The failure of multiculturalism and the Muslim issue
Catalin Negru | Last modified: May 5, 2016 | 11:22
There has been a lot of stir lately regarding the Syrian mass migration and its impact upon Europe. Overall, it seems that the Western world divided in two sides: those who defend humanitarianism and accept refugees (regardless of their background) in their countries, and those who refuse refugees and condemn the extreme multiculturalism and the Islamization of Europe. Now, in order to understand what is really happening, why it is happening and, most importantly, how it will evolve in the future, we must approach the problem step by step and starting from the basis. And the first step is to say a few words about the term “culture,” because you cannot speak about multiculturalism without having an idea about the meaning of ”culture.”
Culture, according to Edward Burnett Tylor, is “that complex whole which includes knowledge, belief, art, morals, law, custom and any other capabilities and habits acquired by man as a member of society.”1 Another definition of culture is offered, for example, by Merriam-Webster Dictionary: “the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon the capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations.”2
The concepts of culture and civilization (and the relation between them, although they are often used interchangeably) are philosophical issues that are still debated. Nevertheless, simply said, culture is the bridge between intelligence on the one hand, and civilization on the other hand. The level of civilization is a reflection of the level of culture, and the level of culture is a reflection of the level of intelligence. Your civilization is the manifestation of your culture, of your thinking. The more intelligent you are, the better your culture is; and the better your culture is, the better your civilization (standard of living) is.
Culture is divided on levels: there are individual cultures, family cultures or group cultures, local cultures, regional cultures, national cultures, international or continental cultures, and at the moment, due to global communication, a global culture is slowly taking shape. With the exception of the individual culture, which sits at the bottom of the cultural pyramid, all the levels of culture can subsist only if its lower levels agree upon certain aspects that allow them to coexist. For example, a group or a family culture can subsist only if the individual cultures of the family members – father, mother and children – follow the same rules and share the same values. Likewise, a local culture can subsist only if individual or group cultures follow a fundamental set of rules and share common values. And so on. The higher the level of culture, the fewer the rules and the values shared by individuals.
Multiculturalism is an utopian project that will fail miserably.
Multiculturalism refers to a society in which individuals with different racial, ethnic, national and international background share the same space and harmoniously interact. Multiculturalism is the natural transition from a pluricultural world, in which cultures are located on areas and they are separated by physical, linguistic and social barriers, to a unicultural world, in which everybody will live according to a single culture. In theory, multiculturalism is mankind's “winning hand” because through interaction and exchange of information people will have the chance to compare ideas and ideologies and choose the best ones. Thus, the existing cultures will melt into a unique culture, the intellectual differences that fuel conflicts will vanish and the world as a whole will become a peaceful and prosperous place. In practice, however, multiculturalism is an utopian project that will fail miserably because people are not numbers; you cannot simply take a number of people from one part of the world and put them in another part of the world and they will live happily ever after in a multicultural society. People have judgment, feelings, experiences or misconceptions; they react when the elites treat them as numbers and do not take into consideration their desires. So, multiculturalism will fail due to three main reasons: (1) human races do not have the same average level of intelligence and through an identical education they will not adapt identically to a global culture, based on reason; (2) cultural mixture takes place infinitely faster than cultural absorption; (3) currently there are cultures that not prepared for or they are not compatible with multiculturalism.
The issue of racial equality, or the connection between intelligence and human races, was discussed in detail in the article “Racial (in)equality and meritocracy.” So, in the following lines we will focus on the other two aspects.
