The West After the Charlie Hebdo Massacre

If you appreciate this essay by Fjordman, please consider making a donation to him, using the button at the bottom of this post.

The West After the Charlie Hebdo Massacre
by Fjordman

My first thoughts after the Islamic Jihadist attack on the offices of the satirical paper Charlie Hebdo in Paris focused on those who were brutally murdered and the families who lost loved ones.

My second thought was that this attack had clearly involved some planning. This was not some random crime. It was an act of war, as Geert Wilders correctly pointed out. It was an act of war the same way as the Jihadist attacks of September 11, 2001 in the USA. A war has been declared on Western civilization, yet Western ruling elites refuse to acknowledge this. They still treat Islamic attacks as a law and order problem. It is not. Not anymore.

The massacre on January 7, 2015 took place in one of the largest cities in Europe, the capital of one of the largest countries in Europe. It hit a target that was already known to be a potential target for Islamic terrorists. Despite this, the country’s authorities were unable to prevent the attack. This is an indirect admission that Western authorities can no longer guarantee the safety of their citizens. There are now simply too many Muslims and potential Jihadists in a country such as France to keep effective control over all of them.

Charlie Hebdo’s staff were murdered in cold blood specifically because they had made fun of Islam and its founder in some cartoons. Free speech is very important, but it’s one battleground in a wider war to preserve our civilization. The only way we can win is through physical separation. As long as Muslims are here in significant numbers, we will not have freedom of speech. It’s that simple.

The other alternative is the Singapore solution, where free speech is banned for everybody, including Muslims. In Singapore they actually arrest radical imams and regulate what they say. Nobody has freedom of speech, but at least it is equally enforced for everybody. In the West, radical Muslims now have free speech whereas Islam-critics are harassed. At the same time, the authorities in Singapore take unofficial steps to import non-Muslim immigrants in order to keep the number of Muslims down, despite high Muslim birth rates.

Singapore is the only way a Multicultural society with a large Muslim minority can work, at least for a while: a soft-authoritarian model with no free speech.

If you have a big Muslim minority, you must be strong and willing to fight. Like the Russians or the Israelis. If you are not willing to fight, you lose badly.

Our freedom of speech is already diminished with the Muslims we have in the Western world today. And their numbers keep growing fast. As long as we have a significant number of Muslims here, we may never be able to regain our freedom of speech. That is a sad fact, but it is nevertheless a fact. They may win, by sheer brutality and willingness to kill.

A few of our people, such as Lars Hedegaard or the editors of Charlie Hebdo, might be willing to die for offending Islam. However, they constitute a small minority. Most people will simply adjust. Violence and intimidation works. It has for millennia.

Once you kill off the few people who are willing to die, the rest will quietly bow their necks. As long as the number of Muslims willing to kill is higher than the number of non-Muslims willing to die, they win. This is mathematics, not politics. Islam is a highly effective and evolved killer ideology.

Look at Fox News. Have they republished the Mohammed cartoons yet? As far as I know, no. Which means that they have submitted to sharia law and de facto Islamic rule, even if they don’t realize or admit this.

Fox News and other “strong conservative” news outlets will huff and puff for a while, but they won’t generally republish the cartoons. That is my prediction, but I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Muslims have every reason to gloat. So far, they are winning. They have been winning for decades, at least since the Salman Rushdie affair in 1989.

More practicing Muslims means more people willing to kill those who criticize or mock Islam. In short, as long as the total number of Muslims in your society is growing, you are losing. Everything else is hot air and empty talk. You are not winning until the total number of Muslims in your society is decreasing.

By that measure, every single Western country is currently losing badly.

Our political leaders say very little about changing the immigration policies. So what if Muslim immigrants speak better English, French or German? This simply means that they can say “Islam should rule” in more fluent English, French or German. It doesn’t change anything. They shouldn’t be here in the first place.

