It is absurd and ridiculous to intervene against dictators and terrorists and fundamentalist extremists in the Muslim countries while at the same time allowing such people increasingly to take over Europe through mass immigration.
The neocons’ bomb democracy has only made things worse in the Muslim world. It is not just wrong in itself. It has also been totally counterproductive.
The U.S. and the European countries should build up a sufficient defence, and then simply leave the Muslim world alone. The latter would be happy to sell all the oil we need (although this need very definitely does not have to be in the future what it is today), and it would cost nothing compared to the wars.
And then the Muslim world might also follow the example of a truly exemplary West, and move towards its own moderate, creatively traditionalist, alternative form of modernity.
The left is particularly repulsive today (and of course revealing its true nature), suddenly supporting with self-righteous moralism the American Empire which always used to be its main enemy, and after having defended or kept silent about Gaddafi for decades.
Daniel Hannan:
Dennis Kucinich:
Björn Söder (in Swedish):
Jack Hunter:
Jan Olof Bengtsson 
I am not sure why you are assuming muslims are “taking over” like one big united group. I dated a muslim girl two years ago, she’s now a close friend. In London we walked past a BNP table, and the guy spat at her.
She is not part of any “conspiracy”, she loves this country, she isn’t radical. She isn’t “taking over”.
Mass migration is the result of one thing; global inequality. If you build a ten foot wall around food and wealth, those without food and wealth will always build an eleven foot ladder. Closing borders off to labour, yet opening borders to food and goods and capital, is only ever going to result in mass migration. Nationalism and Capitalism breed mass migration. The only way Capitalism and Nationalism try to cope with its internal contradictions; is fascism.
If we want to live in a Capitalist society, then arbitrary national borders based on abstract concepts like “nationalism” are irrelevant and massively contradictory to the economic system.
I’m not assuming Muslims are taking over “like one big united group”. Your Muslim date disproves what I say? Is this serious? I too know many wonderful Muslims. But because the immigration is “mass”, it also includes others, and all of the familiar cultural and social problems which, together, are in fact in many places experienced as a “taking over”. Yes, mass migration is definitely the result of global inequality, poverty, capitalist politics, ideology, interests. What you say about this is right, but incomplete. I very definitely do not want to live in a capitalist society. Capitalism is a monstrous, onesided exaggeration, allowing capital and the market unduly to dominate society. There is also a defining relation between fascism and capitalism. But this must not be simplified. Nationalism was historically also a strong component in the communist resistance against fascism. The concept of nationalism may be defined in different ways, but all concepts and definitions are abstract. There may or may not be something wrong in applying an abstract concept of nationalism to politics, depending on the definition and the nature of the application. But nationalism (the referent of the concept) can be more or less abstract, and nations and nationality are highly concrete historical entities. The borders of nations are in some but far from all cases arbitrary and – whether arbitrary or not – based on nationalism or concepts of nationalism. They do indeed increasingly contradict the capitalist economic system.
Läs också Jonas De Geers roliga parodi på bombgalningarna:
http://jdg.motpol.nu/?p=1596
Och Tommy Hanssons ofrivilliga parodi på bombgalningarna: