Modern journalism has forgotten Occam's Razor—a theorem dreamed up by a Medieval monk that advises against complicating your theory. In short, the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

Maybe someone can see it in this New Yorker article—I didn't. [What Can the U.S. Learn from Radicalization in the French-Speaking World? By Benjamin Wallace-Wells , May 18, 2016]It reinforces the case that a lot of tender young vibrant enrichers from Islam tend to go radical because of shabby treatment from Westerners once they immigrate. That's been THE default position of our deep thinkers for 50+ years now: Whenever something bad happens in the world, it's fault of racist, hate-filled Western butterflies flapping their wings somewhere in placid Whiteyland.

Of correlations researchers in this study found, one was that most extremists came from French-speaking countries, overwhelmingly from France itself. They go on to cite high-unemployment among Muslims now enriching the Gallic homeland, those ugly state-driven campaigns against public veil-wearing, etc., as factors in this process of alienation, then radicalization.

But isn't there a simpler factor? France is home to the highest Muslim population in Europe—6.5 million. That's almost 10 percent of the country's ENTIRE population.

Of course that fact, if endorsed (or even mentioned), would indicate encouraging immigration from the Land of the Prophet might not be such a grand idea—in spite of plaintive squeals by soft-hearted (and -headed?) open-borders fans.

Can't have that... But why? Why not even bring up the possibility for debate?