What I was trying to point out is the fact that:

1) popular support for PVV, VB and SD will inevitably grow because of these detrimental immigration policies. There's no question about that. And when I refer to 'detrimental' I clearly refer to the maintained cynical policy of still giving Muslims first choice of immigrating, rather than choosing the sensible solution of providing genuinely persecuted people with the shelter they truly need.

2) In my mind there can be no doubt that our society will become heavily polarized (even more so than today) as long as PC/MC elites will not admit any wrongdoing and as long as they will keep this up to 'prove their point' with the mistaken concept that they can counter so-called fascism today. (and claim they are morally superior to go with it)

Both 1) and 2) are a given fact in my mind: the gap will widen. In the long run it will be us against Muslims. The PC/MC traitors will find themselves gradually at the sideline. And that is exactly what we are heading for.

As for the BNP in particular however, I am quite adamant that they are distinctly different from PVV, VB or SD. I tend to believe they are proponents of integral nationalism rather than cultural nationalism with an emphasis on pluralism. Geert Wilders has clearly distanced himself from a party that was eager to be seen cavorting with the likes of a so-called nationalist like Le Pen, who has been consistently sucking up to vehement anti-Judaic figureheads and heads of state in the Maghreb and the Middle East. VB has done the same thing and can not be associated with such an attitude. SD is not well-known in Europe as a whole and they lack profile on this issue, but from what I have read from Swedish sites and the analyses by Pamela Gellar, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest they are anti-Judaic.

While I don't really get the point you're making with reference to BNP, it is quite clear to me that Britons do not have an alternative like Geert Wilders to vote for, so they have to make do with what they've got. Which in my mind doesn't make it right, but that's not for me to decide. That would be up to the British electorate.

"If this volatility isn't released through the established political mechanisms then they will be released through anarchy in the streets of Europe."

In fact, the final conclusion you draw from that is indeed true. But again, I would say that the political elites of today are the main culprits in this context: their self-deluding policies have seriously curbed the powers of national security agencies to preserve civilized society. In fact, I agree with you: if not already politically polarized, our society risks being polarized by violence in the long run.

Political elites in the West have consistently been currying the favor of Muslims around the globe, on the taqiyya pretext of these people being self-proclaimed 'victims'. In order to make a point of desperately blocking off the influence of Islam-critical political parties, they decided to give Muslims immigrating to the West priority over any other cultural entity.

These parties have already resigned to the fact that they are inable to bridge the gap between the autochtone voters and their self-deluding attitude, and in their 'all-encompassing wisdom' they have decided not to make amends, but instead deliberately exacerbate the situation by letting Muslims serve as a militant vanguard in order to stonewall all sensible people left on the planet, who dare criticise them.

Inevitably, it's quite clear that deciding Muslims should be the 'cream of the crop' in the context of immigration was a big mistake and still is a big mistake today. These people will not reciprocate the favor by voting for these politicians in the long run. They will never display allegiance to infidels, neither will they integrate into infidel society. Neither do they feel they have to be grateful for anything we have to offer them.

We could have lived in a far more harmonious society today if politicians in the West had decided ages ago to give shelter to the genuinely persecuted cultural identities around the globe, like Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Baha'is, Coptic Christians,...etc. Alas, we have been lumbered with Muslim supremacists establishing their own political parties in order to overthrow Western values and democracy.

The PC/MC self-righteous whackjobs of this world have been sucking up to a new Herrenvolk of Muslims, and their stupidity will not be rewarded. Seeing as they have dragged common sense and civilized societies as a whole down with them, in my mind PC/MC is tantamount to High Treason ! That's what we get when PC/MC 'moral elites' want to prove a point !

"We exercised our democratic right to replace democracy....that's the law isn't it and it's done."

I bet that was exactly what was going on inside Hitler's mind when he became Chancellor of Germany. I suppose you can legitimize just about anything as long as you think it is justified. Why am I not surprised ?

"We want the occupation of Islam in the entire world. Islam does not permit democracy or election"

I would quite happily swap ANY Muslim immigrant in the West with:

- a Sikh / Hindu / Jain / Parsi Indian
- a Baha'i / Zoroastrian Iranian
- a Pakistani Christian
- a Roman Catholic Filippino
- a Thai or Cambodian Bhuddist
- a Coptic Egyptian
- a Christian Ethiopian
- any Jew
- any Turk / Arab belonging to a Nestorian Church
- Eastern Europeans belonging to the Orthodox Church
-.....

to name just a few. At least that way, we would live in a more harmonious society today where respect for democracy and individual human rights would be upheld by all law-abiding citizens in a concerted effort, regardless of ethnicity or personal beliefs. And our society would not be subjected to the real fears of being destabilized by violence and the arrogance of those who have vowed to destroy and submit us.

