Islam versus Europe

5 comments:

Anonymous said...

As a Frenchman
the obligation to react

"Henri, Count of Paris, Duke of France, and pretender to the throne of France from the Orléans line of the Bourbon dynasty, has written a denunciation of Jean-Marc Ayrault's report on integration, a document that Ayrault and Hollande will have a hard time living down."

From an article in Le Figaro, translated and commented by Galliawatch, below

Submission, or exclusion?

" It is true that it will always have been easier and more exciting to destroy a world rich from its culture, its efforts, and to erase forever the memory of the original roots of the people, whoever they may be. All of this on the pretext of providing a false new joie de vivre for future slaves, forced to choose between submission to the dictatorship of political correctness and absolute exclusion."

http://galliawatch.blogspot.com/2013/12/france-undone.html

19 December 2013 at 01:37

Anonymous said...

"allows unspeakable things to be said". So criticism of Muslims and Jews no matter how warranted is to be banned in France. Just remember this every time they talk about France being a democracy.
http://immigration-globalization.blogspot.com/2012/11/israeli-rabbi-jews-should-rejoice-that.html

19 December 2013 at 02:04

Anonymous said...

There is something noble about standing by your word, which is certainly the ideal. Even Voltaire never argued for anonymity. However, when you import savages who have no issue with murder, when instead of having a discussion about issues people are intimidated and harassed, it is a separate issue. There is no climate of reasonability. The French have historically had blase attitudes towards things that everyone else gets hysterical about, sad that anonymity is needed even there.

19 December 2013 at 12:00

Philo Vaihinger said...

There is always pseudonymity.

20 December 2013 at 02:51

Roni said...

@Anonymous 19 December 01.37
Thank you for the link on the Israeli rabbi who had said: “Jews should rejoice that…etc..” Well to my opinion, Rabbi Baruch Efrati is a very narrow minded man with a low degree of intellect and a little knowledge of history. To start with : Europe is not, and never was in the past an integral continent. The life of the Jews, had depended much on where they had lived. In the Netherlands, for example, they are living from ca. 1492. The country was most of the time a safe harbour for Jews and others minorities. This is why the Dutch Jewry had suffered the roughest mental break-down due to WWII. They had no inbuilt defence instincts at all. Hostility and pogroms were for Eastern European Jews as normal as super storms (9 – 10 Beaufort) or hurricanes for the people of the Faroe Islands. They were always there. Can the rabbi recall one single pogrom and slaughter of Jews in the Scandinavian countries? Has he ever heard about the Danes who had risked their lives in the autumn of 1943 in order to save their Jewish neighbours? And what about Sweden who accepted them? I know that I have had written it before. But truth have the right to be mentioned over and over again.
Second point is: He forget that Muslims had have also the hobby of pogroms with heavy bloodshed like the one of Hebron of 1929. With one difference: Muslims make benefit of their pogroms by kidnapping girls and young women; hold them for themselves or sell them on the slave markets. Furthermore, what benefit will the world or the Jews have if Europe will surrender to Islam? How should Israel survive as an island trapped by Muslims?

20 December 2013 at 22:18