I’m reproducing the transcript of parts of a talk I gave in Geneva last November at the Latsis Foundation Prize Ceremony on “European Identities.” This excerpt deals with how different European countries have dealt with Muslim immigrant assimilation, and the second excerpt will discuss the lack of identity at a European level.
Let me then move on to the question of European identity and why this has posed a particular problem for Europeans of this generation. As I said, European identity is problematic because the whole European project was founded on an anti-national identity basis. It was intended to get beyond the national selfishness and antagonisms that characterized 20th century European politics. And therefore, there was a belief that there would be a new universal European identity that would supplant the old identities of being the Italian, German or French. But it was also the case that these old identities never disappeared even though politically they are not something that anyone spent much time talking about. Particularly on a popular level, I don’t think that any citizen of a European country during the intervening decades ever forgot that they were indeed German, Dutch, Danish or Swiss.
The ghosts of these old identities really became a problem with the influx of immigrants and the growth of immigrant communities that did not necessarily share traditional European values. I think what the violent terrorism did was to suggest to the people that they are those in the community that do not share basic values that people had grown up with, that they were fundamentally hostile and willing to use violence in order to undermine that sense of community. Therefore, the question of identity and national identity, “what is it that you owe to the community that you live in?” comes to the fore.
There has been, in fact, a tremendous variation in European responses with very different impacts on the degree of integration and success in creating national identity across different countries in Europe.Let me just give you these different examples of France, Germany, Holland and Britain.
French national identity is in one sense the least problematic because there is one republican tradition coming out of the Revolution, a tradition that is laique that treats citizens equally. In many respects, the French concept is the only viable one for a modern society that grounds citizenship not in ethnicity, race or religion but in abstract political values to which people of different cultures can adhere.
French national identity is very much built around French language. I always found very impressive that Léopold Senghor, the Senegalese poet, was admitted to the Académie française back in the 1940’s, something that is indicative of the way French see their identity. If you spoke French and if you could write beautiful poetry in French that qualified you for the Académie française. Therefore, that republican sense of identity has underlined French citizenship.
A lot of people pointed to the riots that occurred in the French banlieues back in 2005 as evidence of an Islamist threat existed in France itself. I think that this is a complete misunderstanding of what happened there. There was an Islamist threat coming out of Algeria in the early 1990’s that was largely dismantled by the French intelligence services. What was going on in the French banlieues was very different. These were people that did not reject French identity; they in fact believed in the goals that the French society set for them but they were not allowed to achieve them. They could not get jobs; they were barred by racism from access to opportunities that white French people had and that was the source of their unhappiness. It was in many ways much more comparable to blacks rioting in American inner cities that has happened on numerous occasions in recent US history. And by the way, I think of all European countries, in many ways, the French are closest to the United States in having a set of political values be at the core of identity. Both of those examples show the way what that could be in a broader European context.
The German case is very different. German national identity evolved very differently from France. Partly due to the fact that the Germans were scattered all over Central and Eastern Europe, the process of German unification required definition of Germanness in ethnic terms. So legally their citizenship law was based on the legal principle of jus sanguinis. You become a citizen not if you are born on German territory, but rather depending on whether you have a German mother. Up until the year 2000, if you were an ethnic German coming from Russia, you could get citizenship far more easily than if you were a 2nd or 3rd generation Turk that had grown up in Germany, spoke perfect German and did not speak Turkish at all. Germans have changed their practice but the cultural meaning of saying I am German is still very different from the cultural meaning of saying I am French. It has a connotation that is more deeply rooted in blood. This means that when Angela Merkel says that multiculturalism has failed in Germany, I think she is only half right. She would be quite wrong to describe that failure one-sidedly as an unwillingness of Muslim immigrants and their children to want to integrate into German society. Part of the failure of integration comes from the side of the German society as well.
Then we have two very problematic places: Holland and Britain. In Holland, national identity has always been defined by the pillarization (verzuilung)of Dutch society, its division into protestant, catholic and socialist pillars. The Dutch are famously tolerant but it’s a strange kind of tolerance. They tolerate people as long as they do things over there but not in my community. In a certain sense, it was a natural thing for Muslims to start arriving in the Netherlands and to create their own pillars, since that’s the way the Dutch themselves were organized. This lead to the emergence so-called “black” schools, in which you have only Muslim students with no opportunities to interact with native Dutch people. I think this has been one of the important obstacles in promoting faster and greater immigrant integration into Dutch society.
