Given the financial and circulation problems that the American Spectator has endured, Mr. Orlet's opinions are of little import.

wikipedia: " The American Spectator is a conservative U.S. monthly magazine covering news and politics "

You would not know it from reading Christopher Orlet's piece.
I don't think support for muslim immigration is really a conservative position.

Firstly, it is interesting how Orlet holds equal both "Islamic separatist-terrorist groups" and "ultra-nationalist, pro-indigenous militias". The implication here is that both sides are equally responsible for such conflicts as he mentions, irrespective that European Muslims constitute a non-European element according to every measure (citizenship/nationality aside) that counts e.g. common ancestry, history, language, culture, etc. Therefore, Europeans are expected to "put up" with Muslims "raising hell" and should they resort to violence to protect their communities, automatically lose the moral highground.

Secondly, Orlet seems more concerned with "forestalling" violence than Muslim dominance in Europe. He seeks a synthesis of the European and Islamic civilizations that could for a variety of reasons only result in further Islamification. Western Europe's demographic inferiority, coupled with its self-destructive policies and programmes associated with anti-racism, anti-nationalism, internationalism, liberalism, socialism, multiculturalism and political correctness ensure that the Islamic side will dictate the lion's share of the new togetherness.

Christopher Orlet doesn't get it.  In Western country after country Muslims with the Left doing their bidding are the ones crushing dissent and free speech. Look no farther than what is going on in Canada with their free speech muzzling Human Rights Commission. (Mark Steyn's blog is a good place to look as he is a victim of Islamic gamesmanship with the CHRC.)   Muslims have been playing skillfully into the soft underbelly of socialist rot with their pc fascism.  Any dialogue regarding Muslim immigration is smeared as racist. Orlet is grossly uninformed.  You have to be brain dead not to have connected those dots over the years.  He is long on vacuous rhetoric and short on logic and facts.

To imply that Germans are substituting Muslims as new victims of racism because there aren't any Jews in large numbers in Germany is disingenuous and disgusting, the typical rhetoric of a lefty moron.

The choice of words, if nothing else, portrays the author as a true Dhimmy. If Western culture is to survive, it has to stop the influx of muslims, and get rid of all the Saudi funded wahabbist/salafist lobby groups and institutions, as well as the likes of taqiyya-specialist Tariq Ramadan.

"In a few years Muslims will be the voting majority in several European cities."

The author is correct in that, and if Europe wants a snowball's hope in hell to not become a Sharia continent, this has to be prevented at all cost. VB is not far right. VB is not even ultra-national. VB just names a very real issue, like Geert Wilders in NL does.

Islam views 'democracy as a vessel that can be used until its goal has been reached'.