Multiculturalism is a sham, says Angela Merkel

[PJH_74]

Every country in the World has a blemished past.

Many idiotic social justice warriors have drunk the kool aid of their self loathing liberal (Commie) professors in the poisonous Marxist…

One can be compassionate or self reflective and still prefer a market economy.

The low birth rates are due to the progressive liberal sexual freedoms which is very ironic considering they support bringing in people who have the very opposite views of them on everything.

Then I would expect that you’d be in favor of liberal immigration policies; though I would suggest some personal procreation in between posts to make sure you have like minded countrymen.

 

[Darryl1958]

they are bringing the House of Islam with them aren’t they? not fleeing from Islam unless they are Christians.

Yes.
What liberally minded people like Merkel are unfortunately forgetting is that the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results.
What the Islamists have done for the House of Islam, they will do for Europe.
This is all that Islamists have to offer, and the numbers of people from the Middle East entering into Europe now are so great that there is no way that there are any restrictions being put on the 10 to 15 percent of fundamentalists who can impose their will on the other 85 through intimidation, through control of the mosques, and through passion and fervor.
We can admire the compassion and the ardor of Angela Merkel in wanting to do the right thing, as much as we can admire the same deep emotions so often demonstrated by our own Catholic leadership.
But there is the old Talmudic saying of Judaism that reminds us that those who are kind to the cruel end up being cruel to the kind. A nation’s leadership, and a church’s leadership too, for that matter, must also remember that their primary responsibility is guarding their own citizens and flock first and foremost.
Of course being compassionate to refugees is a proper part of a sound immigration policy. The head must rule the heart though, and that means that we count on our leadership to properly control the borders and the flow of refugees to ensure that a country or a continent has a clear understanding of who they are letting in, and a clear policy of who they must send back.
Zero tolerance policy of Islamists is the means to reassure the populations of the host country that our interests are being taken into account too.

 

[PJH_74]

Yes.
What liberally minded people like Merkel are unfortunately forgetting is that the definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results.

Merkel is no liberal, she’s actually the leader of the Conservative party. If insanity is being compassionate over and over again again then Jesus was insane also. Look following the path of Jesus is never easy. Yet we fret about the 10 or 15% by your count that might be highly conservative Muslims who theoretically might convert the others to the more conservative version. Let me ask you how likely a radically conservative Christian is to convert you? I’d submit that our inaction and callousness will do more damage than anything.

 

[Darryl1958]

Merkel is no liberal, she’s actually the leader of the Conservative party. If insanity is being compassionate over and over again again then Jesus was insane also. Look following the path of Jesus is never easy. Yet we fret about the 10 or 15% by your count that might be highly conservative Muslims who theoretically might convert the others to the more conservative version. Let me ask you how likely a radically conservative Christian is to convert you? I’d submit that our inaction and callousness will do more damage than anything.

What I am saying is that compassion is a value that is especially prominent among liberals, and that it is liberal policy that expects government to act out of compassion rather than with the best interests of their electorate in mind.
Conservative parties are capable of putting forth rather liberal policy such as the ‘compassionate conservatism’ of the second Bush.

You make a very emotional case, but one that does not take into account of facts, but is based in blind faith where common sense is thrown to the wind, even to the point where Jesus himself is presented as someone who have no regard for reality either.

It is a misrepresentation to state that I theorized anything about conversion. The words I used were intimidation and imposition, and fervor too. In political Islam, it is enough that one submits. Whether one believes or not is not all that relevant.

It is also a misrepresentation to say that the choice is between inaction and callousness, or the unreasoned compassion that has Merkel following a policy that directly contradicts Merkel’s own belief in a a Germany that does not devolve into multiculturalism.

Zero tolerance policy to Islamists is all about a zero tolerance to allowing the 10 to 15 percent of Muslims who are Islamists.
Allowing access to 85 to 90 percent of Muslims who are not Islamists is hardly advocacy.