Individual culture is composed of every man’s beliefs and opinions, it is the largest part of a man’s identity and it is what makes a man different from the others. Every man identifies himself with what he knows and what he believes and every man lives with the impression that his beliefs and knowledge reflect the truth. Naturally, the identity of every man is also formed of larger cultures – social concentric circles – he is a part of: family, local and so on. For every single one of us the lower cultural levels (or social concentric circles) prevail in front of the upper ones. For example, on the secular side, a man born in Munich identifies himself first and foremost with his family, then with his lineage, then with the people of Munich, then with the region of Bavaria, then with the people of Germany, then with the people of Europe and then with the Western world. He first and foremost favors or defends himself and his family, then his lineage, then his city and so on. The same situation is on the religious side: he is first and foremost a member of the Catholic Church and then a Christian. And, depending on his education, he is first a German and second a Catholic, or vice versa.
The cultures of the same level, the closer and more resembling they are, the easier is to assimilate one another. And vice versa.
Abandoning the cultures that define you is exactly like abandoning your identity; it is never easy. In fact, every individual struggles to defend his point of view and tries to impose his point of view over the others. Likewise, every culture above the individual culture, through the actions and the attitude of its members, attempts to preserve itself in front of the assault of other cultures by keeping its traditions and ideology intact, or attempts to impose itself over other cultures by exporting its own ideology and traditions. The cultures of the same level, the closer and more resembling they are, the easier is to assimilate one another. For instance, a Frenchman has little difficulties adapting in Germany, same as a Pole in the United States of America. And the other way around; cultures, the farther and more different they are, the harder they are to assimilate one another: an Arab has a hard time adapting in China, same as a Japanese has difficulties adapting in Nigeria.
A multicultural society can function only if its component cultures promote a similar lifestyle, follow similar rules and respect the beliefs, the ideas and the traditions of the other cultures, as long as they do not disturb public order.
Not long ago the societies of the world were driven by divine laws, which made them very different from one another. For example, Yahweh, Jesus Christ or Allah established laws and rituals that more or less isolate and put in conflict the groups of people. Every culture dominated by one religion or another has aimed throughout history to exterminate the other religions and cultures, according to its divine calling. You cannot have a stable and viable multicultural society when its people kill each other or avoid interacting between each other due to their different ideologies. That being said, the project of multiculturalism can succeed if, first and foremost, its members and its component cultures are mainly secular, driven by human reason, in the detriment of religion. Unlike religions, which are regional and promote isolation and discord, human reason is universal and facilitates communication and concord. And second, cultures must be mixed slowly and gradually, starting with those that are close to each other. But, obviously, no politician or public figure has taken into account these rule because no one wants to be labeled "racist" or "xenophobe." And now we see the effects.
Migration is too fast, while cultural absorption is too slow.
The process of migration, an integral part of multiculturalism, is very rapid, while the process of cultural absorption is very slow. With the help of the current means of transportation moving from one native national culture, such as that of Pakistan, to an extremely different national culture, such as the one of the United Kingdom, can be a matter of hours. But the cultural integration, or abandoning the initial ideology in favor of the ideology of the place, is a matter that takes place – if it takes place – along several generations.
When migrants have an individual, family or religious culture much too different than the national culture which they migrate into, a good part of them fail to integrate; moreover, the unadapted migrants group together, isolate themselves and build parallel societies - literal nations within nations - that are governed by their own rules and they feed on the main society.3 Because the family culture has primacy in front of the national culture, or many times the religious culture has primacy in front of the secular culture, the progenies of those who migrated cannot adapt themselves and be part of the national culture they were born in as well. And if the family and national cultures come into conflict, the man defends the family one and attacks the national one, or defends the religious one and attacks the secular one. This is why young Muslims born in Europe become more and more radical and commit terrorist attacks: not because society failed to integrate them, but because their religious or family cultures stopped them from integrating into national cultures.
Westerners believe that their values and their lifestyle, based on human reason, are the best and they are going to be adopted by those who migrate in their societies through simple interaction. Wrong! The Muslims who migrate in Western countries believe exactly the same about their Islamic values and lifestyle: they are the best possible because they were instituted by Allah himself. So, given the fact that both Western culture and Islamic culture proclaim their supremacy, we obviously have in front of our eyes a cultural clash. And cultural clashes mean nothing but trouble.