The failure of immigrant assimilation has in certain ways been the greatest in Britan – the European country that went for multiculturalism the most whole-heartedly. This was based on a mistaken interpretation of multiculturalism. In Britain there was a belief that pluralism meant you have to respect the autonomy of individual immigrant communities. The government had no role in actively trying to integrate them into a broader British culture. I had a colleague Robert Leiken who wrote a book called Europe’s Angry Muslims, that will be published in the United States very shortly, which gives some fascinating statistics in terms of the number of members of minority groups recruited into extremist organizations. In terms of the number of attempted violent acts by members of this community on a per capita basis he notes that Britain has the highest rate by far – much higher than in France, Holland, or Germany. The reason for that was that the British approach to multiculturalism that simply left radical imams to preach in their local communities without any interference from the authorities and without any effort by the state to actively use the education system to produce people that have allegiance to the British state. Again, the British have changed these policies in the last few years in the light of the subway bombings and other terrorist acts. But there is still a very problematic relationship between that country and its immigrant communities.
Now, if we look across these different examples which one of them is more successful? In light of what I said I don’t it should be a surprise that I think the French have been most successful. It’s a little bit hard to judge these things because it also depends on the absolute size of the immigrant communities. I do think for many reasons that the republican, liberal political identity that France is promoting is the model that needs to be followed by other countries. Bassam Tibi, who is a scholar at Göttingen University, is the inventor of the term Leitkultur, which was then later used by the Christian Democrats in Germany as a definition of what they wanted to immigrants to assimilate to. Leitkultur was misused but he has a very similar idea in the back of his head as French republicanism. By contrast, the British have had the worst experience because in a sense they have not addressed the question of national identity at all and they have not tried to form a political identity that would accommodate people with very different religious and cultural backgrounds.
Pingback: Assorted links — Marginal Revolution
Francis,
French nationalism may have led the way with a laique tradition based on language, civic virtues, in brief, republicanism, but the initial formation of the French nation included many violent conversions to those standards, specifically of the non-French speaking minorities in France. And as you pointed out, France’s recent riots were grounded in a feeling of hopelessness among the maghreb immigrants – lack of hope to ever become accepted and integrated. While Britain has large numbers of cosmopolitan figures acting visibly in the media, it has been pointed out at the time of those French riots that France didn’t have a single TV personality of non white origins (I don’t know to which extent this was or still is true). Immigrants are publicly invisible. And Senghor, fair enough but let us not forget, was a French subject at the time.
But I do like very much that you reinterpret France in a refreshing, different way from the mainstream media “consensus”. In many ways I always found France the most “American” European nation, in terms of feeling – a large country, a can do attitude, independently minded people. I think it’s no accident that de Tocqueville was so interested in America. The political system is the largest difference.
Mbk,
I happen to be a rare case of French with 19th century Japanese origin. And I live abroad.
From watching French television and reading French papers, I don’t agree with you that “France didn’t have a single TV personality of non white origins” nor that “Immigrants are publicly invisible”.
Back in 2005, Harry Roselmack and Audrey Pulvar – who are both Black French – were – and still are – respectively anchorman on the 20.00 TV news on TF1 (main French TV) and anchorwoman on FR3 (the 3rd French TV). And when looking the names of the reporters like Morad Ait-Habbouche, Yasmina Benguigui or Rachid Arhab, who was an anchorman in the 80s and 90s and now a member of the French Television Regulating Board – CSA -, I find it even harder to pretend that immigrants are publicly invisible on French TV.
It just let me wonder if you are regularly watching French television or just see it a few time a year.
I lived and worked in Paris for a few years in the early nineties, and used to go for dinner weekly in the Rue des Rosiers (IIIeme). This was the most visible of the Jewish centers in Paris, which was then full of Jewish shops and restaurants. When I visited last summer after a long absence I was shocked to discover that were almost all of them had packed up and left.
Possibly, France did better than the others, but for the Jewish communities in those countries it is already too late.
What do you mean ?
The Jewish community is well integrated in the French community and is quite mixed – president Sarkozy is a typical example, with a Jewish mother and an Hungarian father.
Rue des Rosiers was a touristic attraction more than anything else. I am also sorry not to go eating at Jo Goldenberg there (where I still went back in 1999), but I dont think it was grassroot. You had many old people there who are now retired. The Goldenberg were old and so their waitress.