So, one wonders. since we agree on the 85 percent, why are you advocating for the 15 percent?

Those who are kind to the cruel in that way, will be cruel to the kind.

 

[abucs]

The problem is that Liberals have taken the call for personal compassion and kindness and tried to apply that to a state whose tax money and consequences of action are levied on their fellow citizens.

Jesus’ call was to personally help a poor traveler who had been mistreated, pay for his expenses and send him on his way.

Jesus did not forcefully co-opt Jewish communities to take in millions of foreigners and confiscate a large part of their wealth and their children’s wealth to give to these people and encourage more of their relatives.

If Jesus had advocated that he would have been unjust.

Somewhere along the way, Liberals got suckered into believing the State became the way we show compassion as defined by Liberals themselves and anyone who disagrees is branded uncompassionate.

Jesus spoke to the individual heart not to democratically elected governments where one section of the population continually takes the wealth off their fellow citizens and tries to force their view of compassion on them, blind to the consequences.

 

[PJH_74]

My problem with the above arguments, and it may not be your intent, but there are plenty those who would use the state to somehow weed out bad people based on a broad, poorly informed, and fear based premises. This was not the way of Jesus.

 

[Darryl1958]

The problem is that Liberals have taken the call for personal compassion and kindness and tried to apply that to a state whose tax money and consequences of action are levied on their fellow citizens.

Jesus’ call was to personally help a poor traveler who had been mistreated, pay for his expenses and send him on his way.

Jesus did not forcefully co-opt Jewish communities to take in millions of foreigners and confiscate a large part of their wealth and their children’s wealth to give to these people and encourage more of their relatives.

If Jesus had advocated that he would have been unjust.

Somewhere along the way, Liberals got suckered into believing the State became the way we show compassion as defined by Liberals themselves and anyone who disagrees is branded uncompassionate.

Jesus spoke to the individual heart not to democratically elected governments where one section of the population continually takes the wealth off their fellow citizens and tries to force their view of compassion on them, blind to the consequences.

Jews of the time were expecting their Messiah to be a political figure operating from the high reaches of political power, and that is the kind of action many Christians on the left still expect from Jesus.
Give unto Ceasar that which belongs to Ceasar, I guess. In only wish the left was not so eager to give Jesus up to their ‘compassionate’ state, when he himself rejected that role for himself way back when he waled among us as one of us.

 

[Darryl1958]

My problem with the above arguments, and it may not be your intent, but there are plenty those who would use the state to somehow weed out bad people based on a broad, poorly informed, and fear based premises. This was not the way of Jesus.

There is no substance to such a retort.

Government policy that is based on broad, poorly informed, or fear based premises 15 years after911 are without excuse.

The Islamist revolutions of 1979 have seen whole generations being radicalized since then. It is the grossest kind of incompetence for governments and government agencies to not be prepared to deal with the kind of crisis that faces Europe now.

And if the arrival of 250,000 refugees a day does not raise a few eyebrows, then nothing ever will.

 

[abucs]

Jews of the time were expecting their Messiah to be a political figure operating from the high reaches of political power, and that is the kind of action many Christians on the left still expect from Jesus.

I think that is a good point. Perhaps part of our human journey is to go through all of these mistakes before we turn to God. I think giving power to a state that is then responsible for setting and strictly enforcing humanistic based ideas of compassion and morality is one of those mistakes.

In past centuries the Church went to troubled lands and set up orphanages, hospitals, schools, facilitating trade etc. It was respected and many joined her. It was volunteer based and people went door to door asking for donations. In some ways it was much more democratic and effective than today.

Now i think too many Christians think compassion is voting every 2-4 years for a brand of state-based humanistic morality that is funded with other people’s money. It is not a more healthy situation, especially when the official relationships of the state must be, by law, Godless.

It gives the old Godless socialists who have politics as their messiah, much more ability to define morality etc to be in line with their own politics, be that destroying community, culture, capitalism or whatever to be replaced with their own ideas.