Multiculturalism opened the path of social parasitism.
The relation between the unadapted migrants and the society which they migrate in is similar to the relation between a criminal and the community he socially pollutes. The criminal has a very interesting way of thinking. He acts contrary to the social order – he kills, he robs, he rapes, he destroys – but he wants to be the only one of his species, the only one who commits anti-social actions. A community of people in which nobody obeys the laws and nobody respects the other’s person and property is chaotic; it produces nothing and brings nothing but physical and spiritual squalor to its members. No one wants to live in such a community because no one – not even the criminals who commit these things – wants to be killed, robbed or raped. At the same time, criminals do not think at the long-term negative effects their actions have upon the community as a whole; their only concerns are the short-term positive effects their actions have upon their being: they quench an impulse (sexual or of different nature) or their immediate need of resources. So, criminals want to be part of an ordered, stable, prosperous and civilized community, but they themselves are a factor of instability and disorder. Criminals are in fact the parasites of the society, because they bring no contribution to its development and prosperity, but, on the contrary, their actions undermine and destroy it.
When you start to pour dirt in a glass of water, that water will not remain clean; it will get dirtier and dirtier. Similarly, criminality is a social tumor, and its dimensions affect the stability and the existence of a community. In a healthy, ordered and prosperous community no one is condemned because he steals an apple and no one goes bankrupt because an apple is stolen from him. As long as they are few in number, criminals and unadapted migrants are like a small, tolerable pain. But when the community is infested with too many criminals or unadapted migrants, as a healthy body is infested by too many parasites, that community becomes unstable and it ultimately collapses. When a good part of what you produce is stolen or destroyed, your business becomes unsustainable; the energy you invest in running it can no longer be recovered, you have to fire people and in the end to declare your bankruptcy. Likewise, the community infested by criminals or migrants unadapted to the national culture becomes a place increasingly chaotic and miserable and begins to dissolve once the natives start to move toward better places. And the criminals, like parasites, also move to a better and more ordered place or a healthier host, being inevitably followed by more criminals or unadapted people. And thus this cycle repeats endlessly.
The phenomenon of dissolution of the modern native areas or communities because of the massive influx of socially unadaped people is called “white flight.”4 This phenomenon leaves behind the so-called “no-go zones” – areas in which the authorities have little to no control and the natives risk being maltreated, subjected to abuses or even killed. The phenomenon manifests predominantly in multicultural and multiracial states. A famous example of the manifestation of the white flight phenomenon is the American city of Detroit. In the 1950s a massive wave of Black people migrated in Detroit in order to be hired for fewer money in the auto industry. Between 1950 and 2010 the racial composition of Whites/Blacks of the city changed from 83.6%/16.2% to 10.6%/82.7%.5 The result of this thing was a depopulation with almost 60% of the city, a rise of poverty and an alarming rise of criminality; Detroit is at the moment in the top 5 most dangerous cities in America. Aside from the problematic areas populated by the Blacks, in America there are also enclaves or no-go zones created by South American immigrants. Other known examples of the manifestation of the white flight phenomenon and of emerging no-go zones are in Western Europe, in countries with an increasing Muslim and African population: France,6 Germany,7 England,8 Sweden9 or Netherlands.10
The world is constantly changing. If they remain frozen in time and they don’t change or continuously reform their culture, societies rot and are trampled under foot by other more advanced ones. Cultural reform and evolution are indispensable to survival and prosperity. The same thing can be said about multicultural societies, which must constantly absorb its members in order to be efficient. Cultural differences are obstacles of communication, which mean deficient production and social security.
Multiculturalism is incompatible with religious fundamentalism.
Western society gained its power and wealth because it abandoned the religious foundation and it started to rely on a secular foundation. Religious doctrines were questioned and, beginning with the 18th century and the French Revolution, the European states have turned from being religion-driven to reason-driven. Human reason, and not divine revelation, was established as the governing force of nations. The separation between church and state demolished the physical borders, dissolved the cultural boundaries, facilitated the exchange of ideas and resources between neighboring nations, boosted the development of knowledge and it ultimately led to an improvement of the living conditions.
By contrast, the nations of the Middle East (and not only) have chosen to remain faithful to the hundred-year-old religious precepts and govern themselves according to theocratic ideologies. And the effects of the religious fundamentalism can be seen in the unrealistic or rusted ideas they emanate, tyranny, uncompetitive products and the unstable societies. You cannot have a valuable society when women are considered inferior to men and thus more than half of the people don’t have the right to express their point of view.11 Intelligent people, men and women alike, who bring a crucial contribution to the development of society, have no chance to use their potential when questioning the status quo is punishable by death.12 You cannot have economic security when half of the population walk with the face covered in the public space and criminals are very hard to catch. You cannot have an efficient judicial system based on 1300-year-old religious precepts, totally inappropriate to the current context. You cannot be efficient in work when you have to interrupt your activity to pray five times a day.13 You cannot have a competitive education system when free debates are forbidden, while the bit of education revolves around the Quran and an ideology that does not suffer changes. You cannot have peace when religious differences fuel regional rivalries, as the relation between the Shia Iran and the Sunni Saudi Arabia, or the relation between the Islamic Pakistan and the Hindu India. Europe left behind historical rivalries – such as the one between France and England – and struggles to unite in order to have a better presence on the economic and military international stage. By contrast, the Shia and the Sunni kill each other as the Protestants and the Catholics did more than four centuries ago.
Human beings, when facing a challenge that puts their life in danger, have two options: fight or flight. So, in regions such as Syria and Iraq, where there is a total mess, a part of the Muslims remain on the spot and fight to change society according to one vision or another. During times of crisis blaming the outside for the current state of things is the easiest thing to do. And a poor and half-witted population is the perfect soil for the seeds of extremism. Groups such as Islamic State or the Al-Nusra Front rise and blame various entities such as the Jews, rival Muslims factions or the United States of America for the decadent state of things. They declare the order in their countries corrupt by outside influences and demand the return to a former order, when Islam was on the rise. Idealizing the past is one of the most important signs that the present is in trouble and the future is uncertain.
Muslims condemn the Western values, but they have no problem coming and harvesting the fruits of promoting these values.
The other part of the Muslims choose to run and they migrate toward more hospitable places, mainly Europe. But, due to their lack of education, neither those who remain in Islamic societies nor the ones who leave them are aware of the real source of their problems. Poverty and misery is not caused at all by the primitive ideology of Islam, but by anything else. On the contrary, their religion is their most precious thing; many are ready to die for it. And the supreme hypocrisy is that, in the light of the Quran, Western society is decayed because it is guided by human laws. Muslims condemn the Western values, but they have no problem coming and harvesting the fruits of promoting these values.
Unfortunately, the migration of Muslims and the people from the third world could not have been possible if it was not facilitated, or even encouraged, by the Western world itself. And the prime cause of this out-of-control multiculturalism is greed.
Starting with the 1960-1970 Europe has curved its demographic projection due to a change of values, opportunities for women and the possibility that, through work, people can achieve more. Man was educated to adopt a consumerist lifestyle, to excessively precious goods and to aim for luxury: better cars, better clothes, better houses, better food; always more, never enough. But luxury came with a price. The demand raised the value of goods and services, which led to an increasingly expensive decent lifestyle and an increasingly uncertain future. In order to satisfy the need to have more, Westerners began to target the very qualified jobs, well paid, which require a lot of time and training. Europeans have chosen to sacrifice the quantity of the population growth in favor of the quality of the population growth, in the idea that they will have fewer children but better material conditions. This phenomenon has left a hole in the low labor market, of the unqualified and poorly paid jobs, which could only be filled with migrants: largely Muslims and Blacks from the third world knocking at the door of the Occident.