@mbk: Being a French atching TV, I can assure that the sentence “France didn’t have a single TV personality of non white origins” is factually wrong. Harry Roselmack ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_Roselmack ) is the most obvious example. However, there is clearly a bias towards white men.
But Roselmack was appointed in TF1 in 2006 and the riots were in 2005. I can think about Nagui or Audrey Pulvar for TV personnalities of non white origins prior to 2005. But it’s true that there is a huge bias which is even more striking in the political area.
If France manages to increase the opportunities for non white people, the model can be relatively good. It seems to me that the way the education system is set up, children from culturally rich background are higly advantaged. For instance,entry to some top universities (Grandes écoles) or competitions for civil servant position require a test of general knowledge. It is a real barrier for children from foreign origins who do not acquire this knowledge at home. The decision of Science Po Paris to abandon this practice goes in the right direction. http://www.lefigaro.fr/actualite-france/2011/12/12/01016-20111212ARTFIG00659-descoings-joue-a-fond-la-carte-de-la-discrimination-positive.php
Roselmack and Pulmar were already visible back in 2005 before the riots.
Mebbe names like Rachid Arhab (former presentator on FR2 in the 90s) or Ait-Haddouche or Benguigui ring you something ?
Germany and the Netherlands each only got one paragraph. I already knew that the Netherlands had problems with radicalism (though to a lesser extent than Britain), but Germany seems relatively free of that. On what grounds is France deemed to have been more successful? Granted, we can’t attribute all differing outcomes to differing policies. The immigrants themselves are also different rather than being one homogenous mass of “Muslims”.
French muslim immigrants and their descendants hail predominantly from North Africa.
Germany’s from Turkey.
Britain’s from Pakistan, India, Bangladesh etc.
I respectfully suggest that the different interpretations of Islam in sections of the source countries, alters the preceptivness of the radical members of the immigrant communities to adopting extremist ideaology.
Conclusion, I think it reasonable to expect more extermists originating from the British immigrant communities, irrespective of government policy.
A very good point.
Pingback: First Links — 1.11.12 » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog
I think one point missed is that in continental Europe there has always been a centrist tendency of the state telling people how to live their lives. In the UK that has been much less the case, with a larger emphasis on individual freedom. So there has always been an inclination to let people, and communities, do what they want even including inciting violence. “Speakers Corner” is, i believe, a unique place and institution.
I visited Paris a month ago and agree that it could be a good place for non-white people to stay for one single reason: it seems that the white local people has vanished, being nowhere to be seen, specially the young ones, so non-white could feel entirely at home.
I would say the same for Marseille.
Pingback: Dagens anbefalinger | Hedegaard
I have a number of Sikh and Hindu friends who where from Britain, It seems that those groups assimilated into England relatively easily. I don’t really understand why the Muslims were so less successful.
So, basically, the Muslims cause problems in every European country they immigrate to, but in each case it’s the Europeans’ fault, even though, as you note, a wide range of different integration approaches have been adopted and all have failed, and non-Muslim third-world immigrants don’t cause the same problems? A ludicrous analysis. The only reasonable conclusion to be drawn from this set of circumstances is that the problems are caused by the Muslims, not the Europeans.
But in the USA muslims have integrated relatively well, though in the last decade conservatives have gone on a crusade against them.
Eduardo – that’s nonsense – no such “crusade” against Muslims in the USA. Certainly there’s little patience for burkha/chador etc outfits and other practices that demean women – those run counter to US beliefs.
Take a look at the number of Christian churches in all of the Middle East – compare that with the number of mosques in the US – then tell me where the crusade is.
The people of most nations have a natural tendency to believe themselves superior because of their culture, religion and way of life. Such a belief not only makes for a healthy dose of national pride, but also serves as an immune system rallying the people to fight off invasions and maintain their way of life.
Today in the First World however, liberals attack such beliefs in their own countries as reactionary and dangerous. Those who do believe that their country is better or that their culture is better, are mocked as ignorant, stigmatized as bigoted and routinely compared to Nazis. This is the liberal reductio ad absurdum which reduces all forms of pride in one’s group, any sense of cultural worth and national exceptionalism to jackboots and straight armed salutes. Pinning all the blame on the “National” half of National Socialist, while completely overlooking the “Socialist” part, which had a good deal to do with the economic problems that the Nazis decided to loot their way out of, not to mention the centuries of historical context that made Nazism what it was, was a convenient way for globalists to attack nationalists for reasons that had nothing to do with WW2. And everything to do with their ideological belief that the Nation-State was the great enemy of human progress.