If only such a thing would be possible....

"Talk with any muslim immigrant and he'll complain (just like conservatives) about the west being too sexual and lacking morals."

The main difference between both however being that a Muslim would gladly resort to chopping off an awful amount of heads to counter such 'moral decay' if he gets his way in the end !

I am not denying the fact that these people just might have a religious motive to be a member of Christian parties. However, I was outlining the real reason as to why the traditional party officials are so eager to curry the favour of Muslims, which in reality has nothing to do with religion at all ! And that is something completely different, because it explains perfectly why Muslims are increasinly found in both green parties, socialist parties AND christian parties alike !

The truth behind it is more ominous than just 'attracting religious people to religious parties'. The traditional political elites are deliberately widening the gap between autochtone voters and themselves, by compensating their own losses any way they can ! They just want to cling on to their position, whatever it takes !

To think that Muslims and Christian Democrats today could be considered each other's allies, simply on the grounds that both of them would be equally conservative, is blatantly naive and shows a clear lack of understanding of the political situation in both of these countries.

In 2001 (in an interview in the newspaper Le Matin) Claude Eerdekens, the Socialist chairman of the Naturalisation Commission of the Belgian House of Representatives, admitted that his commission was granting citizenship to foreigners without investigating the applicants’ backgrounds because most of the immigrants speak French rather than Dutch. He was also quick to add “Our Commission does more for the frenchification of Brussels than the Flemings can ever do to prevent it,” Mr Eerdekens boasted. This was a clear stab at trying to minoritize the Flemish inhabitants of Brussels, which carries on up til today ! A clear reference of a man beating himself on the chest because he was proud to able to minoritize native Dutch-speaking residents in the Belgian capital !

And here lies the biggest problem: any opposition party that starts criticising detrimental immigration policies and that would gain a wide popular support among the electorate because of it, has to be stopped dead in its tracks. The self-declared 'moral majorities' on the left and the traditional political parties on the center to center-right, have taken the counter-measure of liberalizing immigration policies in order to counter parties like Wilders' PVV or VB in Flanders, because:

1) popular support for these parties has been dwindling no end
2) these parties have to compensate their electoral losses by trying to attract as many newly-naturalized immigrants as possible ! The simple line of reasoning goes like this: 'if we collectively grant these people citizenship without subjecting them to further background scrutiny, these people will be grateful and start voting for us.'

As far as I know, both in Belgium and the Netherlands all traditional parties, and the christian-democrat, social-democrat and green parties have consistently been closing ranks on this issue with the clear intent of stonewalling any potential influence the PVV and VB could gain in parliament. To make sure such a thing would never ever happen in the first place, all Belgian parties had an agreement to exclude the VB party from any coalition government, even if that forced the formation of grand coalition governments between ideological rivals. (which is called 'cordon sanitaire')

This is not going to be the end of it, because in the Netherlands, the idea of instating such a cordon sanitaire is already discussed by the traditional political elites. Should a party like SverigeDemokraterna in Sweden for instance gain as much popular support, than in all probability, such a thing would reoccur in Sweden as well,...etc.

Which means: In order to cling on to their position of power or to recover some of the electorate (like most insignificant and destitute green parties in Europe, who have lost all credibility with the local population), our politicians have opted to minoritize the autochtone population in Europe ! And that is all there is to it: political cynicism taken to the greatest heights of self-defeating lunacy !

"These players are Christians, so Muslims should not honor and respect these enemies of Allah"

Which means what, exactly ? Probably that the net will start widening: Christian soccer teams, ice hockey teams, basketball teams, rugby teams,...etc. Soon, sports stadiums will have to deal with a lot more than just plain old hooliganism, I suppose...I shudder to think.

If you want to complain I suggest you send an email to all major Belgian newspapers. But I suppose that would be too difficult for a 'eternally victimized' Muslim such as yourself, always whining about antisemitism and the likes.Besides, if someone is displaying an awful amount of antisemitism, than it would be you. Which shows me exactly what you are made of. Antisemitism today = anti-Judaism and in reality has nothing to do with with vilifying Muslims, but everything to do with demonizing Jews, which is exactly what you have done. What you want to denote as antisemitism is an outdated concept. If you want to play the victim and be a Semite any time it is convenient to make some kind of point, to just discard the notion when it suits you at any other time, then you are an effing coward and a numbskull no reasonable person has to listen to in any case. You are made of taqiyya, intolerance, and an awful amount of stinking lies.

The perpetrator's religion was mentioned both on regular MSM tv-stations as well as in all the national newspapers here ! So if I were you, I would go voicing your concerns somewhere else ! Because the mere fact that it has been mentioned here, is just a drop in the ocean.

Stupid git !