Multiculturalism would not be possible without greed. Westerners' greed.
On the short term, the consume-now-and-to-hell-with-tomorrow lifestyle is beneficial because it boosts the engines of the economy. The import of human material has the same economic effect as well, because the ratio between the work migrants do and their payment is in favor of the natives. It is much easier and cheaper to import already grown and qualified people than to invest in their growth and education from birth to hiring. On the long term, however, the consequences of this policy are catastrophic. And now is that time when the nasty long-term effects of multiculturalism and consumerism start to be felt, when the disadvantages are beginning to eclipse the advantages. The negative population growth of the natives in combination with massive immigration is a spiral of social suicide. A negative population growth means a workforce crisis and an increasingly aging native population. The latter can be sustained by the subsequent generations only through more work, which automatically leads to an even more negative population growth. The hole in the population that continues to expand means a hole in the economy, and, because no politician or political party want economic regress while they are in power, but only economic progress, economy can be sustain only through even more immigration. So, in the beginning immigrants were supposed to be only temporary workforce, then they have been a multiracial experiment, and now they are both refugees and the answer to a shrinking population.
There is no secret that Islamophobia is not a recent phenomenon.14 It is also true that societies, in general, have been constantly haunted by all kind of fears, more or less justified, such as in the past there was the fear of the end of the world or today there are fears of alien invasions or zombie epidemics. But this is not the case, because the numbers don’t lie. And even if there were no statistics, we see the effects of this excessive multiculturalism with our own eyes, we hear them with our own ears and we feel them with our skin. Immigrants have other values and other standards of living in comparison to the native Westerners, and their increasing number wakes up hibernating beliefs. The more they are, the more courage they have in manifesting their ideologies in the public space: wearing the face covered, public prayer or protests for changing the legislation in their favor. And when the unadapted migrants, together with their progenies, gain the right of suffrage, that society is in big trouble. Religion, in this case Islam, is the perfect mental refuge for the unadapted and it also creates a sense of belonging and unity. It makes Muslims an active force that exerts a fantastic pressure upon the administrative and political apparatus. Thus, the altering of the social fabric of the place is followed in the cycle of social parasitism by the manifestation of the white flight phenomenon, the creation of no-go zones, and then the inevitable migration of the unadapted immigrants toward other ordered communities to infest.
The Middle East is a mess and it will be a bigger mess due to the Islamic radicalization and global energetic reorientation. The rise of the Islamic State, of the Al-Nusra Front, or the killings committed by Muslims against non-Muslims across the world signal that something is wrong with the religion of Islam as a whole. Islam radicalizes itself because it is hit harder and harder by reality. Social structures and ideologies emanated 13 centuries ago cannot win in front of the scientific discoveries and global exchange of information; so, Islam tries to survive by violently deny reality and change. Islamic societies will never be able to compete on the international market with high-end products because these things require education, time and training to be made, which ultimately require abandoning religious fundamentalism. At the moment, the richness of some Middle East countries is artificial; it does not rely on the human value, but only on the natural products (oil and gas) and tourism. Despite intentionally maintaining an energetic monopoly based on fossil fuels, global warming forces humanity to switch to green energy. And when the fossil resources will be depleted or they will no longer have value due to the lack of demand, the money that supports certain ideologies and structures of power will no longer be available. The lack of money will make people ask questions, will start riots, will fuel regional rivalries, will trigger new conflicts, will reignite old conflicts and will ultimately cause a lot of mess. And this means even more migrants coming toward Western civilization, especially Europe.
Terrorism is not only the effect of religious fundamentalism, it is first and foremost the sign of the current cultural clash.
