i also have to reiterate my position that the idea of a historical christian europe, let alone a white christian europe, is a nonsensical myth. it never existed. it is strictly a fantasy of conservatives, and of the christian upper classes that have held to it for centuries, as the entities that wrote (or rewrote) the histories, that engaged in the genocides, and that wiped out the indigenous cultures of europe in a process that started with julius caesar and did not truly end - firmly - until napoleon.

it is more accurate to talk about a failed attempt by brown romans to colonize white europe that went on for thousands of years and ultimately failed than it is to talk about "christian europe". we universally condemn the inquisition, but fail to stop for a minute and realize that there were still enough pagans in europe at the dawn of the enlightenment to justify a crusade in the form of a witch hunt against them. the church was still launching crusades against white pagans in northern europe in the 17th century. it's christmas; you are still worshiping odin and not christ and should realize it. what do reindeers and  christmas trees have to do with a barn in israel, where it almost never snows? that's north germanic pagan iconography. the romans spent centuries trying to pacify white tribes in the north and were eventually first thrown out of europe in the 4th and 5th century by pagan indigenous groups (the roman sources call it the great barbarian conspiracy; it was an indigenous uprising), in a process that repeated over and over again in waves of pagan revolutions, culminating in the last viking invasions. england itself, the alpha culture of north america, is based on a pagan law code that was introduced to the island by saxon pagans, who were still in power in england in the 11th century, when a warlord from france named william invaded it under the direction of the pope in order to re-implement christian rule. we gloss over the fact that the norman invasion of england was basically a crusade against the furthest fringes of roman/christian colonial rule, and against an island that refused to christianize. the brutal despotism that followed was the last serious attempt to enforce christianity on england, and it failed to even establish a christian legal code, as the saxons would not let go of their democratic institutions, but instead enforced a magna carta on the norman nobility that ultimately returned power to parliament, that constructed the common law and, within a few centuries, had thrown the romans out for good. the english kings were so unchristian by the late dark ages that they didn't even believe in monogamy, and figured a serial philanderer could run an english church just as well as the fucking pope.

but if there was any christianity in europe at all it was restricted to the nobility. the regular people of northern europe were never christians and spent centuries evading taxation from the christian aristocracies and fighting their feudalism, while returning to their indigenous belief systems whenever they could and suffering immense persecution and cultural destruction for it. they actually teach you in school that indigenous european cultures were illiterate and had no history, which any cursory investigation into the matter will expose as a brutal lie, but these histories were destroyed by the christian aristocracies in a process that did not significantly differ from what they did to the aztecs centuries later.

it is the fact that white europe emerged from this process of cultural destruction both uncolonized and as a cultural tabula rasa, with no history of it's own, that allowed it to make such a clean break from the past, when it did. europe had no choice but to start from scratch, because everything it used to have was taken from it by brown christians from rome and lost in ruins and engulfed in flames. europe wouldn't be what it is today if it hadn't been thoroughly destroyed by christianity, while simultaneously refusing to accept it. all the christians had to show for their efforts in the end was a pile of rubble and a population no more willing to accept it than it had been in the first place.

the result is that while white europeans won - we defeated christian colonization - the victory was deeply pyrrhic. we lost who we were in the process, and had to redefine ourselves by reading greek mythology, but we did it, we dd the homework, and we emerged as a new society with new institutions that had little to no cultural baggage tied to the past.

there are few constants through history, but one is that white people make shitty slaves. we can't be broken, and they've tried, over and over. we don't want your religion, we don't want your slavery. we'll burn your cities down, in the end, if you won't fuck off and let us live in freedom.

it follows that there is really no likelihood that muslims are going to succeed in taking control of this power vacuum left open by the forced retreat of christian colonialism, and if they try to do so, the same thing will happen. the danger is not in the uncertainty of the eventual outcome, but in enduring the hardship of struggling against a new type of middle eastern colonialism. it's a shitty way to spend the next thousand years.

europe will win in the end, but it may have to do so the hard way, and may have to endure a new dark age, if it doesn't learn from it's own history, and allows these middle eastern groups to try to walk into this vacuum and continue to try to colonize it. it's up to them how they want to do this.

it should be clear that white europeans will not, in the end, accept middle eastern religion. it spent a thousand years defeating christian colonialism and won, and it will spend the next thousand years defeating islamic colonization, if it must.

i want to be clear that, as an atheist, i have no interest in taking a side in conflicts that are developing in the west between christians and muslims. dawkins' position on this question, for example, is disappointing and wrong-headed; i would prefer to take a marxist class analysis, which dawkins would not do, but which hitchens might have, especially when he was younger. i've found dawkins to be greatly disappointing in recent decades.