We must halt Muslim immigration in all forms and make our countries Islam-unfriendly by banning any practice of sharia law. That is the very minimum policy that should be advocated by any serious Western political leader.


For a complete archive of Fjordman’s writings, see the multi-index listing in the Fjordman Files.

51 thoughts on “The West After the Charlie Hebdo Massacre

  1. “A few of our people, such as Lars Hedegaard or the editors of Charlie Hebdo, might be willing to die for offending Islam. However, they constitute a small minority. Most people will simply adjust.”

    True enough, but there is a third alternative, one that involves neither dying nor submitting. Instead of the now-viral slogan “Je suis Charlie,” which may make the crowds in France feel warm and fuzzy but won’t faze the enemy in the slightest, adopt the slogan “Je NE suis pas Charlie – Je tirerai en arrière!” (I am NOT Charlie – I’ll shoot back!) Had even one of the Charlie Hebdo staff done this instead of depending on a state-provided guard, the enemy might not have prevailed. Arm. Train. Then walk heavy and walk proud. Verloren ist nur, wer sich selbst aufgibt!

    • I am now informed that my suggested alternative slogan was not quite accurately rendered into French by the site I was using. Merde! This might work better:

      “Je NE suis pas Charlie – Je rendrai votre feu!”

      (I am NOT Charlie – I’ll return your fire!”

    • Yeah. Already getting pushback on Twitter for posting the video. The kind of “well, why didn’t Fox publish so-and-so…”

  2. Papa Whiskey: Except for Switzerland, Western Europe is pretty well disarmed. Their grand scheme to become a continent of shmoos. If you remember, shmoos don’t even have arms or hands so they can’t fight back.

    The failed efforts to disarm America will continue to fail as those on the right (and some on the left) refuse to turn in their weapons. Each time something like this happens it hardens the resolve of those committed to our tradition of guns.

    Just as we made the commitment to cars and a national highway system instead of putting the money into mass transit. The latter works only where there are masses with somewhere to go and a chance to make a living when they arrive. But trains will never be feasible or efficient in the hinterlands of the U.S. We have thousands of depots in small towns or in deserted once-upon-a-time-towns, just as we have the remnants of canals here and there.

    Cars are more efficient here. Guns are, too. Both are lethal.

    Cars killed more than 33,000 people last year. I’m waiting for the Left to call for car control any day now.

    Guns killed about the same number but about 61% of those are suicides.

    I agree with you about the #JeSuisCharlie: predictably shallow sentiment and cringe-worthy. The sales on candles, flowers and teddy bears will increase sharply – for about a week. By this time next year, the massacre will be near the top of the list for 2015’s mass murders. However it won’t be the worst or the most bestial.

    • Unhappily, Dymphna, it may not be the worst or most bestial but it probably will have been the most politically and ideologically effective. For the Muslim world, Charlie Hedbo was a high-value target — and it is GONE. Its editor and the entire staff of artists were annihilated at a stroke, just like the headquarters of the Japanese Second Army in Hiroshima. The magazine may publish again, but it won’t be created by the same set of minds, with the same attitude — and it is hard to imagine their successors being quite as brave. My only hope is that so blatant an attack on liberal values will wake up a significant number of liberals. That didn’t really happen in 2006, but we will see.

    • I live in Switzerland. Swiss people Will. Not. Shoot. because they don’t think there’s a problem.

      One in four “Swiss” is now a foreigner, usually Balkan, african, or arab.

      I have never seen a more lame crowd of native people as the swiss. Their eyes glaze over the second you try to say anything “political”, even as you explain that the problem of Islamization of the West IS NOT A POLITICAL PROBLEM ALONE.

      For as long as Swiss people have their carefully constructed bubble of ‘oh look at me I’m swiss I’m so cool because I’m neutral and we scared hitler etc’, they will remain complacent.

      Not to mention our new Bundespräsidentin Somaruga, who fits right in with the nightmarish collection of butch feminazi politicians all over Europe right now.

