Left Allows Europe to Fall to Muslims

Human Events ^ | Feb.8, '07 | Rabbi Aryeh Spero

[T.L.Sink]

In a recent interview, Prof. Bernard Lewis, famed historian and leading expert on Islam, warned that "Muslims seem to be about to take over Europe." Was the fall of Europe inevitable? No, according to Prof. Lewis, who says it's coming about because "Europeans have surrendered on every issue regarding Islamic demands, due to political correctness and multi-culturalism."

Europe has become woefully secular and its tepid attachment to a forgotten and dismissed Christianity is no match for the zeal of Muslims who remain fervent in their faith.

Having been force fed that all cultures are equally valid, Europeans consider it unenlightened to assert the primacy of their culture even in their own countries.

[sageb1]

Eurogroupies

[Ronin]

Paging Captain Obvious!

Pick up the white courtesy phone please.

[lndrvr1972]

I see the problem. But this will not go away until we realise that Islam is a disease.

[potlatch]

[amchugh]

While I hope that a middle-ground of appropriate policy is put in place, I suspect that instead we will get an extremely violent and indiscriminate counter-reaction. Led no doubt by neo-nazi hoodlums.

[tgambill]

It's not only in Europe that it's taking hold. They have all bases covered.

http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/printgroupProfile.asp?grpid=7318

http://www.ichblog.eu/content/view/444/1/

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50719

[JSteff]

"All countries, all cultures need to celebrate their commonality"

NO that is what allows a civilization to fall into the "world view". EU has some of the strictest PC rules going. They are trying to make themselves all alike and giving up the individuality that makes them unique.

The uniqueness as individuals, who willingly find a reason to be together is what makes for strength. The strength of each individual makes the whole stronger as the strong points of each one covers the weak spots of the other. The EU members are striving for commonality but are also suffering from a lose of each member countries identities and also loss each member of each countries identities.

It will not work. Here is an example on a smaller scale. Look at a football team. A team of all offensive sized and trained players ALWAYS will lose to a balanced team of offensive and defensive players. Within each offense there are 11 players with different specialties. Same with the defense. That is 22 separate positions that require specialist in each individual...(+ the special teams positions).

It is the differences of the players of each position on offense, and the difference between the players of each position of defense that makes for a great team. A whole team of Quarterbacks will lose (commonality fails). A whole team of centers fails. A whole team of kickers fails. The only commonality is the agreed GOAL of the team winning, but the individual specialties of each of the 22 positions (+special teams) is required and necessary. And that uniqueness of each player for each position is DESIRED. It is not in the EU or Islam.

The only place commonality works is when NUMBERS are not limited on one side. Even then there will be specialists who will play a critical role in the eventual victory. Commonality and numbers (& winter - a specialist) worked for the Russians in virtually every war. Commonality works for bacteria and cancer cells. Commonality works for social insects (bees, ants, termites). Commonality works for the Borg (you will be assimilated). Commonality worked for the muslims against the splintered individuals of the Mid and Near east when Islam was just starting.

But even among all those groups there were leaders and specialist that controlled and directed or directs the "whole". That is often the weak spot though. Commonality stifles growth in different directions which limits innovation. If the Soviet Union had a county of 300 million free thinkers they would not so quickly have collapsed when their controllers (single specialists) failed. No one had the habit of individual innovation. It was more important (and life assuring) to blend with the "common". Individuals ended up in Siberia in work camps learning to be common again.

Even in politics the U.S. has no commonality. We reinvent the players in government every 4 or so years. But the county does not implode like the soviet union did. It is still the individuality that allows the U.S. to be the innovator in the world. The U.S. is a country of individuals that has created more growth and innovation in food growth, science, medicine, mathematics, etc, etc than the combined "commoners' of the world. Even much of the soviet unions and now the Chinese advancements played or play off of discoveries from our less numerous, but more innovative citizens.

So commonality is NOT what the countries of the EU need. Then their jointly agreed and legislated weaknesses, their PC attitudes are magnified. "Don't offend anyone, we all agree to let everyone and everything be okay." EU is a move towards socialism that will kill the individual innovation of the members of each former state and allow a stronger and more numerous interloper, who has one single goal (spread of the religion of Islam), to overwhelm the less numerous EU.

Their muslim team of 89 big linesmen a full offense of 11 specialists will win against the team of 50 EU ice hockey players on a football field. Of course the more numerous team (with unlimited substitutions and additions) will decide the playing field and eventually get the agreeable ice hockey players to agree to the rules (football) that they will play under.

The ice hockey players will lose. Fewer players to substitute, playing under rules that the other team, because of numbers sets, playing with equipment not right for the game now being played. They will lose. Only innovation and deviation from the "accepted" norm would allow them to hold or win. But that "would not be sporting" so they will lose.

It is the overwhelming "commonality" of the EU that will allow it to be destroyed by a more numerous group of "commoners" (who are also not innovative) but have a single goal and identity. Just this new group will eventually have more numbers and a stronger joint goal. Death to the infidels. Those who convert will be allowed to live.

Sort of like a Borg. The europeans will convert and be assimilated or die. That is how it has always worked with Islam. It is how their god DIRECTS it to work in their most revered text... the Quran, Koran, whatever.

So with "commonality" the EU is done.

Sorry for the length, I was on a roll.

