad brush?

I ask this of you as I have of others: Isn't it possible I am not a right wing extremist? Isn't it possible I just look at the data and reach a different conclusion? You can read all my posts and however repugnant they clearly stop before that place that one would be labeled such. Because a person's point of view differs does not make them extremist. This is totally bankrupt thinking.

Thank you for that. The exposition is informative and more than anything else revealing.

But Dante was successful in identifying people he disapproved of to place them ordinally in an abyss of fire. The essay campaign to assign to censured others a disparaging identity and place -- that of 'self-loathing revisionists' -- is a hollow construct and so it must fail. Indeed, in the absence of a signed confession by the sufferer, 'self loathing revisionist' is a cultural contraption assembled by another while in a fever. It has no basis or place inter alia in science or religion or law

To in turn loath the self-loathers takes it full circle and closes the circle. It is an unvirtuous circle....this is so because it is a self-entrapment.

This clash of civilizations is a destructive and primitive pursuit, the ultimate in tribal warfare.

People need therefore to be called to account of their motives, designs, purposes....their consequences to the many others.

[arjunadawn]

This issue has to be addressed in a way that frankly evades me.

I suppose it is possible or perhaps somewhat explainable to not have any suggested resolution or remedies for our consideration.

Even given that the presenter has unmistakably committed so much time and reading, research, discussion, analysis, synthesizing, evaluating and much else to undertake an Islam project of sorts, it might seem consistent that the analyst might have some insights or clues toward resolving such issues.

It could seem after all that given the accounts provided, some kind of intervention might be incumbent upon each of us. Relatively few of us would have any significant experience of the religion and, given the writer's attestations whatever other classification(s) Islam might be assigned, so some recommended pursuit or course of action could be welcome to consider.

Simultaneously, it is somewhat distasteful to see such terminology in the essay as this: "...self loathing revisionists in the west later painted a very vacant picture of why these wars were started..."

Based on having read a number of the poster's previous posts on the very topic, I would offer that if the reference is to the contemporary multi-culturalists, then it would be rejected outright as a false and manufactured reference and terminology. The reality is that in general the extreme right sector of society is critical of multiculturalism and of multiculturalists, so if the writer might want to clarify the choice and use of the characterization, "self-loathing revisionists in the west [sic]," that would be welcome.

I'm trying to get a firmer grip on this from the OP and the emphasis in bold font is mine......

An official who keeps track of Islamophobic attacks in France said there were 60 incidents — attacks and threats — in the six days since that attack.

A climate of fear is taking hold in Europe, stoked by rightist rhetoric equating the millions of peaceful Muslims with the few plotting murder and mayhem.

It is fair when someone offers so much insight on a subject that they then be asked to provide a resolution. Fair. I will state again, "I am not doing that." It does not matter what choices I think must take place in order to stop this mounting problem; they will not take place. This drama will unfold in a way contrary to what I think will solve the problem. Regardless, there will be groaning and gnashing of teeth in the world over the next 30 years! I offer no solutions because no one will listen and objectors will backwards peddle from my solutions impugning my observations; I would rather stick with observations and leave conclusions for younger men than me. I have zero obligation to provide such a thing and my premises and observations remain valid with or without further remedies suggested.

"...self loathing revisionists in the west later painted a very vacant picture of why these wars were started..." Its irrelevant to me that you find this distasteful; this statement was inserted because I find such revisionists distasteful; more importantly, dishonest. There is a self loathing cultural void that is sweeping various parts of the western world inculcating in American children the sins of their forebears, elevating the tribal and make relative all cultural norms- BS! All cultures are not equal! Period! In some countries they have had public discussions on the absence of a cultural fabric that defines them because of self loathing, and actually choose to argue islamic immigration informs their culture- just look at Sweden. Yes, self loathing revisionists are distasteful. These are the same people that Harper Collins appeals to when they erase Israel from the map of text books (you think Harper Collins would accidentally erase Israel and write Palestine on all their countless history books was there not an audience?). ...the same people who require Texas school books to have special passages on Islam, but not equal and complimentary passages on other religions; they can take such actions because there is a considerable body of revisionists and loyalists in the self loathing community that wish to subsume the host values into a bath of cultural relativity.

Yes, I find historical self loathing revisionists distasteful. The facts regarding the crusades, its impetus and its excesses are available to historians, only the cause of the crusades has been degraded in the public perception. Why do the facts indicate quite clearly that the crusades were a final response to 400 years of islamic aggression yet popular perception suggest the crusades were an aggressive christian act? Because with revision there is an awful lot to clean up and destroy and the grand sweep of data overwhelmingly makes clear what happened in the 11th century- it voluminous. So, culturally, the west has drilled into children this false narrative that the crusades were xyz, when history is clear what happened. This is revision. It is, IMO, self loathing. To subsume the history of your own people into a false recollection is simply madness.