      • The Muslims are working on the Swiss case right now. Standby. Btw that glaze is universal. Not just Swiss. The Muslim equivalent is a kind of half sneer. Very powerful dominant position they find themselves in – at the Christian and Jews pleasure.

      • Not just the Swiss — the whole West is that way. I’d say only approximately 10% of the population of any given Western polity has woken up to the problem.

    • No reason not to have a high-speed rail network between US cities, Dymphna. More relaxed, fewer security hassles, and the view is better!

      • The word “Rail” is a clue. In the 1950’s after their legendary success at purchasing and then dismantling the entire Los Angeles area rail infratructure, I am surprised that Ford and their fellow players in the auto business allowed a high speed rail project to be even discussed never mind started. How wonderful it was and would be today to travel along the coast enjoying the beautiful California scenery. That was then and this is now. Ali is praying behind the counter as the very mild mannered customers wait obiently in line for gas.

      • Now there’s a pie-in-the-sky response to my statement. Are you a socialist by any chance??

        Here are a few obstacles to your “no reason not to have a high-speed rail network between U.S. cities”:

        1. the cost of new rolling stock for the trains.
        2. the cost of laying new track
        3. the cost of buying rights of way – which would have to be in poor areas where they couldn’t fight back so there goes your “scenic view”.
        4. the disruption caused to these major cities and all the towns in between
        5. the higher cost of tickets (as compared to driving) and the necessity remaining for getting around in those cities once you arrive.
        6. the ease of terrorist attacks on trains, tracks, and passengers. Thousands of miles to guard.
        7. with the influx of hundreds of thousands of immigrants, all unvaccinated and many of them tubercular and carrying 3rs world diseases, keeping those passenger cars clean enough would be hugely expensive. People already worry about plane sanitation as it is.

        Only one stretch makes any sense: the one that already exists. The Northeast corridor from Washington D.C. to Boston is run by AmTrak and it’s largely a feather-bedded soviet arrangement. Inefficient, unreliable. It exists for the politicians and lobbyists who need to get from the regulation center to the financial center. Any other people are simply beneficiaries. The Muslim Brotherhood has plans for that, I’m sure.

        But it’s moot. Back in Eisenhower’s administration our money was sunk into an interstate highway system. If we don’t start doing seriously overdue repairs on the bridges we’re going to be in a heap of trouble. The advantage to the highway system is that it’s decentralized. Hard to cause a major problem without serious planning, lots of manpower and lots of semtex. Eisenhower had seen the problems caused by having to rely on a rail system in Europe…

        This is a large country. Even with high speed rail, the distances as the crow flies between NY and Chicago (1150 km), or Chicago and Los Angeles (2800 km) would be in rail reality much farther; it would take much longer than using our interstate highway system or our airlines.

        Europe went with rails because it couldn’t afford cars at the time. America had the choice and having tasted the freedom, it won’t be going to trains – high speed or not -any time soon, not even for short distances. See the mess in California with their high-speed, short distance folly.

        Canada heavily subsidized railway for the scenic tour but it’s slow and expensive and the upkeep is strictly for sentiment’s sake.

        There are plenty of reasons not to have a high-speed rail network between U.S. cities. Maybe in a century, when the logistics and costs have changed.

        • Manuel- Also the LA streetcars; I believe Goodyear were involved in buying them up, then running them down. This was referenced in “Who Framed Roger Rabbit?”

          Dymphna- Socialist? Moi? Actually I’ve never considered myself to be one, but US and European definitions differ.

          We seem to proceed from different premises; I’m proposing rail mainly as an alternative to air, rather than road, travel (though it’s interesting that Germans, with higher car ownership than we Brits, commute by train in larger numbers).

          Western Europe has invested a fortune in high-speed rail (the UK rather less) because it is seen as a social good, easing congestion and reducing fuel consumption. In federal systems, subsidy comes from national and regional governments (which is why the UK’s network is less advanced).