I really think we are going to learn a hard lesson in the not too distant future.

 

[PJH_74]

There is no substance to such a retort.

Government policy that is based on broad, poorly informed, or fear based premises 15 years after911 are without excuse.

The Islamist revolutions of 1979 have seen whole generations being radicalized since then. It is the grossest kind of incompetence for governments and government agencies to not be prepared to deal with the kind of crisis that faces Europe now.

And if the arrival of 250,000 refugees a day does not raise a few eyebrows, then nothing ever will.

No substance? A bit dismissive isn’t it?

I don’t want to drag this into some Bush vs whomever thing. However our nation’s choice to go to war, based on the overwhelming congressional support and public support (though definitely not mine), in Iraq with little real need or information has done much to promote ISIS as ISIS as Bashir uses ISIS to prolong the Syrian war. It certainly has done little to promote pro USA sentiment in the region.

This 1979 revolution was almost justified in the sense that this was a Cold War revolution against our support of a brutal regime that happened to support our side. Hardly what we are seeing today.

So when do these people become people and not a meaningless political football, especially in American politics?

 

[Darryl1958]

No substance? A bit dismissive isn’t it?

Yes. “Government policy that is based on broad, poorly informed, or fear based premises 15 years after 911 are without excuse.”
One can only wonder why there has been so much resistance to identifying this 10 to 15 percent, and denigrating those who attempt to.

I don’t want to drag this into some Bush vs whomever thing. However our nation’s choice to go to war, based on the overwhelming congressional support and public support (though definitely not mine), in Iraq with little real need or information has done much to promote ISIS as ISIS as Bashir uses ISIS to prolong the Syrian war. It certainly has done little to promote pro USA sentiment in the region.

I am dismissive of the Bushdidit crowd too. That is not an excuse to not do proper vetting of the 10 to 15 percent.

This 1979 revolution was almost justified in the sense that this was a Cold War revolution against our support of a brutal regime that happened to support our side. Hardly what we are seeing today.

You are doing a very good job of advocating for that 10 to 15 percent of extremist Islamists, which would explain why you object to proper vetting of them in the first place.

So when do these people become people and not a meaningless political football, especially in American politics?

The question is purely rhetorical, and therefore not really a question but a diatribe to continue to promote leftist ideals and weaken the West.
It is so sad that the left so hates the West and the countries that did so much for them that they would stand in the way of proper vetting of the 10 to 15 percent of Muslims who reject Western values as much as so many on the left do.
Since I have personally not made a case for people not being people, I am dismissive of such rhetorical questions too, although the reasons that they are asked are becoming more and more clear with every post.

 

[PJH_74]

I’m sorry this has degenerated. It saddens me that a whole 10,000 people in the US vs 1 million or so people in Germany refugees becomes some left vs right political debate in US. We’d rather choose minutely founded fear to justify attacking a country or denying humanitarian aid to those in obvious need. We can do better while protecting our interests. I’m done.

 

[Darryl1958]

I’m sorry this has degenerated. It saddens me that a whole 10,000 people in the US vs 1 million or so people in Germany refugees becomes some left vs right political debate in US. We’d rather choose minutely founded fear to justify attacking a country or denying humanitarian aid to those in obvious need. We can do better while protecting our interests. I’m done.

It was you that brought up Bush, and took up the left’s position against the egregious behavior of the West and wars, and justified giving full access to the enemies of the West on that account.

And it is you who ignores my solution which offers a way to both be humanitarian to the 90 percent, while still attempting to dealing with the 10-15 percent who reject the West and its values.

That is fully understandable, from a leftist point of view which believes it is Western values that are the enemy that are the problem in the first place, and that therefore the 10-15 percent that are the solution.

