@ KA

 

1) Geography is obviously a factor, among many others, that helps 'explain' migration flows.  In today's (technological)  world it is a MINOR factor, except in cases of flows directly linked to 'turmoil' in a neigboring country.  If Syria has to bear the brunt of refugees fleeing 'chaos' in Iraq, then it certainly deserves what it got. For Syria was a major source of the 'early' chaos in Iraq. 

None of this is relevant as a response to my 2 main points which were: (a)  that Europe is entirely responsible for its own immigration policies (just like Japan, Turkey, etc...) and (b) that the removal of a vicious and cruel tyranny does not appropriately deserve "disdain" from Europeans.  On the contrary, while it may lead to "disagreement", it should at a minimum deserve 'respect'.  Today, Iraq may still (although progressively less) IMPORT instability and terrorism, under the Baath regime of Saddam&sons it EXPORTED instability and terrorism.  How quickly prejudiced westerners forget!

2) Your monthly Iraqi refugee figure is way 'behind the curve', i.e. outdated.  Irrespective of what the numbers are, there is absolutely no reason why 'Europe' should accept Iraqi refugees on any grand scale.  The muslim world is (very reluctantly) entering the very early stages of its 'Renaissance', and its internal shia-sunni wars are going to bring a constant flow of 'refugees' for many years to come.  It is utterly self-destructive for Europeans to blame Americans for any of this.  All they have to do is to let the Arabs take care of their own refugees. It might help promote more rational behavior on their part.  After all, these refugees are not fleeing from Americans, they are fleeing from other muslims.   Stop blaming Americans for Arab '(mis)behavior'.  In fact, inside Iraq, sensible Iraqis are today seeking American protection.  Under Saddam, shias were terribly oppressed, and the Kurds were being 'gassed'.  Today, the Kurds have their de facto 'independence', and the shia are not being allowed to exact their unmitigated revenge.  The Iraqi sunni today know very well how lucky they are that there is now an Iraqi government that is prepared NOT to crush them (in the same way that the shia were crushed before) and that will let them live in peace (but not rule).  And they know that they need the Americans still to 'ensure' that.  It is utterly contemptable that the naive-left Europeans know less than the Iraqi sunni about such realities, and they should first and foremost blame their 'elite' media for that.

3)  Nonsense and wishfull thinking.  You are the one with your head in the sand.  Governments simply refuse the make the hard , but necessary, decisions.  They wish such problems would go away, and it is so much easier to blame the 'Great Satan' for Europe's immigration problems. As if this problem originated with 'Iraq'. What nonsense. What an attitude of 'kopindegronderij' by the relativistic postmodernistic 'secularists' ruling Europe today! 

4) Point 4 is not worthy of a response.

5)  Sure, it is a fancy word, "multipolarity". It is also meaningless, born of unwarrented resentment and ingratitude, and you will soon be able to see what the divorce of 'law' from morality will bring to the postmodernists.  A return to the late 19th century and early 20th century. Resentment has never been a good counsel. Never! 

6) Dream on!  Stalin was "relatively content"?  Mon Dieu, how unreal can supposedly-sofisticated people become?   I cannot really personally blame you for what you wrote in your last paragraph.  For it is 'conventional wisdom' today in Europe and to some extent in naive-left US circles as well.  Your last paragraph is a monument to the human capacity to rationalise away anything. Absolutely anything, especially unpleasant realities.    

I. The destination of refugees and even many immigrants is heavily impacted by geographical factors or natural barriers. Many refugees and economic migrants to Western European states claim that their ideal destination, Canada, is too distant. Though states such as Jordan, Syria and Egypt are seemingly quite willing to allow in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi refugees (since 2003), their encampments and conditions are considered apalling by humanitarian NGOs; in addition, these refugees have only exacerbated existing demographic and socio-economic tensions. However, the close proximity of Iraq to Syria and Jordan and the latter states' limited capacity to prevent such a massive influx across their borders again underlines the importance of geography. This of course, does not preclude the primacy or importance of generous welfare state policies and programmes as a 'pull' factor.

 

II. Some 2.2 million Iraqis have fled since the start of major operations in Iraq in 2003, and nearly 100,000 continue to flee each month. So far the United States has accepted some 800 Iraqi refugees. Sweden has admitted some 18,000 and expects well over 40,000 refugee applications in 2008. This is not to say that Europe has no responsibility for its immigration/refugee policies; indeed, I have never claimed that. Instead I have stated that American-led military operations in Iraq are adversely affecting Western Europe's demographic problems by increasing the number of refugee applications and illegal aliens that it must contend with. Moreover, I am opposed to a statistically significant non-White presence in Europe irrespective of American foreign policy.

 

III. You are defending the United States against strawman assaults, marcfrans. Your emotions are clouding your judgement and ability to skillfully converse on its recent foreign policy debacles. Short of coralling all suspected illegal aliens in concentration camps and executing all those who attempt to cross their borders illegally, European states have few methods of ensuring that the Iraqis and their neighbors "face the consequences". How "principled" of you! Nor do I provide "justification" for the desire of literally billions to emigrate to the West. While you rail against the so-called New Left, you seem a product of it: unable to formulate a coherent stance or course of action.

 

IV. Furthermore, you are convinced that any group or individual that opposes your opinions is innocently misguided or deliberately conspiring to undermine your personal and social 'interests'. The corollary here is that you must be supremely intelligent, all-knowing and objective, neither of which is the case.

 

V. Certainly there are those who believe that the return of global military, political and economic multipolarity is a positive development, which is why there is support for China, despite its atrocious environmental, human rights and socio-economic inequality records.

 

VI. Western Continental Europe "survived" national socialism only because the militaries of Great Britain and its Commonwealth, the United States and the Soviet Union crushed the Wehrmacht. It only survived annexation by the Red Army because: (a) the Soviet Union was war-weary; (b) Stalin was relatively content with the Soviet sphere of influence; (c) the United States, though also war-weary, was prepared to use atomic weaponry to halt any further Soviet advance; and (d) domestic welfare statism and anti-communism helped to allay the possibility of home-grown communist revolutions.

traveller: The competence of Putin is comparable to the competence of a vulture in picking a corpse...The little Russia he has awakened through ruthlessly clobbering foreign investment is now limited to auto-financing and his chosen oligarchs do not believe in straight investments, they believe in stealing other's investments. Bad choice of an example of intelligence.

 

If you recall, I stated: "my views on the War on Terror are in line with those of Putin, who seems far more competent in dealing with the Middle East than the Bush administration." Kindly take note that the War on Terror, Russian-Middle Eastern relations and Russia's foreign policy with respect to the Islamic world are narrow subjects. Nowhere did I claim that Putin was "intelligent" or that his domestic policies should be admired and/or emulated by the West.

 

atheling: Kapitein Andre lied; his credibility died.

Again with your ridiculous fallacies. Europe can be completely responsible for its immigration/refugee policies and crises, and simultaneously decry those policies of non-European states that create and/or exacerbate these crises. Certainly Finland was and is responsible for its environment, however, this does not preclude it from reacting angrily to the Chernobyl disaster. So no, there is no "lie" here nor even a contradiction. I'm afraid your commentary is somewhat less than stellar. While your right to post freely, etc. must be respected, you are wasting your time and energy on the Brussels Journal. The BJ has little need for posters who regurgitate the opinions already expressed in its articles or commentary nor for ones whose debating skills consist of little more than bizarre personal attacks.

You're the Rosie O'Donnell of the Brussels Journal...

 

@ Atheling

 

....of Jesse Jackson on the TBJ?  Or....the 'Reverend' Sharpton? Or, is it...lawyerly games at the previous O.J.Simpson circus (sorry, 'trial')? 

Kapitein Andre said:

"Europe is bearing the brunt of the refugee crisis created by Iraq's invasion and subsequent spiral into anarchy and civil war."

marcfrans said:

"Europe is entirely responsible for its own immigration policies and crises, and nobody else."

Kapitein Andre said:

"Did I say that it was not?"

Kapitein Andre lied; his credibility died.

........

 

4) I see, in your view strong "disdain" derives from "disagreement".  How come Europeans in general (and certainly not their media) do not feel "disdain" for the Chinese or the Cuban authorities?  I suggest that you got it BACKWARDS.  The disdain preceeds the disagreement.  In fact, the disdain even explains the disagreement partially!