          I’m not sure about the disruption that would be involved; most stations have existing sites in city centres (unlike airports), and if we can upgrade them (as in the UK) or rebuild them in situ (as sometimes on the Continent), so can you. Given the size of your country, most trackbeds between cities should be largely intact, or still in use for
          freight or remaining passenger services.

          Security on trains can be a pain (I’ve used Eurostar many times), but is still less hassle than at airports. And how many terrorist attacks have there been here, on a network bigger than yours? I recall only Madrid.

          Cost of tickets is partly determined by the tax system. The EU charges fuel duty on intercontinental flights (where there’s little alternative since the ocean liners went) as well as internal ones (where there are also buses, and trains, and even cars). Taxes could be adjusted over a period to encourage people to switch where practicable.

          Last, but far from least; I recall an article from the free-market “Economist” years ago, which pointed out that in the UK, roads are far more heavily subsidised than rail. If you’re gobsmacked at the suggestion, you wouldn’t be the first, but they pointed out that all the road taxes, fuel duties and the like paid by drivers cover about half the cost they impose on society- once you include the total expense of accidents, which are far rarer on trains (or indeed aircraft). I’d be surprised if this were much different in the US, especially as your medical charges are higher.

    • This love for guns is a mystery to us Europeans.
      It’s totally fine if you want them, but what does it really have to do with this?
      Nothing would have changed if France was full of guns. May I remind you that terror attacks and shooting sprees happen on a regular basis in the United States too, actually even more often than they do here. Clearly the possibility of being shot themselves is not exactly a deterrant to a deranged lunatic, in fact they usually shoot themselves afterwards anyway.

      • The difference is in the number of innocent casualties. It would have been like that guy who beheaded the woman in Oklahoma — he was starting in on his second victim, when he was shot by an armed employee at the company.

        If several people in Charlie Hebdo’s offices had been armed, the attackers might have been neutralized after they shot the first one or two people. It would have especially helped if the armed employees had had advanced arms training with emphasis on tactical use of the weapons, and mock-attack simulations.

        • Sure, there are also lots of cases with those armed employees that go bezerk and shoot their colleagues themselves.
          It’s all a bunch of “ifs” and “buts” here, I cannot prove that more people are killed because of the lax gun laws in the United States, because I cannot see into alternative futures.
          The same statistics are interpreted by both sides to “prove” their points. By sheer numbers it is clear that your side of the pond is the one with a gun problem, I find it common sense to draw to the conclusion that it is because of your gun laws, but again I cannot definately prove it. I am glad though that I don’t live in such a society.

          • Actually, statistics are already available that demonstrate the effectiveness of arming ordinary citizens. You just haven’t read them.

            I recommend beginning with More Guns, Less Crime, by John R. Lott Jr. He’s done careful research and fully sourced his data, demonstrating that wherever citizens are permitted to carry weapons legally, there is less violent crime.

            A couple of reviews:

            “A compelling book with enough hard evidence that even politicians may have to stop and pay attention. More Guns, Less Crime is an exhaustive analysis of the effect of gun possession on crime rates. . . . Mr. Lott’s book—and the factual arsenals of other pro-gun advocates—are helping to redefine the argument over guns and gun control.” (James Bovard Wall Street Journal)

            “John Lott’s More Guns, Less Crime revives the wisdom of the past by using the latest tools of social science. By constructing careful statistical models and deploying a wealth of crime data he shows that laws permitting the carrying of concealed weapons actually lead to a drop in crime in the jurisdictions that enact them. . . . By providing strong empirical evidence that yet another liberal policy is a cause of the very evil it purports to cure, he has permanently changed the terms of debate on gun control. . . . Lott’s book could hardly be more timely. . . . Lott’s work is a model of the meticulous application of economics and statistics to law and policy.” (John O. McGinnis National Review)

            There’s plenty of other evidence. Follow the links at the Amazon page and you’ll find other books.

            You won’t read much about all this in the Grauniad or Die Welt, because it goes against The Narrative, but that doesn’t stop it from being true.