Otherwise there is no excuse for advocating such a reckless immigration policy.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Merkel is no liberal, she’s actually the leader of the Conservative party. If insanity is being compassionate over and over again again then Jesus was insane also. Look following the path of Jesus is never easy. Yet we fret about the 10 or 15% by your count that might be highly conservative Muslims who theoretically might convert the others to the more conservative version. Let me ask you how likely a radically conservative Christian is to convert you? I’d submit that our inaction and callousness will do more damage than anything.

Muslims and other non-Christians can be just as callous as any Christian if not worse. It doesn’t do any good to import people and not insist that they assimilate. It doesn’t mean that they get on the liberal social values machine, but it means that they don’t come to here to change our countries, which is what many of them want to do.

And really, diverting the subject to blame “radical” conservative Christians is just an excuse to emotionally (as Darryl noted) defend Muslims and other migrants while ignoring the universal problems of mass migration around the globe. Every time in the West there is negative news about Islam, the Western left races out of the gate to find any shred of nationalistic or Caucasian supremacy.

Also, whoever said that following the path of Jesus means letting in a bunch of people who we can’t track and have no idea who they are? That’s basically admitting that risking criminal behavior and terrorism are acceptable on some principle.

But that isn’t what the Church teaches. The Church has made it very clear about the sovereign rights of nations, and thus, does not advocate for open-border type policies.

I will also note that many non-Catholics would ask in response to the prior comment the Vatican isn’t letting in Muslims or other migrants blindly if that is so incredibly Christ-like.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I’m sorry this has degenerated. It saddens me that a whole 10,000 people in the US vs 1 million or so people in Germany refugees becomes some left vs right political debate in US. We’d rather choose minutely founded fear to justify attacking a country or denying humanitarian aid to those in obvious need. We can do better while protecting our interests. I’m done.

I don’t consider the shooting in San Bernandino, Fort Hood or Chattanooga or the murder of Kate Steinlen to be “minutely founded”, especially when an intelligence official recently testified that they are pushed to the limit tracking would-be terrorists and Kate was murdered with a weapon belonging to a public servant.

I can only imagine how different the reaction would be if the migrants were Caucasian members of the TEA PARTY and UKIP and Western intel was tracking them for potential terrorist activity.

Also, we are fighting the Islamic State, not Iraq or Syria.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Do European liberals really think that assimilated migrant and refugees will carry on their traditions?

 

[SuperLuigi]

Actually, I agree with UKIP on the EU issue.

 

[Darryl1958]

I don’t consider the shooting in San Bernandino, Fort Hood or Chattanooga or the murder of Kate Steinlen to be “minutely founded”, especially when an intelligence official recently testified that they are pushed to the limit tracking would-be terrorists and Kate was murdered with a weapon belonging to a public servant.

I can only imagine how different the reaction would be if the migrants were Caucasian members of the TEA PARTY and UKIP and Western intel was tracking them for potential terrorist activity.

Also, we are fighting the Islamic State, not Iraq or Syria.

The IRS did a very good job in tracking and intimidating the Tea Party, and Trump is the latest one Britain is contemplating barring from the UK.
We don’t have to imagine the difference in reactions. It is there for all to see.

Just on a side note, isn’t it funny that the same people who assure us of the tranquility of the average Muslim -people like Hillary Clinton, for example-; isn’t it ironic how these same people assert that Trump is a primary recruiting tool for ISIS?

To be clear, I fully agree that when given a chance, the 85-95 percent of Muslims entering into America are commendable people and more eager to embrace American values than many indigeneous American on the left.
But believing that, I also find it preposterous that such people upon hearing Trump would all of a sudden begin ulelalating Alahu Akbar and beheading infidel wherever they may find them.
My own impression of Muslims is not as low as what leftists like Hillary Clinton are really thinking about them apparently. It is absurd that Trump would be sufficient to change peaceful people into murderous raging Islamist mass murderers.

 

[Darryl1958]

It is not as if Britain does not have that kind of record on barring conservatives already.

 

[Seamus_L]

Savage, Geller, Spencer, ?