It is clear I object to multiculturalism. I, like Merkel, find multiculturalism has "utterly failed." Yet you imply I am the extreme right wing. How vacant. Multiculturalism can only be said to be successful around the fringes, in multiple societies. Many integrate. Many assimilation, and a lot of folks enrich a culture that they now call home. Sadly, multiculturalism of some sort may be the only thing that could (theoretically) save the west from its population decline; yet, it is not working. The price we are paying for this benefit and humanity is a loss of identity, in many cases freedom, and in other cases lives.

I wont respond to your last part. That is not my quote. But you know this is not my quote. It is less than subtle character assassination to have such a non attributable quote as part of your exchange with me. Clearly readers will think that is my quote. You account as OP and declare the bold is yours, but what has this to do with me unless you are painting my argument with this broad brush?

I ask this of you as I have of others: Isn't it possible I am not a right wing extremist? Isn't it possible I just look at the data and reach a different conclusion? You can read all my posts and however repugnant they clearly stop before that place that one would be labeled such. Because a person's point of view differs does not make them extremist. This is totally bankrupt thinking.

Thank you for that. The exposition is informative and more than anything else revealing.

But Dante was successful in identifying people he disapproved of to place them ordinally in an abyss of fire. The essay campaign to assign to censured others a disparaging identity and place -- that of 'self-loathing revisionists' -- is a hollow construct and so it must fail. Indeed, in the absence of a signed confession by the sufferer, 'self loathing revisionist' is a cultural contraption assembled by another while in a fever. It has no basis or place inter alia in science or religion or law

To in turn loath the self-loathers takes it full circle and closes the circle. It is an unvirtuous circle....this is so because it is a self-entrapment.

This clash of civilizations is a destructive and primitive pursuit, the ultimate in tribal warfare.

People need therefore to be called to account of their motives, designs, purposes....their consequences to the many others.

Thank you. I laughed my bottom off. Your response was just brilliant! Really. Doesn't matter to me whether we agree or not, when someone shines they should know it.

[Publicus]

Till next time again....and the time again after that.....

[Jingthing]

Till next time again....and the time again after that.....

Until modern Islam might CHANGE.

Too much to ask?

...

However, that is what I should have said: “Allahu Akbar” used to mean “God is great.” However, today it means violence, blood and terrorism.

It means, “I’m about to fire a rocket from Gaza to Israel to kill innocent people.”

It means, “I’m about to use hijacked planes to fly into the Twin Towers.”

It means, “I’m about to kill hundreds of schoolchildren.”

It means, “I’m about to kill journalists.”

The Kouachi brothers proved me right.

...

Peaceful Muslims should understand that so-called jihadists unleashed a terrible evil against Islam by killing the Charlie Hebdo journalists, Jewish shoppers, and French police. Hence, Muslims should unite to identify the growing jihadist tumor and to unleash education as a means to eliminate this tumor. If they unite, maybe they can convince the bad Muslims, especially those who have been raised to be religious fanatics, to understand that there is more to life than religion, for example mathematics and science. Abdus Salam’s exhortation is appropriate here: Good Muslims of the world, let’s unite to unleash education to defeat the Muslim terrorists before it is too late.

...

http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Im-Muslim-and-Im-Charlie-387768

Edited January 15, 2015 by Jingthing

[Publicus]

The problem is intractable and we also know it won't begin to resolve until the Muslim world straightens itself out which will likely occur but not for a long time yet....no one can say when.

While people talk about a Thirty Years War against IS, it's been twice that long concerning the ME and almost all Muslims and Jews, and it might take another 30 years from the present.

That people there will continue to die while others suffer is awful. The United States in the interim will assist Israel in its forever struggle to exist.

[Bigfarang1948]

It IS Muslims who are doing this. They come out of hate preaching mosques. People have a right to be afraid of them because they can't know if someone is a threat.

If someone put 500 king cobras in my living room and assured me a majority had been defanged and rendered harmless, I'd have no comfort at all.

The world can look forward, in fear, to a future where Islam is the majority population and Shariah law is the law of the land. Muslims out breed other races of almost two to one, so some simple math will deduce they will be the majority population in two or three hundred years. Without firing shot they will have conquered America, France, Thailand, and many other European and Asian countries. There is no way of stopping this creeping tide of Islam, until our Lord God Almighty destroys all Israel's enemies by fire, brimstone hail and earthquakes when Armageddon is unleashed.

[Johnny S]

Agreed, but I still feel badly for the Muslims that just want live their lives peacefully and fit into Western society.

yes those velly velly few percent (5 .... ?) I feel sad for too

[Jingthing]

The problem is intractable and we also know it won't begin to resolve until the Muslim world straightens itself out which will likely occur but not for a long time yet....no one can say when.

While people talk about a Thirty Years War against IS, it's been twice that long concerning the ME and almost all Muslims and Jews, and it might take another 30 years from the present.

That people there will continue to die while others suffer is awful. The United States in the interim will assist Israel in its forever struggle to exist.

Yep.

"Je Suis Juif"

I think I might be Islamophobic as I'm feeling some fear about the spread of Islamic Jihadism and Islamic based antisemitism.

Consider how many Muslims there are in the world, ratio-wise, to Jews.

Is this fear irrational?

[Publicus]

The problem is intractable and we also know it won't begin to resolve until the Muslim world straightens itself out which will likely occur but not for a long time yet....no one can say when.