            A personal note: I live in a VERY gun-rich area out here in the backwoods of Virginia. Virtually everyone is armed, at least some of the time. During hunting season a lot of guys I encounter are wearing blaze orange and holding loaded deer rifles. And I’m never the slightest bit nervous; I actually feel safer when I’m around decent, law-abiding people who carry guns.

            And, needless to say, there’s very little violence in our neighborhood.

          • If you cannot prove it then what’s the point? The Swiss were doing OK for a while.

  3. If the below video clip which is about 7 years old is correct, then it’s too late for Europe to do anything.

    One of the causes of all this is the so call “Human Rights”. What should have been encouraged is “Respect for Others” NOT “Human Rights”. When “Human Rights” is given to one party, the rights of other parties are taken away. Europe gave the rights to these people to migrate to their countries, allow them to practice almost whatever they want in the name of religion, eg. wearing of burgas (who knows who’s inside?), arranged marriages, etc., practice that will not be acceptable by Europeans had they not be in Europe. Now the rights of Europeans to live peacefully has been taken away. Their rights is taken over by constant fear of suicide bombing, random killings, etc.

    • If the west is to survive this insanity the west needs to use the inter atrocity time a little better than it’s doing now. Stop all Muslim “immigration”. Start educating the population about the Nazi ideology that is any Muslim and Islam. Was Enoch Powell right in his predictions or what?

  4. A bit of clarificafication on the reference to Singapore :
    1. We have freedom of speech except you cannot cross the line into inflammatory comments on racial and religious issues (to maintain our multi-culturalism). Majority of Singaporeans are happy with the way things are.
    2. You can be subject to libel suits — nothing wrong with this, it’s international. Here’s the bad one — politicians silence negative comments with this libel threat.
    3. Singapore’s immigration policy that favours non-muslims — You got it right. It has never been publicised, but smart people understands the rational is to maintain the status quo regarding the religious demograph. Smart people know Muslims have a silent agenda — to take over the place by simply multiplying themselves. Whilst all other races tend to reduce their average family size when they move up the wealth ladder, the Muslim world maintains their tendency for large families. While everyone else is too polite to talk or act on this, the Singapore government saw the danger 40 years ago, and acted.
    4. Islamic extremism can trace it’s roots to the madrasahs in Pakistan. All other religions have their own religious classes, but the kids all go to national or public schools that comply to the educational system. Islam has it’s own educational agenda running independently with the educational school system. How can you have religious immans controlling thousands of kids with no social or national responsibilities is beyond me. They churn out young adults every year who are schooled only in the Quran — and then they complain they can’t get employment. Put bigots in teaching role, and you get poisoned minds. This is what’s happening in the Muslim world. NOW HEAR THIS. The only country in the world that has acted on this is Singapore. There are a few things that the whole world can learn from tiny Singapore. Our govt takes tough measures and nick problems in the bud. (a) We respect our Muslim community who want to maintain their own schools. (b) They can continue with their Quran studies, but their syllabus comply with national agenda (so we get Muslim kids who are equipped with knowledge and skills that allow them to find decent employment like everyone else. (c) The govt monitors foreign and visiting Islamic teachers – ain’t no way a bigot imman from Pakistan can come to teach in Singapore madrasah.

    • With respect, it’s not JUST Pakistan. Saudi Arabia churns out its share of Wahabbist imams as well. It’s one of the reasons I’d like to see the U.S. become much more energy-independent. I don’t care how, but it bugs the hell out of me that our cash is propping up the ‘magic kingdom’.

      • You are right. Wahabism coming out from Saudi Arabia is another cancer. I tend to think that Pakistan is more evangelical about it, though.