[freedom moose]

"Europeans have surrendered on every issue regarding Islamic demands, due to political correctness and multi-culturalism."

Must be true, it's in an article on the internet.

[freedom moose]

Regarding my previous post, I looked at the quote again. Maybe I did not understand it. If the writer means that - in each case where an Islamic demand has been met the reason was political correctness - then I can't disagree. If however he means every Islamic demand that has been made has been met, I think he's absolutely wrong.

[GiovannaNicoletta]

bookmark

[freedom moose]

Yes, and I sure wish they'd all stay over there

Please no! We have enough politicians and personalities like them here already! You can keep Kerry, Michael Moore, Hillary, Streisand and the rest.
I (and yes I recognize I'm in the minority) only want good US exports to arrive in Europe......solid products, good microbrewed beers, work ethic, ideas about freedom and self determination etc etc.

[originalbuckeye]

I meant commonality of goals. Not commonality of appearance, talents, lifestyle or anything else that's that's tangible. I think we'd be a much stronger country if we'd collectively decide that we all want our country to safe and free. I didn't mean for everybody to be exactly alike. I just think that dividing the populace into special interest groups that all lobby for their own personal desires is destructive and does not foster a sense of unity.

I have lived in a semi-Socialist country. Again, I don't want everyone to BE alike, I just want everyone to word toward a common goal; the safety, security and success of our country.

[quiverfull]

Toynbee studied 21 world civilizations that fell apart(not from another power). He found they all committed a certain kind of "cultural suicide" He identified certain characteristics: Abandon-accepting lawlessness; escapism-avoid problems by drifting into distraction and entertainment; Drift-personal efforts do not matter; Guilt-self abhorring that comes from sense of abandon; promiscuity-acceptance of anything and everything. It seems to me that most of Europe and a lot of Americans have these characteristics??

"the tribal cultures of North America[together compromising a primitive civilization]
Note to revisionist historian:
civilize - "to bring out of a savage or primitive state" I believe this began when the pilgrims landed at Plymouth Rock. When the pilgrims began making treaties and friendships with the local tribes, they began teaching them the Judeo Christian values of how to treat your neighbor. Perhaps everyone should read a true historical account of what really went on. Don't forget, the "tribal cultures" Indians fought, scalped, and ate each other. They were primitive, yes, and had been for hundreds of years, serving their gods of nature.(hence wearing little clothing - one with nature [culture is defined by "religion externalized"]

[GSlob]

Note to a revisionist sociologist:
For greater clarity, the life of society could be divided into three more or less autonomous areas [albeit they influence and penetrate one another]: 1. Economics; 2. Culture [everything man-made [excepting economics and sociology] in the life of that society - from national cuisine and architecture to arts, song, dance and pottery shards - the stuff of ethnologists and archaeologists. 3. Sociological [i.e. civilization proper] aspects - how that society exists and self-perpetuates as a sociologically distinct entity, i.e. how its members relate to one another and to their groups in socially important situations. Sociological aspects of "national character", value systems [weltanschauung] and dominant religions come right here. This is merely an elaboration of Huntington's thesis - he used the whole religion [and not only its sociological side] as a convenient marker. Such an elaboration is perfectly justified - Huntington did not split the Western Civ into Protestant civ[s] and a Catholic Civ, after all. Also, Israel [not a Christian country] is clearly a part of the Western Civ.

[quiverfull]

aaaahh, a true revisionist historian - but also a clever diversion of the topic. You state that "Toynbee was dead wrong" I may/may not believe all of what he found, but on this point he was dead right.

How then, was it that Native Americans (tribal cultures which comprised a primitive civilization as you say) fought against each other? Would you say that the cultures(or groups) were fighting within the primitive civilization? And for the record, the primitive civilization does not exist on reservations. If so, why are houses and automobiles used? Maybe some parts of that civilization, but it is infiltrated with the benefits of a Judeo Christian value system civilization - the United States of America.

[GSlob]

"Would you say that the cultures(or groups) were fighting within the primitive civilization?"
Yes, of course. And how was it that the states of Western Europe, while being the members of the same [sociologically] Western Civ, were fighting against one another all the time, even when speaking the same language? A common civilization does NOT preclude internal conflicts between the states, or between other constituent units [Japan, the extreme case of a state coterminous with the civilization, had quite a period of competing and warring mini-states, aka daimyo-led provinces and regions].
"And for the record, the primitive civilization does not exist on reservations. If so, why are houses and automobiles used?"
If the civilization IS the sociology, as was stated earlier in the elaboration on Huntington, then the material objects and their technological level [be they computers or stone axes] are irrelevant. Houses and automobiles come under the heading of economics, and also of culture, being the source of the fragments for the future archaeologists and ethnologists. "Primitive" pertains to the sociology of human societies found on the reservations, and thus denotes their civilizational level.

[Doctor Don]

Think there might be a humorous end result....think of Chirac having to wear a birka!

[T.L.Sink]

I essentially agree with you and to flippantly dismiss one of the most erudite multi-volume studies ever undertaken with a few glib one-liners isn't worthy of reply. Toynbee's "A Study of History" is universally recognized as a landmark in historiography. As the late Crane Brinton of Harvard put it, " Mr. Toynbee's study belongs ...with such works as those of ...St.Augustine, Vico, Buckle, and Spengler. It is philosophy of history, metaphysics, even theology, not narrative history."