Now, if we put the pieces together and assume that the current ideological trend will continue to dominate the Western world, the future is not hard to predict. On the one hand, we have a culture hostile to the Western values which – through immigration and an impressive natural growth – exponentially expands and radicalizes itself. Already Western societies are in the situation of a cancer patient that cannot be saved unless he removes, alongside cancer cells, healthy cells as well. In certain countries Muslims can no longer be deported because they were born there and they are full-right citizens of that country, they have a certain fame, others have important jobs and positions, there are mixed families, Islam cannot be forbidden without hitting in the religious freedom of native Christians and affecting human rights. It is a matter of decades until the Islamic minority culture of the immigrants will openly challenge the native European cultures. And, as the balance of power is shifting, cultural clashes multiply and they manifest through an increasingly number of crimes, violations, rapes, terrorist attacks, riots and all sort of conflicts. The media and the politicians insist that Islam is a religion of peace and that there is a crucial difference between terrorists and ordinary Muslims. But we all know that the truth is quite different. You see it everyday on the street. And we also know very well that the bombings or the terrorist attacks, such as the ones in Paris or Brussels, are only the tip of the iceberg of the cultural clash and there are many more to come.
On the other hand, primarily Europe has a confused population that is still haunted by the sins of the past, incapable to unitarily and lucidly reason. It will be increasingly divided between a powerful extreme right, which promotes nationalism, the expulsion of all the foreign elements and the return to the pluricultural world of the borders, and the adepts of the current utopia, who refuse to accept the harsh reality, they are scared of being labeled “racists” and they still think in the success of multiculturalism having in mind the fortunate examples of cultural absorption. And, to make matter worse, a good part of Europe will be sabotaged by its own leaders. Changing an ideology, such as the one of multiculturalism, with another one requires the replacement of a blanket of politicians with another blanket of politicians. But no one gives up power willingly. So, in order to maintain order and the current political structures and ideologies, the politicians might sacrifice their own population by manipulating media, hiding the signs of the cultural clash and nationalist protests,15 hiding information about the crimes committed by migrants,16 and by adopting laws that, backed by a so-called humanism, condemn the rise of nationalism and labels any opposition as racism, neo-Nazism or hate speech.
Isn’t this the perfect recipe for disaster?
1. Edward Burnett Tylor, Primitive culture: researches into the development of mythology, philosophy, religion, art, and custom (New York: Gordon Press, 1974), 1.
2. Merriam-Webster Dictionary, “Culture,” An Encyclopaedia Britannica Company, accessed February 21, 2016, http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/culture.
3. Lucy Clarke-Billings, "Muslims are Creating 'Nations Within Nations' Says Former Head of U.K. Equalities Commission," Newsweek, accessed April 10, 2016, http://europe.newsweek.com/muslims-are-creating-nations-within-nations-says-former-head-uk-equalities-446163?rm=eu.
4. The white flight phenomenon started in the mid-20th century, when people of various European ancestries from racially mixed urban regions began to move to more racially homogeneous suburban or ex-urban regions. The term has also been used for large-scale post-colonial emigration of whites from Africa, or parts of that continent, driven by levels of violent crime and anti-colonial state policies.
5. Richard Johnson, “Graphic: Detroit Then and Now,” National Post, accessed February 15, 2016, http://news.nationalpost.com/news/graphics/graphic-detroit-then-and-now.
6. Soeren Kern, “European 'No-Go' Zones: Fact or Fiction? Part 1: France,” Gatestone Institute - International Policy Council, accessed January 5, 2016, http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones; Marie-Laure Combes, Amiens-Nord, une "zone de non-droit"?, Europe 1, accessed January 5, 2016, http://www.europe1.fr/france/amiens-nord-une-zone-de-non-droit-1204941.
7. Soeren Kern, “Police warn of No-Go Zones in Germany,” Gatestone Institute - International Policy Council, accessed January 5, 2016, http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/6264/no-go-zones-germany.
