German Law Professor: “The problem is with the Muslims”

It would seem that Russia Today now provides far more objective news about EU countries than the mainstream media outlets based in those countries themselves. The following is a fascinating interview with Karl Albrecht Schachtschneider, Professor of Law at Erlangen-Nurnberg University, in which he outlines his reasons for believing that the concept of a European superstate was doomed to failure from the outset. His most interesting and indeed ‘contentious' comments come at 4 minutes and 1 second into the interview, in which he talks about the failure of multiculturalism in European societies, with specific and direct reference to Islam as being a hostile and unassimilable system of belief.

Following German politician Thilo Sarrazin’s groundbreaking honesty about Islam and multiculturalism in contemporary Germany, it is heartening news to see another German of high social standing make the same points. In England however, it remains impossible to voice such views without having your career destroyed. Are we beginning to witness a gradual awakening on the part of some mainstream figures in European nations with respect to the real ideological and demographic threat of Islamisation? If so, when will they call for practical action to remove this problem?

A transcript of the latter part of the interview taken from the Russia Today website is reproduced after the interview. 

RT: Multiculturalism has failed, say European leaders. But what are the actual consequences of that failure?

KAS: If by multiculturalism you mean people from southern Europe, Germany, northern Europe, Hungary, Poland, Russia, all European nations, living together, then no, it has not failed. There is no problem at all.

The problem is with the Muslims. It’s not the people who constitute the problem, but Islam. And Islam comes with Muslim people. They build active groups that promote Islam and advocate the establishment of Sharia law. And Sharia law, particular its criminal section, is absolutely impossible for European relationships. We have religious pluralism in Europe and not a single religion is dominant. But Islam is the religion that tolerates another religion as long as it has no power. 

Secularization was the biggest political event for Europe. It meant thatstate and church were divided and no one is entitled to impose its religion. Iam determined against any tolerance of Sharia law. But it has nothing to dowith tolerating Muslim people.

Dissecting the BBC's irrational Credo

There is something deeply, viscerally irrational about the BBC's treatment of any issue that might reflect badly upon multiculturalism. Multiculturalism, for some reason, has come to be hardwired into the BBC’s memeplex. Consequently, its analysis of the news and social issues is governed by an emotive hysteria that dictates that reason must be swept aside if it conflicts with its idealisation of its multiculturalist utopia. So, if anyone wishes to hear alternative viewpoints about multiculturalism, indeed voices which are genuinely critical of this phenomenon, then it is necessary to turn to other sources.

Strangely, Russian media are now more often than not more objective about social processes unfolding in the UK and other European nations than our own electronic media. The BBC today is no more reliable than Pravda was pre-glasnost. This observation, although particularly pertinent to the editorial line of the BBC, can be more broadly applied to all mainstream electronic and print media in the UK at the current time.

There are a number of irrational beliefs that from which BBC reporters rarely deviate:

• multiculturalism is always a good thing
• open borders (British, European and Western ones) are to be encouraged
• there is no substance to race: it's just skin deep
• ethnic and religious minorities never cause problems, but always 'enrich' the societies in which they reside (unless they happen to be whites)
• there is only one race - the human race - and yet there is such a phenomenon as 'racism' perpetrated exclusively by whites (thus negating their assertion that there is no such thing as race)
• the expression of national determination and sovereignty in non-white or Muslim peoples is always a 'good' thing
• the expression of national determination and sovereignty in white peoples is almost always bad (unless it involves Irish republican terrorism)
• all whites are guilty by dint of their race, and have a 'duty' to atone for their historical 'sins' through systematic abasement before other races (which remember, don't exist as the BBC believes only in the human 'race')
• all 'blacks' (an extremely widely defined and elastic concept so that anyone swarthy can be included) are treated as innocent victims with 'rights' until proven otherwise
• Islam is always to be referred to in a positive light, and anyone who criticises it, in a negative one
• Equal rights for women and homosexuals must be promoted at all times, except when dealing with Muslims or referring to Islam, when the BBC's militant stance suddenly melts into the ether and hard-core cultural relativism takes hold and such 'cultural differences' are to be 'celebrated'

There are many other core irrational and harmful beliefs which permeate the BBC's mental universe and reporting, but a more considered analysis of these will have to wait for another day. However, there are alternative perspectives on the 'issues' listed above, as can be seen from the following videos. The first of these is taken from Russia Today, which unlike any BBC interview on the topic, which would feature heartfelt, shrill hectoring of the interviewee by the interviewer, is pleasantly civil in tone and balanced. The BBC is neither civil nor balanced when dealing with questions of culture, ethnicity, religion or race. The second piece is an interview with Jared Taylor, who presents his views upon the impact and future implications of multiculturalism and its associated policies in the USA. Watch both clips, and see what you think. How do they compare to the material that is produced by the BBC? Which is more balanced and objective?