 
5) Indeed, I am a very different 'European' than you.  I was raised in a part of Europe (and at a time) that respected freedom of speech of EVERYONE, and that tolerated radical criticism (and I mean radical, not the current 'legally constrained' one).  That still understood WHY it had survived nazism and fascism, and why it had escaped the clutches of Stalin.  I was raised in a Europe that was less resentful, and less racist. And in a Europe that seemed not intent on commiting suicide (behind ideological facades of false 'tolerance' hiding extreme intolerance and perverse cultural selfhate).

@ KA

1) Yes, you did 'say' that.  You did imply that Europe is not totally responsible for its own immigration, by blaming the USA for the presence of Iraqi 'refugees' in Europe.  And this has nothing to do with "mountains and oceans, etc...".  The essential reason why these 'refugees' are in Europe, and not in Japan, India, the USA, Brazil, etc... is because these countries put up 'barriers', whereas Europeans are not prepared to make the Iraqis and their neighbors face the consequences of there own 'actions' (in the sense of their own culture or society's behavior patterns).  There is a big difference between helping a person that is being 'accosted' in front of you, as opposed to opening your doors to the rich and the skilled (rather than forcing them to help build their own societies).  And it is very hypocritical for (some) European governments making today deals with the oppressive ayathollah regime in Iran, while refusing to help in any substantive way its neighbor that is trying to establish something more 'tolerant'.  It is of course also hypocritical on your part to constantly criticise immigration of "nonwhite people" to western countries, but suddenly to find this immigration quite 'understandable' when it can be somehow associated with USA-bashing.  You are very shortsighted and unprincipled, indeed.

2) The mass media is NOT telling (in any "significant extent") the 'new' story of refugees returning to Iraq.  It is telling it, here and there, reluctantly, on page 17 in small print, etc....and you know very well why.  And of course, "vast numbers of Iraqis" do not want to emigrate to Syria, etc... Most of Africa, Asia, and South America wants to emigrate in "vast numbers", and certainly not to Syria.  Understandably. Do you think  that 'conditions' in much of Africa (Eastern Congo, Kenya today, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Ethiopia, etc..), in Mexico's drug wars, in Pakistan, etc...are any better than in Iraq?   But I have never seen you providing justification for this "emigration want" before.  You seem only willing to bend your manifest 'racism' a tiny bit when it can serve to gratify your self-destructive anti-Americanism.

3) Ah, we have finally arrived at the famous "National Intelligence Estimate".    I am sure Norman Conquest could refer you to some serious sources about that, as opposed to the misrepresentations you are parroting from the naive-left media on that.  You obviously do not know how a real democracy operates, and you do not understand how shallow 'certain lefties' and other nonpatriots can be.  But, you should know that when "various American legislators and military officers" declare something to be a "civil war" that does not mean that there is a civil war.  You would be well advised to consider where the political interests of these "various" people lie.  Few recent major federal documents have been more falsely mis-commented upon in the media than this National Intelligence Estimate.  And the day that the intelligence services of France, Russia, Germany, China, etc...COULD publish PUBLICLY any policy document that COULD be construed (in one sentence or another) to undermine the public policy of their own government, then perhaps we could say that 'democracy' has finally arrived in any serious sense in those countries.  In any case, this episode of the NIE illustrates how much Bush has failed in restoring 'order' in the intelligence world after Clinton gutted American intelligence in the 1990's.  Think about it!! Foreign intelligence is supposed to be SECRET in a world of enemies, and yet you are parroting falsehood straight 'derived' from an official intelligence report!  See, to what naive-leftism can lead, even in America!

 

marcfrans: Europe is entirely responsible for its own immigration policies and crises, and nobody else.

 

Did I say that it was not?

 

marcfrans: They are not fleeing to Japan, India, the USA, Brazil, etc... because there are 'barriers' to that...

 

Yes, including mountains, oceans, rugged terrain and long distances.

 

marcfrans: By the way, refugees are returning these days to Iraq. But the naive-left media is not yet telling that story to any significant extent.

 

Actually the mass media is telling that story. It does not alter the fact that vast numbers of Iraqis want to emigrate, and not to Brazil, India or to camps in Syria, Jordan, etc.

 

marcfrans: Second, there is no civil war in Iraq today. At least not yet. And if there will be civil war in the future, then the responsibility for that will rest EXCLUSIVELY with Iraqis. The US did not go into Iraq to create civil war.

 

Au contraire, the National Intelligence Estimate and various American legislators and military officers have referred to the sectarian violence in Iraq as a "civil war".