But what happens when people (like muslims) who do believe that their culture, their nationality and their religion are superior immigrate into nations where the host population has been taught that they are no better than anyone else?
Contrary to liberal dogma, the result can never be tolerance. Only intolerance. And when the cultural and national sense of superiority of new immigrants is encouraged, while that of the native population is discouraged, conflict is inevitable. Under such conditions, assimilation and adaptation are out of the conquest. Why would you want to adapt to an inferior culture? Why would you respect people who don’t respect themselves?
Violence by new immigrants is met by appeasement which only feeds an existing superiority complex. Liberals treat every act of violence as a response to discrimination by a racist host society, that must be remedied with more benefits, apologies and kowtowing. A process that only convinces the new immigrants that they really are superior. Because for all the talk of tolerance, they are entitled to special privileges, that the natives not. New immigrants who come from cultures where there is no notion of equality, and a wide gap between the high and the low, may accept tolerance from their betters, but not from their inferiors. Tolerance and charity from your inferiors is an insult that must be answered by showing them their place.
If liberals treated all cultures, all nations and their historical narratives of greatness as equally invalid, the results would still be disastrous, but less incompatible. But when for example, the American narrative of heroism in the Alamo is disparaged, but the Mexican narrative of heroism in the Mexican-American War is celebrated and affirmed– then a clash of cultures is inevitable.
So too when European colonialism is depicted as evil, but Muslim colonialism (like in Spain or the Balkans) as beneficial, there will be conflict, rather than peaceful co-existence. Rather than defanging nationalism, liberals only cripple the nationalism of their own home countries, while encouraging the nationalism of the new arrivals. Little wonder then that Europe looks the way it does, gradually becoming a muslim continent. Sarkozy is being depicted as the embodiment of evil, because he’s trying to evict illegal gypsies from encampments in France. Israel is being roasted over the coals domestically, because it wants to deport some of its migrant workers, who have managed to drop their own anchor babies in the country. Arizona’s governor is being compared to Hitler for trying to check the immigration status of criminals. Cameron’s immigration cap is meeting with Liberal Democratic hysteria.
The common denominator is that First World countries with very generous immigration policies are being depicted as monsters for trying to exercise some very limited authority over immigration. The United States is a country of immigrants, France and England are filled with refugees and their children, and their children’s children. Israel has taken in everyone from Sudanese refugees to Vietnamese boat people. But somehow it’s never enough. Because domestic liberals will always insist that immigrants from more backward parts of the world, have more rights than the country’s own citizens, particularly than those citizens who used to be immigrants and actually paid their dues. Instead liberals prefer refugees, bordercrossers and migrant workers, often with shady backgrounds and little to contribute except social problems.
And their only real argument is the same old reductio ad absurdum. Deporting gypsies is bad, even if their presence is illegal, because the Nazis deported gypsies. Arizona checking immigration status, again no different than the Nazis. Going by such talking points, you might get the impression that the Nazis were bad because they deported illegal immigrants, not because they were genocidal mass murderers who tried to conquer the world.
Except of course virtually every country with a functioning government deports people who are in the country illegally. Sometimes it imprisons them. A country that does not control its own borders or make any distinction between citizens and people who just wander on in, is arguably no longer a functioning state.
And that is the central point of controversy. Whether nation states will continue to exist as entities with representative governments empowered to manage regions by their native populations, or whether they will give way to regional and global organizations that do not represent citizens, but the welfare of anyone and everyone in the area. The left favors accelerating the breakup of First World states using population transplantation. The less compatible the new immigrants are, the more social problems they bring with them, and the more hostile their disposition toward the natives– so much the better. Because the goal is colonization, not integration.
In its day, the USSR deliberately mixed together population groups, deporting and transplanting different groups, where they would be perpetually in conflict with one another. Uzbeks and Koreans, Russians and Estonians, Chechens and Kazakhs, and so on and so forth. These policies bred a great deal of needless conflict, which still continues to this day. But this Divide and Conquer policy kept different groups at each other’s throats where they weren’t a threat. The Soviet Union did not invent this tactic, it was carried over from the Czars, and was an old tactic of empires. To break up the national resistance of a native population by colonizing it with foreigners.
