I was born in Europe of Europeans parents and lived there as a child. I have countless family members there. But by all means, let’s denigrate my standing to comment and focus back on the ‘Europeans’ who arrived last week as they so clearly command the depths of you compassion. But I hear you. We mustn’t let jihadist incidents impede the larger goal of a refugee torrent. This covert social engineering project under cover of an exceeding concern for millions of refugees is to proceed unabated.
http://russia-insider.com/en/politic...empire/ri10025
You see, Norman, ISIS wants us to distrust the refugees and treat them badly.
There are a number of Parisians who, were they still here, would attest to having being treated rather badly. Sadly, they are Europe's dead forerunners, fodder for the grand social experiment of integrating jihadism within the continent's social structure. ISIS wants us all dead so that our level of trustfulness becomes an historical artifact. Their objectives are existential. Whereas your preeminent concern seems to be avoiding the appearance of inhospitality to the (no doubt) vast majority of peaceable refugees.
I really feel insulted by your warped pontificating. We have fewer murderers "within our gates" than you blithely assume.
I meant prospective murderers, Janice. No one, certainly not you nor I, knows how many of those have been ushered in of late. The events in Paris don’t augur well, nor do your misgivings that we could face more events in the run-up to the holidays (and let us all pray your fears don't come to pass).
Your generosity towards the influx of Muslims is abundant and well-evidenced. But how did ‘white supremacism’ suddenly get a dog in this hunt? And it’s kind of you to note that Breivik is a ‘so-called’ Christian. He was a paranoid schizophrenic too, and as such does not rise to the level of ideological practitioner. There's enough antipathy towards Christianity without lashing a demonstrable psychopath to its mast; so, while a very interesting comment from you, a non sequitur for this discussion.
Finally, two myths:
Myth 1: Rejecting the current disastrous brand of globalism immediately brands one a xenophobe. In fact there are two ‘globalist world-views’ to which Pope Francis offers a pretty decent synopsis:
“I would like to translate the theme into an image: the sphere and the polyhedron. Take the sphere to represent homologation, as a kind of globalization: it is smooth, without facets, and equal to itself in all its parts. The polyhedron has a form similar to the sphere, but it is multifaceted. I like to imagine humanity as a polyhedron, in which the multiple forms, in expressing themselves, constitute the elements that compose the one human family in a plurality. And this is true globalization. The other globalization — that of the sphere — is an homologation” (Dec 6th, 2013).
Homologation, in essence, is a prelude to the panopticon where every individual is equidistant from the observation platform; an indeterminate flatland ruled by God-knows-who from above. This is borderless, global totalitarianism presided over in essence by multinational corporations and financial institutions of which the PTT is but one of its early ‘enticements’. National sovereignty is the
last bulwark against this flatland. Francis’ polyhedron recognizes the discrete features of viable nations and peoples (as opposed to glorified financial districts) and is at odds with the UN’s (Peter Sutherland’s) dismissive view of the nation-state as being
“…an absolute illusion that has to be put behind us.”
Myth 2: There is this notion that, if the blight of national sovereignty can only be diluted and eradicated (partly through socially destabilizing, shambolic immigration), alienation will ensue and a sort of stultifying peace will break out over the land.
Forgive me, but I cannot believe you believe that. Unless power is withering away, sovereignty (control) is simply ‘migrating upward’ and consolidating into a few supranational hands. Look at the repudiated Portuguese elections for a glimpse of the future. What did the Portuguese President say? “This is the worst moment for a radical change to the foundations of our democracy.” If I read this correctly, he’s saying democracy is in danger of undermining democracy. I’m glad that's cleared up.