Posted on 03/24/2016 7:13:05 PM PDT by annalex
If you want to be on this right wing, monarchy, paleolibertarianism and nationalism ping list, but are not, please let me know. If you are on it and want to be off, also let me know. This ping list is not used for Catholic-Protestant debates; all confessions are welcome.
Question- What country thought it was a bright idea to replace European Jews with Muslims?
“I’ll take ‘Merkel Blows’ for $500, Alec.”
Duh.
Short answer...islam kills, therefore islam must die.
None.
Hitler’s Germany did not import any Muslims; Modern Germany would accept Jews on the general basis at least, and possibly preferentially. The difference is that today, with the Soviet Union defunct and the European borders open, the numbers of refugees from European countries is next to nil.
Muslims were Hitlers allies during WW2 and allies of the Kaiser in WW1.
In their efforts to be open-minded and non-discriminatory, they lost their National souls.
Abridged version: Germany’s been sold out to the IslamoNazi invasion by its ruling elite.
Yes, — at least in the Middle East. You think there is something in the German character that likes the Muslim?
Yes, there is a connection to the German Guilt in there. Given the complete generational and geopolitical change since then, I wish there were less of it.
Know what: I like Merkel. She is not any kind of “elite”. She grew up in the DDR, so she has a good allergy to things Soviet. In this case, I think she swallowed the Brussels’ ideology because it is the opposite of Soviet, or so she thinks.
she appears likeable in some ways, yes.
but she’s ruined Germany and much of Europe
likeability cannot cure the harm she’s done
it will be a Miracle if this doesn’t lead to thousands and thousands of lost lives....
I’d put Churchill in that category.
Churchill fought off the Nazis. Merkel is importing IslamoNazis
The ethnic transformation now being inflicted on Germany and the rest of Europe by its political class, if continued, will severely damage European culture and way of life.
It has become clearer in the last several months that the vision of tomorrow's Europe in the minds of its ruling elite is radically different from the present. The entire EU project involves a turn from nationalism to something more inclusive, first in the sense of Europe itself and then the world. The difficulty with this is that the underlying premise, that nationalism is harmful and hence anything else is preferable, is quite simply unproven; in fact, it's largely utopian nonsense. What is baffling is that the proponents of this gooey globalism feel at the same time that there be no Germany, no France, no Spain, only Europe; and that "diversity is our strength", meaning, that although Germany, France, Spain are to be suppressed as forms of identity, Syria and Morocco and Algeria and Iraq and Afghanistan are not; that nationalism is only permissible to the alien, that the enlightened European is above all that. It is the dogma of suicidal fools.
Churchill killed a lot of people who were not Nazis.
What I can't decide, are they fools or are they murderers. What do you think? Again, I like Merkel. But the EU was going on for a while before her, and it seems, it was forever on this "first, let's kill ourselves" agenda. Usually when you confront a fool, another fool does not rise to repeat the foolishness right away. In Europe, they do rise. Why?
Note that Germany might indeed have that WWII guilt, but every nation in the EU is doing it, except, of course, in the East/Central sanity core.
Well, there's always a reluctance - I've felt it, anyway - to overemphasize the sway of a ruling class in Europe in the interest of not appearing paranoid. But there does appear to be a weird institutional conviction that the New Europe will be super-nationalistic and that the means of effecting this is to invite a population of workers that does not share any current European national identity. Globalism, if you like, with a vengeance. And it may be that vision of a Greater New Europe carries with it first an assumption that the current national identification is to be obliterated forcefully, and second that the newcomers may be convinced to assimilate rather than conquer. These are very questionable assumptions, held with the apparent fervor of a cult, and the proponents appear to derive some sort of transcendental moral virtue out of rejecting their own country in favor of the common good, a form of suicidal broadmindedness if you like. All only my speculation, of course, but if this is indeed their ideological direction I seriously question their right or their ability to govern.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.