But the tactics of empires have a way of turning on them. Today Russia’s future is Muslim, a future that its Ex-KGB rulers embrace in order to keep the Chinese at bay. Europe’s future is not the EU, not even Eurabia, but something closer to the Middle East, a squabbling mixture of angry peoples who are united loosely by Islam, but cannot stop fighting each other long enough to form the much heralded Caliphate. The future is no better for America, where Mexican nationalists will find themselves fighting African-Americans, Hmong and others who won’t be nearly as enthusiastic about Reconquista once the multicultural facade comes off, revealing Mexican nationalism, and second class status for everyone else.
Liberals have been calculatedly trashing the free market social advancement and legal equality that made it possible for so many different peoples to call America home. On American shores, nationalities who couldn’t stand each other at home, learned to get along. Not because they were forced to by the diktat of some committee, or an educational campaign on tolerance featuring celebrities, but because fighting no longer made sense. They did not for the most part cease to be French, Scottish, Italian, Irish, Jewish, Japanese and all those things, but they could be those things without having to fight each over them.
Legal equality and advancement through a free market, meant that fighting each other no longer offered any kind of advantage. Working hard and co-existing with others did. At least it didn’t until the 1960′s came along, and suddenly being a member of a victimized group and willingness to riot in the streets became very advantageous. The American experiment fragmented into a gang war, in which success was a badge of shame demonstrating that you were either one of the oppressors or their lackeys, and failure proved that you were the victim of the man. And the American middle class, that great engine of social change that had served as a firewall against socialism, began falling apart.
Being American used to mean a sense of optimism and confidence in the future. Now it has come to mean always being willing to say sorry. Americans are denounced for denying history, for refusing to admit their culpability and for not being sensitive enough to everyone else’s feelings.
The great triumph of liberalism has been to hijack a formerly optimistic culture, and transform it into a pessimistic one, feeding it nightmares about nuclear war, global poverty, pollution and global warming. Snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory, they successfully turned the American dream into the American nightmare. Liberal culture took an America which had been the symbol of commercial triumph, and forced it to see itself as its enemies saw it, glutinous, barbarous, ignorant and violent. And that pattern has held true across the First World, from Australia to Italy. Only a handful of nations with a great deal of national integrity and resistance to outside influences, such as Japan, have been able to resist being force fed this mirror history of themselves, in which everything that they valued proved to be a crime of one sort or another.
But the greatest lie is the one that liberals tell themselves. In their self-deception they actually believe that Muslim immigrants will see the EU as a different breed of horse, from the nation states they are hard at work dismantling. They never stop to ask themselves, why in the world would Muslims regard the EU as any worthier of their respect and submission, than the governments of England and France? To Muslims, the EU is a means, not an end.
Having successfully discredited the histories and cultures of the countries that gave birth to the EU, the left has also discredited the EU itself. Within their ranks, a United Europe might be an event of almost religious significance, but to Muslims, it is nothing more than Europe squared. And if they are taught contempt for the countries and cultures of Europe, why should all of them piled together be any different? What the EU is to the Eurocrat, the Caliphate is to the Muslim. An inspired union that transcends the old laws and norms. And if they have to give their loyalty to something, it will be the Islamic Union of the Caliphate, rather than the secular European Union.
The situation is no better in America, where every value and tradition is being replaced by a vast bureaucracy and codes that no one knows or understands in their entirety. Without an American patriotism, or a history worthy of respect, there is no bond but that of a popular culture that is saturated with celebrity scandals and the ceaseless tabloid shriek of fame being offered fleetingly to ordinary people who manage to become elevated to a meme of their own. Without legal equality, ordinary people no longer have rights, but connections to people within the bureaucracy who can help them out. Without a free market, the best strategy is to employ those connections to make money off the government. And such a system naturally pits ethnicities and races against one another. Without law or mutual interests, such conflicts will eventually be settled with violence, as they were in urban areas during the seventies.
Without universally respected laws, the final argument is always force. And the more that argument is used successfully, the more it will be used in the future. The Tough on Crime eighties combined with the economic recovery of the nineties helped check the worst of it in America. But without economic prosperity, only force is left as a counterweight. And force requires that you be willing to use it. Meanwhile Europe is headed into the teeth of that same storm. Before the next decade is through there will be a lot more burning in Europe than cars, entire cities will burn. The left has empowered the use of violence as a tool of social change, over market economics. But their romanticism of revolutionary violence will lead to a revolution that will have more in common with Iran and Pakistan, than with the storming of the Bastille.