While people talk about a Thirty Years War against IS, it's been twice that long concerning the ME and almost all Muslims and Jews, and it might take another 30 years from the present.

That people there will continue to die while others suffer is awful. The United States in the interim will assist Israel in its forever struggle to exist.

Yep.

"Je Suis Juif"

I think I might be Islamophobic as I'm feeling some fear about the spread of Islamic Jihadism and Islamic based antisemitism.

Consider how many Muslims there are in the world, ratio-wise, to Jews.

Is this fear irrational?

antisemites-550x374.jpg

You're talking about yourself and you're asking me directly so I'm afraid I'm going to have to give a long answer, which for me is unusual as you and everyone knows, and you're the only one who might read this anyway.

When I was 12-15 I spent summers caddying at an all Jewish golf country club which as you well know was all Jewish because way back then (and even sometimes presently) Jews were systematically excluded from the Wasp ones and others too. My Catholic and cheapskate parents said it would teach me the value of work and a buck and despite the cultural cliche' that that is, I did learn a lot.

Several of the club members began to ask for me to be their regular caddy and eventually some of 'em invited me to their homes to meet their family, barbeque with 'em in their back yards, play with their kids around my age (which led to some gay times with a couple of 'em ). I accepted generous invitations to synagogue and thought the reform Judaism seemed best among 'em. While living five years in Manhattan I went with my many Jewish friends to Chinatown Christmas days for some super Matzo Ball soup, the one day each year NYC is pretty much shuttered.

In the Thai Muslim South I went in to business with a young Thai Muslim (fluent in English) who took me to his mosque for services -- they are Sunni down there as you know -- and he liked to joke that the ones who spread their arms wide during prayer are the poor ones because the money falls right through the bigger open space. Although our business did very well, they are really tight with money down there.

A lot of the Muslims there are a couple of generations removed from Afghanistan, Pakistan, India where conflict and also Islam were either too dangerous or too intense for them. Then there's Malaysia of course.

I have found over time that many Jews are strong in their identity which comes from millennia of continuing malevolent and decimating experiences against the small number they have always been. Muslims have a strong identity as Muslims and while some of 'em are in your face Muslims, most of them read their book then go on living their daily lives the way most Catholics go to mass then live their secular lives making a buck the same way the Calvinists do between each Sunday.

As to your specific question, I don't know who the guys are in the photo or how many of them there are. But in any and every instance Holocaust denial is willfully and deliberately malicious and malevolent and fortunately it is practiced by only a few. So no you're not paranoid, you're Jewish. A guy in my grad school class who was from Texas liked to say that he was not paranoid, that he was just paying attention. Smart guy, him.

Every Muslim I met in the South volunteered to me sooner or later and usually sooner that Israel needs to settle matters with the Palestinians. I don't see a solution or a resolution at all, not presently, not foreseeably. Not for either side.

Leaders of governments in the West consciously and wisely avoid condemning all Muslims and Islam in general because inter alia the last thing the 21st century world needs is another bunch of holy wars. The Crusaders were the guys who on their long boring journeys decided between prayers to attack and kill the Jews they found along the way cause back then everyone knew the the Jews killed Christ, an idiocy that has only only recently been dispensed with. Hence the pogrom.

Terrorists need to be hunted and annihilated everywhere, every time and it needs to be this way without our becoming what the terrorists are and want us to become.

France is under attack by a tiny group of maniac murderers who suffer from the brain disease known as ideology. The attackers are on the margins of society. So is not a matter of the massed soldiers of the Enlightenment versus the Muslim hoards. The average European is afraid, but s/he is also afraid of more Anders Breiviks whose lunacy is not unrelated to the old fashioned racialism of Enoch Powell.

The right fears, and it most of all fears integration which is what the vast majority of Muslims in Europe are doing.

They fear that their old-fashioned vision of an overwhelmingly white, Christian Europe — with reassuring borders that define who is French and who is German and who doesn’t belong in the cozy culture of “Western civilization” — is fast disappearing. They disapprove as much of the border-erasing trajectory of European integration as of the demographic transformations of European immigration. They desperately stick their fingers in the civilizational dike to preserve the Christian heritage of the continent.

http://www.eurasiareview.com/18012015-europes-coming-battle-oped/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29

[NeverSure]

They fear that their old-fashioned vision of an overwhelmingly white, Christian Europe — with reassuring borders that define who is French and who is German and who doesn’t belong in the cozy culture of “Western civilization” — is fast disappearing. They disapprove as much of the border-erasing trajectory of European integration as of the demographic transformations of European immigration. They desperately stick their fingers in the civilizational dike to preserve the Christian heritage of the continent.

http://www.eurasiareview.com/18012015-europes-coming-battle-oped/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+eurasiareview%2FVsnE+%28Eurasia+Review%29

That person is talking like the blind people who got Europe into the mess do. They have NO ability to see cause and effect. Europe was a lot better off before the EU, open borders and multiculturalism BS. But once the blind made up their minds that "if we all just become inclusive" they have been unable to change their minds despite the clear fact of the damage it's doing.