 

marcfrans: While it is quite understandable that people can disagree on difficult issues of foreign policy, there is no justification for European "disdain".

 

Actually there is: the reasons I mentioned. The disdain in question is the emotional reaction from strong disagreement on foreign policy.

 

marcfrans: The removal of a terrible totalitarian regime (the Baath regime of Saddam & sons) is not a proper action to "disdain".

 

It is interesting how the United States chooses which "terrible totalitarian regimes" to remove...

 

marcfrans: The latter better be reserved for those European governments who actively helped to make the Iraq war inevitable by directly undermining the UN-mandated sanctions regime, and thus to undermine their own public Security Council positions.

 

I'm not one for applying labels but I have to say that your comments are positively anti-European. I certainly hope that you are an American citizen, because if you are indeed European, you are a self-loathing one. Whereas the same cannot be said of the military operations in Afghanistan, those in Iraq have proved a colossal blunder, and one state in particular is responsible for stirring the hornets' nest. And no, it is not France.

   

marcfrans: P.S. If it is any consolation, your views on 'Iraq' are very much in line with those of the new darling of the naive-left media, Obama. Although I doubt that Barack would want to be associated with 'racists' like yourself in any way, shape, or form.

 

How touching! Actually my views on the War on Terror are in line with those of Putin, who seems far more competent in dealing with the Middle East than the Bush administration.

@ kappert

Quote:

In ancient China,the keeper of the Imperial Library,Lao Tzu,was famous for his wisdom.[Perceiving the growing corruption of the government,]he left for the countryside...and was never heard of again.

 

Are we currently witnessing an example of  'Pupil' imitating 'Master'?

@ Hauptmann Andre

You wrote that Europe "rightly" disdains American policy in Iraq.  And you based that on 2 false claims: refugees and civil war.  That is very much 'popular thinking' (induced by the naive-left media), but it is also absurd, highly-prejudiced and morally defeatist.

First, Europe is entirely responsible for its own immigration policies and crises, and nobody else.   If there are many 'refugees' in Europe, it is because they are attracted by Europe.  And if they are attracted by Europe, it is because they know that they will get in.  They are not fleeing to Japan, India, the USA, Brazil, etc... because there are 'barriers' to that (although the issue of the Iraqi waiting-list is being heavily debated in the US Congress at the moment).  The brunt of the refugee crisis is borne by neighbouring muslim countries, and rightly so, since they have fomented 'chaos' to a considerable extent. They should face the consequences for their own actions.  By the way, refugees are returning these days to Iraq.  But the naive-left media is not yet telling that story to any significant extent.  For ideological reasons of anti-Americanism they will wait as long as they can possibly do so and still retain a shred of credibility 

Second, there is no civil war in Iraq today.  At least not yet.  And if there will be civil war in the future, then the responsibility for that will rest EXCLUSIVELY with Iraqis.  The US did not go into Iraq to create civil war.   If the Germans did not engage in civil war after the "US invasion" in 1945, that is also to the Germans' credit. 

While it is quite understandable that people can disagree on difficult issues of foreign policy, there is no justification for European "disdain".  The removal of a terrible totalitarian regime (the Baath regime of Saddam & sons) is not a proper action to "disdain".  Just like the removal of the Hitler regime (or any other totalitarian system) is not something that deserves disdain.  Disagreement perhaps yes, but not disdain.  The latter better be reserved for those European governments who actively helped to make the Iraq war inevitable by directly undermining the UN-mandated sanctions regime, and thus to undermine their own public Security Council positions.   

P.S. If it is any consolation, your views on 'Iraq' are very much in line with those of the new darling of the naive-left media, Obama. Although I doubt that Barack would want to be associated with 'racists' like yourself in any way, shape, or form.

Re: My latest question.

 

Kappert: "What's a blog for?

Personal opinions".

 

What does my question seek to elicit from you?

 

A  PERSONAL opinion.

 

So,Kappert,what is YOUR "personal opinion" on this specific issue?

Senocak: Even if most Muslims refuse to face this truth, terrorism comes from the very heart of Islam, arriving straight from the Koran. […] You do not encounter the true face of Islam at the Conference of German Islam. You find it in countries like Pakistan. That Islam launched a world war. But the world acts as if it never heard anything about it. For many of our contemporaries, the battle is being waged far beyond Turkey. But in the modern planetary village, there is no "far beyond". There is only a "right on your doorstep." […]

 

Terrorism is a tactic, a type of unconventional warfare. One could say that the Qu'ran preaches aggression and war against non-Muslims, but not that it is a terrorist manual per se. Furthermore, changes in immigration and refugee policy, as well as a few well-positioned military outposts along the more vulnerable stretches of Europe's coastline would make the Mediterranean seem like quite an ocean, as opposed to a mere stream bisecting the global village.

 

Senocak: But the free world only watches, paralyzed.

 

Did the United States, United Kingdom and other Western countries not embark on a "war" against Islamic terrorism?

 

Senocak: American policies in Iraq set off and continue to feed much disdain in Europe.

 

And rightly so. Europe is bearing the brunt of the refugee crisis created by Iraq's invasion and subsequent spiral into anarchy and civil war.

 

Senocak: When it comes to criticism, Europeans are really unsurpassable. But when it comes to new ideas and political concepts, there is a vacuum. European politics confronted with Muslim terrorism wears itself out trying to undermine all concrete actions.

 

Unfortunately, no "new ideas" are going to resolve neither the tensions nor inevitable clash between Europe and Islam. Old but perhaps useful ideas include the elimination of economic dependence on Muslims or Muslim states (esp. where energy is concerned), repatriation (incl. forcible if necessary), prohibition of the practice and worship of Islam, forcible assimilation of the existing Muslim minority into European socio-cultural norms and of course ethnic cleansing. Terrorism as a tactic is very simple to deal with. Either one ensures that the prosecution of the anti-terror campaign and its comcomittant casualties are borne by an auxilliary group (e.g. Northern Irish Protestants, the Northern Alliance, pro-Russian Chechen paramilitaries) or one annihilates the demographic that is the cause of the terror campaign (e.g. Hama, Syria). Of course, one can attempt to reduce tensions that lead to politically-motivated violence, although such attempts usually have mixed success.

 

Senocak: Some want to negotiate - with Hamas, with the Talibans. They offer nuclear reactors to Qadhafi, they roll out the red carpet for the Saudi sovereign.

 

This is realpolitik in action. Hamas is likely to take the same path as the PLO and IRA. The Taliban cannot be completely ruled out because: (a) aside from its Islamist ideology it is also a nationalist organisation for the Pashtuns; and (b) its domain spans both sides of the Afghan-Pakistani border. While Gaddafi seems to have calmed down recently, one cannot forget his wild and crazy days...And despite my dislike of the Saudis, they may be keeping the lid on a dangerous Islamic pot.

 

Senocak: ...terrorists of Islam win one victory after another.

 

Not really.

Q: If I should ever decide to renounce my Christian faith,why should I choose to follow the teachings of Lao-Tse rather than the teachings of Islam's prophet,Muhammed?

If what you say is true,and bearing in mind that "truth is ALWAYS a fiction",is this a "good" thing,or a "bad" thing?

In a previous post, Kappert encouraged me to learn more about Lao-Tse(presumably so that I could gain more knowledge about the old boy).When I do this,one of the first things I discover about L-T is that he taught that seeking knowledge is one of the bridges to hypocrisy.Finally,it turns out that Kappert,a modern day 'disciple' of L-T's is a teacher himself.And what do teachers do? They garner and disseminate knowledge. Am I missing something here?

Kappert,meet Abdallah

 

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1322.htm

 

If you think marcfrans shows disrepect towards Asian philosophy, I suggest you try going head-to-head with this gentleman.Try telling Abdallah that

 

* "Truth is always a fiction"

* "There is no such thing as 'right' and 'wrong' "

* or that Lao Tse means more to you than his prophet,Mohammed.

 

You do that and I quarantee he'll separate your yin from your yang, quicker than you can say," Chi, that hurt!"

@ Kappert

 

I could not DISagree more with you. Where did I say that "truth" is fiction?  On the contrary, I wrote that you and I are mostly incapable to "COMPLETELY fathom the truth".  That is almost the opposite of what you think.