    • Thanks for this clarification. I’ve always admired Singapore’s common sense rule of law. Much of the West has succumbed to Marxist-inspired ‘political correctness’ discourse, which means sensible policies that respond directly to the threat a specific community brazenly launches within Western societies. The West is not admired for this. It’s like inviting an arsonist into refinery. We either limit Muslim immigration OR ban free speech for everyone OR accept the drip drip drip of ideologically motivated murders. The fact that Western countries cannot solve this simple problem even when citizens are being routinely murdered shows how much we’ve already succumbed. If just one Western country took the immigration steps then an example would exist. Though even then we likely wouldn’t follow it. All that’s left is for individuals to act on their own behalf, which really means moving to a country that has the courage to do what’s necessary. Just try and fight back and the Western state will drop on you like a ton of bricks.

      • To allow one group to dictate to the rest of society is profoundly intolerant. So Islam knows it can act with impunity throughout the West. We either limit Muslim immigration OR ban free speech for everyone OR accept the drip drip drip of ideologically motivated murders. It’s clear the elites have already opted for door # 3.

  5. “We must halt Muslim immigration in all forms and make our countries Islam-unfriendly by banning any practice of sharia law. That is the very minimum policy that should be advocated by any serious Western political leader.”

    Don’t expect the French Liberals to adopt such views. Right now they are busy throwing the Jews under the Islam express bus. Seems the current regime is more dependent on Muslim votes than Jewish ones, so the Jews are fair game and are now fleeing France.


    The scary thing about this is how easy it was for the Left to throw a segment of their ranks under the bus. If other European Jews are smart they better think twice about supporting their Leftist associates because the same will happen to them.

    And after them who will be next to be sacrificed to appease their Muslim associates? The gays, women, drug addicts, academics, emo’s. There’s lots to choose from to throw to the Islamic jackals.

      • We won’t cut immigration tomorrow. We won’t cut it until a few more million Muslims come into the West. By then, we’ll have millions and millions inside the West. Then you guys advocate punishing them by stopping immigration? That’s like poking a hornet’s nest that’s already mad. The only solution is to round up and deport all Muslims. The West will do this, eventually, because Muslims will get so bad they will force us. The only question is not IF, but WHEN: before Muslims mass-murder a few million of us, or after?

        If the obtuse Softies in the Counter-Jihad are any indication of a barometer of the West’s retardation in this regard, it will likely be the latter.

      • i agree, let them sort out their problems first, but then ……… there’s the “human rights” advocates. the terrorists have the rights to migrate to whatever country and that country have no right to stop them.

        have you notice, when such things happens the “human rights” advocates are very silent. when a group of muslims (good or bad) are not allowed to enter a particular country or certain practices (eg. burqas), the same people will jump up and down, protest and shout at the top of their voice.

  6. Readers may be interested in my three part article “Islam is Fear” published here at GOV in 2011.

    Here is a link to part one.

    It details how Islam’s killers slowly create the fear that suffocates a society.

    Fjordman is (partially) correct. Separation of Muslims and Islamic theology from the West is necessary to save Western Civilization. The only other solution is a complete reformation of Islam.

    • Good luck with that. Any bets on how long Egyptian President al-Sisi will be alive after that call for reform?

    • Yes, your articles are absolutely spot on. Thanks for re-linking, I enjoyed re-reading them.

      It always comes back to the iterated prisoner’s dilemma in game theory: according to simulations done by Axelrod in the 1980’s, “a population of cooperators will let itself be invaded by a population of defectors”. This is what happens since the 7th century.

      A more robust strategy is “tit for tat”. The Israelis apply that strategy. You mess with them, they will retaliate. In the West, they mess with us, we piously send tweets.

      The “Je suis Charlie” movement is just a symptom of our impotence: a symbolic action designed to make one feel good.

      In the twilight of Western civilization, such a tweet is a perfect illustration of how decadent we are.

