The European elite are entirely intent on crushing their native populations. Macron seems to be trying to not defend the French people, Christianity, or French culture, but French secularism.
Fact is, Secularism will lose to Islam in the long run. Secular atheistic Europe believes in nothing. And so has nothing ultimately to defend.
This is a problem / result of childishly naive / stupid take on "tolerance" and "diversity" - namely the assumptions, and the permissive attitudes resulting, that we should "tolerate" all world views (regardless of what they stand for, but only in case of designated victims, very much not so for political opposition), and that "diversity" of ideals and values is inherently good (again, ignoring what these ideals and values stand for if espoused by said victims). All while at the same ignoring
actual content of "values" and "ideals" that "designated victims" - be it immigrants or Gypsies (as a culture rather then ethnicity) for example -
actually hold.
This usually goes with "designated victims are inherently innocent and can do no wrong", so when they do something wrong, Pavlovian response is "clearly, it's the oppressive society that
made them do it, it's not their own fault." With a side "we must solve this by even more diversity and inclusiveness".
It is also hilariously ignorant (wilfully mind you) attitude of "no tolerance for intolerance", but "covering" only the (supposed) "intolerance" of "natives" (whites in Europe), while completely ignoring possible absence of reciprocity from / intolerance of imported "cultural enrichers".
All in all, the notion that the
high ideals of tolerance, diversity and inclusiveness might not be universal, and thus universally held and respected, simply
does not compute. It causes cognitive dissonance that Muslims* from more reactionary cultures might hold rules mandated by their religion above secular rules (hence supremacy of Sharia over secular law).
Alcibiades over at SB once wrote (albeit in different context):
"To continue the digression (sorry) the US, USSR, and modern France were all founded on revolutions that believed themselves to be democratic (though none of them would be considered such by modern Western standards). And not just democratic in the sense of having some other governmental system. No, the new system was supposed to be the culmination of history. Coming out of the Enlightenment, the presupposition is that everybody wants to be free and democracy is the realization of freedom. Wanting to be free is part of human nature. Therefore, everybody wants democracy. To tie this into Syria and US (Soviet, post-Revo French) foreign policy in general, this means that everybody in the world wants to be like the US (or USSR, or France). Therefore, any conflict gets interpreted as one good side that is for freedom, and one villainous side on the wrong side of history that is keeping the freedom down. The job of the US (USSR, France) is to support the freedom-loving side. So there must be liberal democratic freedom-loving rebels in Syria and we should support them. If you say that there aren't any lib-dem forces in Syria, you are a racist or something, because Syrians are people and therefore want freedom and by denying that you are saying that Syrians are inferior."
Which hits the issue on the spot. Just replace "democracy and freedom" with "tolerance, diversity and inclusiveness" and you're golden.
Liberals think themselves good people, who stand on the "right" (well,
proper in this context might be better...) side of history, who embody the culmination of history. Or as Marxists would say, "historical inevitability".
Based on and in addition to the above, Liberals stand for tolerance, diversity and inclusiveness. These are the culmination of history. Therefore, all people simply
must stand for the same values, as these, by being "historically inevitable" constitute said culmination of history. With a side of "and if they don't, well they just don't know what's good for them, don't worry, we know better, we'll
make them for their own good".
Therefore, all the "culturally enriching" immigrants are likewise assumed / believed to certainly
want these same thing. They simply
must do so. For immigrants / other cultures to
reject these "lofty goals" outright would both demean / deprive these of their agency, if not basic
humanity (for all humans must want / share the same progressive ideals), and even worse, mean that Liberals
aren't on the "correct" side of history. Both are utterly unacceptable, the latter especially.
*About adherence to Islamic Law, as I saw a preacher say about "moderate Muslims": "how can you be a
moderate Muslim? Can you be
moderately pregnant? Can you be
moderately a man, or a woman? Either you are Muslim or you are not."
www.nbcnews.com
abcnews.go.com
nypost.com
www.malaymail.com