Thursday, August 18, 2016

Europe's Dark Hour

From Chronicles:
To his credit, Herr Spahn at least admits—in referring to “what would come upon us”—that some kind of problem exists. Not so Germany’s ambassador to the Court of St. James’s. Talking to the BBC in the immediate aftermath of a series of deadly attacks by Muslims in Germany last month, which had seen 15 people killed in eight days, H.E. Dr Peter Ammon claimed that the 1.1 people that came to Germany last year have tried hard to integrate: “We see signs of gratitude, we see signs that these people are making their best effort to integrate and of course it is costly. It takes a lot of time and effort but it is working.”

“Signs of gratitude”? Dr. Ammon is deluded and evil in equal measure, but the evil side now prevails. He claims that being grateful to the infidel for any act of kindness—opening the gates of one’s continent to the self-assertive multitudes—is a Muslim trait, but he knows that it is not. Yet he continues lying on a Clintonesque scale. His head will be chopped off with equal zeal and pleasure as that of his less self-hating compatriots. Dr. Ammon does not know, or (far more likely) knows full well but does not care – because he lives in a different world – that far from being “grateful,” Muslim invaders heartily despise Germany and the Germans for being such supine, unmanly, rapable suckers. What exactly is “working”? The inability of unaccompanied young German women to visit public spaces and facilities, such as railway stations, without fear of being gang-raped by wolfpacks of Muslim youths, is certainly working. Nothing else is.

Dr. Ammon further insisted the attacks had nothing to do with terrorism, and that mental health issues were currently the real concern in Germany: “The debate in Germany is not about migrants or even Islam, it is a debate about the growing incidents of mental illnesses among young people . . . [I]f we look at the background of the people who perpetrated these crimes, we see a huge difference so it’s quite clear that in one or two cases we had to deal with people with who are mentally ill. They are not connected to the ongoing debate on terror. These are very different cases.” Thanks to the good Ambassador now we know. That the attackers were all Muslims screaming Allahu akbar!, and in 75% of the cases recent arrivals, is irrelevant. Suggesting a link with Islam, migrants, or terrorism is wrong (actually polizeilich verboten). And his suggestion that “the debate” is what he says it is displays a mix of totalitarian propensity for thought control and wishful thinking. It is on par with a Soviet apparatchik claiming, in 1937, that the “debate” in Moscow is whether the traitors condemned by Vyshinsky is whether they should be shot or hanged. (Read more.)

No comments: