Is Pope Francis indifferent to the suppression of Christianity in Islamic countries and therefore thinks somehow that never will happen in Europe? Does he believe that Christianity and Islam can live side by side? He chose Muslims over Christians to bring back into Rome in April, therefore is he part of the Great Replacement ideology like that of the EU? The article below from June 9th on galliawatch.blogspot.com is fascinating.
Bat Ye'or explains why the Great Replacement is real
Here is a response (posted 2 days ago) from Bat Ye'or to Christine Tasin, founder of Résistance Républicaine, concerning the Great Replacement that is now threatening to extinguish our Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian civilization. I have not had time to read Christine's original article in which she explains to Front National vice-president Florian Philippot that the Great Replacement is not a conspiracy, i.e., a fantasy, but a reality.
I think we have a problem concerning the definition of "conspiracy". For me, a programmed plan to eradicate a civilization is certainly a conspiracy, but one that has gotten beyond the "idea" stage, beyond the "drawing board" stage, and is being implemented every day in every way by an incalculable number of co-conspirators. If Christine Tasin and her colleagues atRiposte Laïque/Résistance Républicaine can call these people "collaborators" which they do, then why can they not be called "conspirators or co-conspirators?"
We have to accept that Christine and others regard the term "conspiracy" more as a thought or wishful-thinking than a tangible, measurable, process in full swing, fully operational, and almost impossible to stop.
Also, we must remember that when patriots denounce the government collaboration in this process they are instantly accused of imagining a "conspiracy"; so for those who want to make a point to the public, it might be better not to use the word "conspiracy", and stick to "deliberate cultural suicide/genocide", or words to that effect.
The problem you raise: "not a conspiracy but a well programmed political policy", is essential. For if it's a conspiracy, a fantasy, then everything we see and note is imaginary and a falsification of the real. But if the current situation corresponds to a programmed policy, it implies an ideology, planning, goals and responsibilities. If Eurabia represents a policy with its finances and its networks, we can break its mechanisms and stop the process of decomposition of Europe; we can judge those responsible and the brains behind it. This would be worse than a catastrophe for the European Union and the heads of the parties that created Eurabia, or that contributed to it.
I don't believe that the Great Replacement was originally envisioned in the politics of a Euro-Arab (Eurabia) union. There have been, since 1973, unexpected stages and developments that brought us to where we are now. But the political objectives expressed in the documents allow us to affirm, with near-certainty, the orientations of the European Community which are discernible in the Euro-Arab Dialogue and its promoters.
Note: The documents she refers to are those relevant to the formation of Eurabia, a post-WWII ideology that seeks to integrate into Europe both Arab culture and Islam, and theoretically to prevent wars similar to the two huge conflicts that almost destroyed Europe. What the original promoters actually were thinking is hard to say now, but we do know that these ideas spread like wildfire, especially after the Communist/Socialist upheaval of 1968.
It may be that the rupture of 1968 was of a different nature from that of the original Eurabia project, but it built very easily on that project and quickly infiltrated into the cultural genetic code of the European nations.
Bat Ye-or goes on to list five objectives of Eurabia:
1) To transform Europe into a Euro-Islamic continent, through the creation of a Christian-Muslim Mediterranean civilization, hence the affirmation that Islam is as much a part of Europe as Christianity. The adoption of an open-borders immigration policy favors the mixing of populations; as does the promotion of sister cities and similar Euro-Arab projects in the information and audio-visual sectors, in the universities, in the political and economic sectors relevant to youth.
2) Massive immigration into the West, imposed by the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation) because it is in conformity with jihadist doctrine, yet approved by Europe that feels it will destroy the nationalisms of the Nation-States and re-enforce the power of the EU over the member States.
3) Muslim immigration is the vector of fusion of the two shores of the Mediterranean and of the extension of Europe into Asia and Africa, thus opening up new markets, bases of economic and strategic control in the context of globalization. With Islam, Europe would become richer, more powerful than America and Russia, it would control the world (the fable of the frog who wanted to be fatter than an ox). In this sense immigration is the source of power and wealth.
Note: The Europeans who believe this have tunnel vision, to put it mildly. It never occurred to them that roots run deep, that people don't want to renounce their heritage, that Islam has always been inherently bloodthirsty, that the rivers really would run with blood, and that their dream of becoming fat rich despots with households of whores and slaves would end in a hecatomb of charred flesh.
I especially cringe at their dream of surpassing America using Islam as a weapon. So, the European post WWII dream of eternal peace, incontrovertible equality, perfected democracy, endless wealth, and supreme power is to destroy the country that helped them defeat Hitler. Thanks a lot.
They may beat America, but will they beat Russia? Will America ever wake up?
4) The realization of the Nazi project dear to the hearts of Hitler and Amin al-Husseini, grand mufti of Jerusalem. The Nazis wanted to destroy a Christianity rooted in Judaism and preferred Islam. This anti-Christianism was re-enforced by the Marxist vision of mixing together people liberated from religions, nationalism, and hierarchies and fraternizing in realm of the universal.