due not to any enlightened social attitudes in the upper classes but due to the fact that white people fought against our aristocracies and reduced their power in law via a series of revolutionary movements going back to the collapse of rome but picking up after the fall of constantinople, the white aristocracies have largely retreated from trying to enforce christian dogma on their populations, until recently. this is not out of their own volition or choice, but because we forced them to stop, and we took away their power. this is the great victory of modern enlightened/secular european society over medieval christianity (a mostly brown-skinned religion from the middle east that remnant roman/jewish groups tried to colonize white europeans with, and mostly failed at doing) that created the modern world. this great victory of the white european masses over colonizing brown christians from rome opened up somewhat of a power vacuum, and islamist groups that are basically the same things as christians are now trying to walk into that power vacuum, which is scaring the remnant roman christian aristocracies into thinking they're being replaced by muslim aristocracies, who never faced that revolutionary back lash, and continue to viciously enforce what is really exactly the same religion on their own people using violence and coercion. that is the reason the christian aristocracies are trying to fight back now, as they are trying to protect what they see as a threatened position in society; they withdrew from enforcement, because we forced them to, which is allowing these other religions to walk in and take their place. you can in fact see that in the statistics they present, which appear to me to be valid, that show that religious belief amongst nonchristians in north america and europe is increasing at a rapid pace, while christian belief continues to decline, which is something that is being brought on by immigration policies authored not by the aristocratic elites but by the bourgeois political establishments. the bourgeois political establishments are trying to do things like increase gdp and really aren't concerned about religious belief, or the role of the religious aristocracy, that has never truly gone away, but has continued to exist in the background. this isn't an intentional attack by the bourgeoisie on the aristocracy, but rather an unintended consequence. the aristocracy is nonetheless interpreting it as an attack and responding to it as one and trying to retake control of that power vacuum before a new foreign born aristocracy manages to wrestle it from them. up to this point, the bourgeois class has largely responded to this by calling the aristocrats insane and accusing them of perpetuating conspiracy theories, but i think that a solid marxist analysis should show that the concerns of the aristocrats (from their own perspective) are very real, even if the capitalists don't really comprehend what they're doing.

but i'm neither a christian aristocrat, nor a bourgeois capitalist. i'm an anarchist, an atheist and a proletarian. the aristocracy and bourgeoisie can kill each other off all they want. i don't give a fuck; if anything, i'd egg it on, as it weakens them both, which makes it easier for an eventual proletariat overthrow of both of them.

my atheist position on the increasing tendency towards conflict between muslims and christians is really that we should step back and let them kill each other off with an eye on divide and conquer, while keeping the following things in mind:

1) our position should not be in protecting one of these communities from the other, but in ensuring that neither of them are able to project violence towards atheists or is able to mount any kind of attack on freedom, individuality or reason and

2) that our greatest threat is not this or that religionist group, but the haunting spectre of religious integration, of communalism, of syncretism and of inter-faith collusion and cooperation. our real concern should be in preventing christians and muslims from aligning with each other against us, not in taking a side when they fight each other.

the religionists, like any other groups, are stronger when they work together, and weaker when they fight against each other. the atheist position should be to step back and let them fight each other and not to try to bridge differences; it should be to get out of their way and let them kill each other off, while protecting our own from their violence as best we can, which means self-defense when required, and it will be required, eventually. for now, we're better off getting out of the way than trying to intervene.

likewise, the proletariat has no position to take in trying to protect white aristocrats from brown aristocrats, or in taking a side in a conflict between the capitalist bourgeoisie and the remnant christian aristocracy, at all. the proletariat should focus on advancing it's self interest, and avoid getting involved in these conflicts which they have no part in and no interest in. but it should also ensure it understands what is going on and is able to react to events as is required.

it is obviously true that islam is a greater threat to freedom than christianity is, in contemporary western society. but we should address that truth without getting lost in class conflicts that we have no stake in.

conservatives will always approach new things by trying to ban them. that way, things can stay the way they are now, or go back to the way they used to be, which is always the goal - identifying what has made things different, and trying to reverse it.

kids need more exposure to technology at a young age, not less. they need education, not protection. this is real life and they'll have to learn how to exist in it. those that fail, and many will certainly fail, will not succeed in reproducing or in thriving as individuals.

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/article/expert-warns-of-unintended-consequences-if-canada-implements-youth-social-media-ban/