8. Soeren Kern, “European 'No-Go' Zones: Fact or Fiction? Part 2: Britain,” Gatestone Institute - International Policy Council, accessed January 5, 2016, http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5177/no-go-zones-britain; Mary Jackson, “No-Go Areas? Just Go There!,” New English Review, accessed February 2, 2016, http://www.newenglishreview.org/custpage.cfm/frm/22354/sec_id/22354.
9. Zoie O’Brien and Lizzie Stromme, “Swedish police being ATTACKED as they struggle in 'NO GO ZONES' as migrant crime rockets,” Express, accessed January 20, 2016, http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/641223/Swedish-police-being-ATTACKED-as-they-struggle-in-NO-GO-ZONES-as-migrant-crime-rockets.
10. Jordan Schachtel, “European ‘No-Go’ Zones Remain Unassimilated Hotbeds of Radical Islam,” Breitbart, accessed January 21, 2016, http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/01/21/many-european-no-go-zones-remain-unassimilated-hotbeds-of-radical-islam/; Peter Cluskey, “Dutch anxiety over ‘Sharia triangle’ police no-go area in The Hague,” The Irish Times, accessed February 15, 2016, http://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/europe/dutch-anxiety-over-sharia-triangle-police-no-go-area-in-the-hague-1.1404541.
11. Samuel Green, “The Status of Women in Islam,” Answering Islam, accessed march 2, 2016, http://www.answering-islam.org/Green/womenstatus.htm.
12. “Saudi Arabia: Poet Sentenced to Death for Apostasy,” Human Rights Watch, accessed March 5, 2016, https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/11/23/saudi-arabia-poet-sentenced-death-apostasy.
13. Mario Anzuoni, “Muslims fired by Wisconsin firm for unscheduled prayer breaks,” RT, accessed February 10, 2016, https://www.rt.com/usa/331453-muslims-prayer-fired-wisconsin/.
14. Catalin Negru, History of the Apocalypse (Lulu Press, 2015), Part II, Chapter I, 4.1. “Islamophobia,” accessed March 20, 2016, http://reasonandreligion.org/index.php/islamophobia/.
15. Gina Cassini, “This nation just had a massive protest against Islam… Horrified media censors it,” Top Right News, accessed January 12, 2016, http://toprightnews.com/this-nation-just-had-a-massive-protest-against-islam-horrified-media-censors-it/.
16. “Germany ‘Covering Up Crimes Committed by Migrants,’” WND, accessed January 20, 2016, http://www.wnd.com/2015/12/germany-covering-up-crimes-committed-by-migrants/; Ivar Arpi, “It’s not only Germany that covers up mass sex attacks by migrant men... Sweden’s record is shameful,” The Spectator, accessed March 10, 2016, http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/its-not-only-germany-that-covers-up-mass-sex-attacks-by-migrant-men-swedens-record-is-shameful/.
You might also be interested in:
I know, some of you, given the title of this article, think that I am a racist, neo-Nazi, Hitler’s acolyte, Ku Klux Klan member, White supremacist, xenophobe, brainwashed or even insane. Right at this moment you probably ask yourselves how can I be so blind and ignorant: you have extraordinary friends, co-workers, husband or wife of different race, or maybe even you, the one who reads this text, are a wonderful non-White person. But I also know...
The most important apocalyptical prophecies, theories, calculations and movements of the first millennium were tied to the fate of the Roman Empire. But, after the failure of the years 1000 and 1033 and the Great Schism between Catholicism and Orthodoxism, the concept of the revived Roman Empire or of the Christian Empire was gradually abandoned. The image of Nero who had to come back as the Antichrist shared the same fate. In the 16th century, at the time of the Reformation...
...The Lutheran doctrine of the two kingdoms (or two reigns) said that God is the leader of the entire world and he rules in two ways. He leads the earthly or the left kingdom through the secular power and law, and his heavenly kingdom or the right one through gospel, grace and peace. The doctrine of the two kingdoms was the Lutheran way of distinguishing between the divine law and gospel. Through this doctrine Luther stated that a war for the national defense is a just war. By contrast...