5) Seen from this angle Israel represents the Nation-State, a thorn in the side of the EU and an obstacle to the perfect harmony between Islam and a Europe that committed itself in November 1973 to construct Palestine on the ruins of the State of Israel. The tenacity of the Jewish State to exist on its national territory provoked a hidden strategic, political and media-supported war, by a Europe that had become a mercenary of international jihadism against Israel.
Note: A lot of French patriots, Catholics and others, have fallen into the trap set by the EU - they turn against Israeli nationalism, all the while longing for their own national renaissance.
The spiteful comments at so many French websites accusing Israel of being "apartheid", "racist", "theocratic" and "nationalist", coming from what are supposed to be French patriots, reveal more about the commenter than about Israel. In fact, Israel acts in its own interests, which is exactly what France ought to be doing but is not. If Israel deports unwanted immigrants, it is acting in its own interests. The problem with the French animosity towards Israel is partly religious (Jews rejected Christ, therefore the Jewish State has no right to exist), partly envy (Israel behaves as we should, but we have bad leaders and cannot act in our own interests), partly anger at Jews for their pathological and seemingly incurable refusal to break once and for all with Communism and its various tentacles: Socialism, Trotskyism, Marxism, etc… This French anger is justified: so long as large numbers of Jewish citizens of Europe continue to act on behalf of the Eurabia project, they will be hated by European patriots and will be a major deterrent to the salvation of the Nation-States. Their behavior in the diaspora contrasts with the behavior of Israel. In the diaspora it is de rigueur to work against nationalism, while in Israel the opposite is true.
So there is enough hypocrisy to go around…
Bat Ye'or goes on:
One could say that the EU and the governments that adhere to this strategy are applying a policy derived from their anti-Israel standards against the nationalist movements and those populations attached to their historical and cultural roots.
Note: To rephrase: The EU governments are treating the nationalist movements exactly as they treat Israel.
For the goal is the same: to attain the Euro-Islamic fusion through the eradication of Israel or the dhimmitude of Europe. It is this ardent wish that is expressed in the texts of the Euro-Arab Dialogue, the Barcelona Declaration, the Dialogue of Civilizations, the Alliance of Civilizations and the letters written by high political personalities, ministers, veteran diplomats, Commissioners and high functionaries of the EU. A policy clothed in a doctrine of human rights that are nonetheless extremely selective. What are rights of Christians and other minorities in Muslim countries? Or those of Israelis attacked daily by Palestinian terrorists?
To justify its iniquitous policy towards Israel, the EU modifies the terminology. The lines of the 1949 cease-fire in a war of extermination against the State of Israel by five Arab armies, re-enforced by a militia from the Arab League composed of former Nazi and Italian soldiers, Balkan Muslim and Caucasian Muslim soldiers from dislocated Nazi armies - future Palestinian refugees of the Arab debacle - these lines are designated by Europe as international borders. It is through this illegal war that Egypt, Syria, and Jordan appropriated territories, having chased out and expropriated the ancient Jewish communities of Judea.
The names of Judea and Samaria, thousands of years old, have been replaced by "West Bank" or "occupied Arab territories". A process of Islamizing the geography and the history of the people of Israel that could easily be reproduced in Europe. After forty years of a hidden Euro-Arab war to replace Israel with Arab and Islamic Palestine, we should not be surprised at the UNESCO Declaration that quite simply erases the three-thousand-year old history of the people of Israel through the adoption of a Koranic narrative that Islamizes Biblical personages. That an organization that proclaims itself to be the cultural conscience of humanity can deny the veracity of pharaonic, Babylonian, Greek and Roman sources that confirm this history is terrifying. For we have now arrived at the edge of an abyss of ignominy, not to mention the chasms swallowing up billions of dollars with, as a result, the abolition of the very meaning of culture. What can one say about the silence of the two and a half billion Christians indifferent to the suppression of their own history. For if the history of Israel, that through Jesus the Jew became the sacred heritage of Christianity, never existed, on what base does Christianity itself rest? Is it not forced to renounce the very substance of its civilization and its spirituality?
Note: The essential question. Why were Christians so quick to renounce their Christian values, heritage and culture? The collapse of education that followed the disintegration of the family is part of the answer. The other part is that they were never as Christianized as they pretended to be.
The adoption by Europe of the historical standards of the Koran reveals the Islamization of our leaders' way of thinking. Christianity, like Israel, is condemned to disappear, replaced by Islam. Hence the abandoning of Christians of the Near East, collateral victims of the Islamization of the West. The denial of the historicity of Israel implies the denial of Christianity. Islam and the Muslim Jesus are proclaimed. The war being waged by those nostalgic for Vichy and Nazism, allies of the Grand Mufti, is not limited to just destroying the legitimacy of Israel. It attacks the very foundation of Christianity.
There's more on Bat Ye'or (b.1933) at Wikipedia. Below, a photo dating from, I believe, 2007.