  7. Europe is fighting back – at Israel. Europe insists on Muslim Arabs staying cooped up in Israel with the Jews, for as long as they are there, they might not emigrate to Europe as do the Syrians or the Jordanians (who are the so called Palestinians). Europe provides a great deal of money , in the billions, to keep the Palestinian Authority in power, so they can keep the Arabs in Israel. Europe finances various “human rights” organizations in Israel, whose sole agenda is to keep the Muslims from emigrating from Jew-land where the Jews are figting back, to Europe which is incapable of resistance. However, the staratgem is failing. Muslims are escapijng Hamas rule in Gaza, Egyptian blockade of Gaza, and boarding the boats to Europe.

    • Who decided that enemy combatants Must be allowed to immigrate enmasse? That is mad. Certain plantation and defeat. We need to stop abortion for one and start getting honest with ourselves.

  8. Jews aee fleeing Europe, France specifically. Emigration to Israel has doubled into the thousands. They are the canary in the coal mine. Simply incredible how dense the French people are.

    • This is not just a French. Everywhere seems to be responding in lockstep relative to their level Islamic impoverishment. Check out London, Malmo, Brussels etcetra.

  9. There will be no better time to kick off a new Rosetta Stone, this time to honor Charles Hebdo comics by translating their works into Persian, Arabic, Pashto, Turkic, German, Polish, Italian, Spanish, English, etc. and publishing them online now and every memorial anniversary marking the attempt by global shariah enforcers to silence dissent on January 7, 2015.

    • Yeah but even the Japanese have mosques. Lets hope they are not doing another turn of the century protype test.

  10. There is another way. The Israelis perfected the art of constantly whacking the top guys. In the case of Islamic Imperialism in the West, this would be the Muslim clergy.

    Some firebrand Islamic preachers and “scholars” need to start “disappearing” in Western countries (and no, it doesn’t mean deportation) and the problem will scale itself back. Egypt is adopting the same tactic.

    And Imams in the West I submit are currently unused to being hunted…. Works for Israel, Russia, Egypt and Morocco. Time to start using the tactic globally.

    • Agreed, they need to start entering the road accident statistics of Western Europe.

    • But first a public trial before life in prison for the enablers who should never have alloweded a muslim corruption to happen in the first place. Needing the cash and safe havens for their flakey and often highly repulsive and illegal personal life styles is no excuse.

    • After hundreds of years of never ending savagery and constant social upheaval and merciless, heartless, Godless Muslim savagery the Spanish new that to get rid of them all period was the only way. They were humane apparently in that they just kick these rabid death addicts out. We obviously haven’t even nearly gotten the message yet.

  11. “The other alternative is the Singapore solution, where free speech is banned for everybody, including Muslims.”

    I strongly disagree. There is another option, but it will never happen.

    If freedom of speech is conducted in combination with a strong dose of brass testicles and the facts of Islam proclaimed far and wide the craven political class (Merkel, Cameron, the entire EU commission, Obama) as well as the lies of the MSM, would all be exposed and they would be thrown out on their collective ears.  

    Of course the “Singapore Solution” will happen before that ever does.

    There is one other solution: ARM THE POPULACE!  Secure 2nd amendment-style rights for European citizens (far chance). Moslems are, for the most part, cowards who would not dare to act out if there’s a chance there’s a .45 behind the door. Notice, none of the police killed in France, including the female officer gunned down (notice the cowardly manner: shot in the back) were armed.
    But, then again, I’m just spitting into the wind here…

    • “and the facts of Islam proclaimed far and wide the craven political class”

      I concur. The main problem, in my view, stems from the absurd respect Islam gets as a “great religion”, which makes it insulated from any individual act of barbarism.

      “Only people who are tough and fight back will survive”. Truer words were never written.

  12. “Arm the population” is called national service or conscription. Very healthy and gets one away from surfing the net for a few minutes as well as into real conversations.

  13. . . . . . wish I had a Million bucks to hit that Donate button for you! Love your work & Love you — write on my friend!!! –a Lady fan in America
    p.s. how about a bit on “An American Spring” (European Spring has already found a permanent place in my heart –and my Archives to forward)

Comments are closed.