Let me illustrate.  I am definitely technologically 'challenged'.  I do not understand how electricity 'works' or what it really 'is'.  But I am convinced that there is electricity, and thus that there is "truth" about electricity, which many people much better (but still incompletely) understand than me.   Similarly, you and I may make 'mistakes' when facing moral dilemmas - because we can only INcompletely fathom the truth about human nature.  That does NOT mean that there is no right or wrong, or good and bad.  It simply means that you and I have a hard time at making the right distinctions or judgements.

Just like the Kapitein's racism and egoism, your 'eastern' mysticism is a cop-out.  It is a form of (easy) moral abdication.  It means you do not have to think hard or do anything.  You have the temporary luxury of being "peaceful", behind the American umbrella (which eventually will be taken away).  

It's not every day that one can see the 'folies bergeres' (or is it the 'folies de jeunesse'?) in action on the Brussels Journal.  But Kappert's 'Wortspielerei' has managed that feat. While I would be the last one to make fun of serious thinkers as Descartes, Kant and Hegel, Kappert's gobbledygook (which is clearly copied from some existing text) is totally IRRELEVANT for answering Atlanticist's question.

Hint for Kappert.  Just like it says in your gobbledygook: "Everything is basically one despite the appearance of differences", there is "truth".  But your (and mine) INability to completely fathom the truth, cannot be hidden behind a facade of irrelevant gobbledygook.  It is better to try to answer Atlanticist's question (in an intelligible way) than to put fancy words in a row to make a meaningless whole.

I knew that. ;

 

btw Please,don't you stop giving 'em the Corporal Jones treatment either.They really do NOT like it up 'em!

Let's leave David Carradine out of this shall we?

 

Also,and for the sake of argument,let's assume I previously knew nothing about anything else you wrote about in that rather lengthy response.All I wish to know from you is this.If there is no "right" or "wrong","good" or "evil",and "everything is basically one despite the appearance of differences",why do you ( sometimes,at least) proffer personal opinions on ANYTHING offered for discussion here at the BJ?

Do you "agree" or "disagree" with the Senocak quote?

Are Senocak's observations "right" or "wrong"?

/ "correct" or " incorrect"?

Does Senocak make "Good" or " Bad" points?

"I say this without really looking at the evidence presented".

 

Sounds like the kind of thing Kappert might say.Which reminds me,where is that Shaolin charlatan? I'm missing him already.

Only twice in succession,then I believe it's called MOONING!

As that great British philosopher and high street butcher,Lance-Corporal Jones used to say,"They do not like it up 'em,Mr Mainwaring?"

http://www.phill.co.uk/comedy/dadsarmy/

Keep digging, old fox, you have almost exposed the 'empty shelves' inside Kappert's mind.  He has also discovered a "fundamentalist".  Where?  In Arabia? In Turkey, in Germany, in...?  No, in the White House!!  This is the same foolish "fundamentalist" who - right after 9/11 - went on all TV stations to declare Islam a "religion of peace" which had been "highjacked" by "a few" bad people.   "Mon Dieu", the Kapitein would (rightly) say!

So,you finally accept the charge that,in your world,right and wrong,good and evil, does not exist,do you?

 

I'm glad that you're studying. Taoism does not need distinction between good and bad, right or wrong, as it does not work with dualism. Taoism follows the current of water which creates an equilibrium, reaching thus a peace of mind and tranquility. Keep on reading!

I wonder,who is misleading whom? On a previous thread,kappert asked me to "see Lao-Tse".It appears Kappert is into L-T in a big way.Well,here's what I found.

 

"From the Taoist point of view,Confucian virtues of humanity,righteousness,knowledge,and wisdom are seen as bridges to hypocrisy.This is because these virtues make DISTINCTIONS BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG,a concept which is ABSENT AND UNNECESSARY in Taoism.In further comparison,Lao-Tse emphasizes peace of mind and tranquility of spirit,whereas Confucius emphasizes moral perfection and social adjustment..."

[Emphasis added].

 

http://www.thenagain.info/Webchron/China/LaoTse.html

The anger of Mr Senocak seems to be related to the invitation of Middle East leaders by Mr Brown and Mr Sarkozy. In another site (http://www.foreigner.de/in_zafer_senocak.html) he gave the statement:
"I don't think that there is a conflict between Muslims and Christians. There is one within the Muslim world and one global conflict due to the insecurity caused by globalization, when people search for any miraculous teaching. That is possible within Christendom, too, like in the U.S.A. After all, we have a president in the White House which we would call fundamentalist, if he would be a muslim."