The left has fed the superiority complexes of refugees and migrant workers, even as it has marginalized and criminalized the superiority complex of the natives. It has done this in the name of tolerance, but the collision of two groups, one of whom has a superiority complex, will not lead to tolerance, until that latter group takes power. Then it may bestow some tolerance on those who were its former rulers, but are now its subjects.
Pingback: ĐỐI THOẠI ĐIỂM TIN NGÀY 13-1-2012 (Web Đối Thoại) « Ngoclinhvugia's Blog
Pingback: Đối Thoại Điểm Tin ngày 14 tháng 1 năm 2012 | bahaidao
Pingback: Đối Thoại Điểm Tin ngày 14 tháng 1 năm 2012 « doithoaionline
Pingback: Tương lai đế quốc Mỹ | Dahanhkhach's Blog
Pingback: SUGGESTIONS FOR READING: VOLUME TWENTY TWO. « THE LORD OF THE WORLD
Pingback: Vredno branja
Pingback: Europe’s failing elites | The Warped Mirror
Pingback: ĐO LƯỜNG CAM KẾT CỦA HOA KỲ ĐỐI VỚI KHU VỰC CHÂU Á-THÁI BÌNH DƯƠNG | Dahanhkhach's Blog
Pingback: Hyperlinks | Rules of Reason
“The reason for that was that the British approach to multiculturalism that simply left radical imams to preach in their local communities without any interference from the authorities and without any effort by the state to actively use the education system to produce people that have allegiance to the British state.” Is there any evidence that this is the reason that Britain has a higher rate of young Muslim radicalisation than the 3 other countries discussed, or is this just the author’s opinion? it seems a mighty stretch to me to attribute it to this factor only.
I think this is a very poor article from such a respected scholar. As other commenters have mentioned, there is no attempt to integrate the many other factors into the grossly-generalised assertions. For example,
1) the dominant ethnic origins of the immigrant communities discussed (South Asian for the UK, Maghrebin for France, Turkish and Maghrebin for the Netherlands and Turkish for Germany
2) the differing political traditions in the 4 nations – it is absurd to state that the UK should be more like France in this respect; it is counter to British concepts of liberty to demand that people conform to a certain national ideal of citizenship
3) the relative success of other communities at integrating into the host society – Hindus and Sikhs have been mentioned in the comments, but also Black African and Afro-Caribbean communities in the UK; Afro-Caribbean, Indonesian in the Netherlands, Afro-Caribbean, Indochinese and North African Jews in France; and on a counter-note the difficulties at integrating the Russland Deutscher in Germany.
For me the author conflates radicalisation and lack of integration. There are problems with integration of certain muslim communities that have been there from the start of mass immigration in the 1950s. But the US, often cited in these types of articles as having a much more successful Muslim assimilation, has not experienced anything like the same relative numbers of Muslim immigrants.
And I believe that the greatest drivers of radicalisation amongst young Muslims in these countries have been: the neo-con shenanigans of the governments of the US; overt UK and Dutch support thereof; the hypocritical interference of the French state in the political affairs of its former North African colonies. Germany has mostly stayed out of this and that is why its Muslim youth is less radicalised.
Montanareddog – “neo-con shenanigans” – what are you talking about? The Dems and the GOP are equally active in our foreign wars – doesn’t matter who’s in office.
As I said in another post here – take a look at the number of Christian churches in all of the Middle East – compare that with the number of mosques in the US – then tell me who is radical.
Pingback: La integración pendiente | El Café de Pascal
Pingback: Evropejka sem. Ja, in?
You could definitely see your expertise within the work you write. The world hopes for even more passionate writers such as you who are not afraid to say how they believe. At all times go after your heart.
Pingback: Stari zapisi
Racist sknaheid louts or ultra-rightist thugs clash with their darker complexioned counterparts on the streets of Paris, Amsterdam and Milan. Such is Europe. Such was always Europe, cynics say.
Hey there, You’ve done a fantastic job. I will certainly digg it and personally recommend to my friends. I’m confident they’ll be benefited from this website.
Pingback: hints for reflection | Pearltrees
Hey you chip monk stay away from Hungarian politix, mind your bag of rice you retard !
J Palinko
Pingback: European Identity and Teacher Education: IP Udine « Sebastian Müllers Blog