On Tuesday 20th December 2016, an Islamic refugee hijacked a lorry (after killing the original Polish driver of the vehicle) and crashed it into the peaceful German Christmas market killing 12 and injuring 49 people. The symbolism of the horrific event could not be starker: Christmas is a core part of white identity and it became a target of death and massacre by third-world immigrants that were graciously allowed into the country.
One could object that the terrorist, the plotters and the enablers were only focused on attacking a crowd of people, so the notion that they were targeting the Christmas market qua Christmas market loses its force. This objection misses its mark, the notion of sacred and traditional cultural events, such as Christmas for Europeans, is that under no circumstances are acts of war or terror to be enforced onto places of cultural community or religious places of worship. Attacking a crowd of civilians is never fair game, but it would be unthinkable to attack cultural events, such as Christmas markets, to the European worldview as this is supposed to be an unbreakable prohibitive deterrent. Thus, this massacre laid bare the cultural incompatibility between the European and Islamic third-world immigrants in symbolic and physical form.
Poignantly, this horrifying event happened in Germany: the leader and initiator of allowing the third-world immigrants into the heart of Europe. Angela Merkel is personally becoming acquainted with the wisdom of the adage “you reap what you sow” with her disastrous immigration policies. Calamitous immigration policies have catastrophic consequences. Terrorism, however, is only the mass media public relations damage to European countries from mass immigration. Europe and Germany has faced a barrage of crime, civil disobedience and violence since the adoption of unrestrained multiculturalism and mass immigration
The Germanic Chancellor of death herself, Angela Merkel, accurately summed up one of the prevailing moods of the situation.
“It would be very difficult for us to learn that a human being committed this deed who came to Germany to ask for refuge and asylum.”
It is difficult for the populace to learn that a refugee that asked for asylum in Germany, spat on the European traditions that helped mould the country, and repaid the generous population by murdering 12 and injuring nearly 50 at a time when Europeans celebrate love and family. I can think of better ways he could have been grateful to the Germans and repaid their generosity.
You’re correct Merkel, we should be upset that refugees raped, harassed and committed sexual assault to nearly 1,000 of your native women in Cologne. You’re correct Merkel that we should be upset that 10 people were killed in the Munich shootings in and around McDonalds and the shopping mall, with 36 injured. This is without mentioning the stabbings on trains and the sexual assaults at music festivals. This is only what we know about and what has managed to be reported, it is also only the public face of the destruction caused by mass immigration and the migrant crisis. Most of the untold damage to the native citizens and allies of colour of Germany and Europe is wilfully ignored and unexpressed due to fears of intimidation, violence and job loss. It is the clichéd “elephant in the living room” that non-ideological whites are afraid to discuss.
Of course, White Nationalists feverently oppose this migrant crisis within Europe, yet even the most deranged Liberal could confidently state that none of these refugee attacks would have happened in Europe without letting them through the front door of Europe. So, to the umbrella of the Left and the Liberal’s that fiercely kvetch about protecting the livelihood and lives of others: hasn’t the time come where it is at least an open question whether mass immigration into European countries is a good thing for Europe, the native population and the society. When refugees reap destruction into your society by claiming large welfare, raising racial tension in society, increasing crime in the cities and towns, committing massive rates of sexual assaults, rapes and harassments, shooting civilians in midday and ramming a truck in a peaceful and beautiful Christmas market, surely it is atleast an open question whether they benefit Western civilization.
The time has come for deep and thoughtful questions on the Left have to be asked whether on a cost/benefit analysis, opening our doors to refugees has been worth it. Anyone Liberal that opposes even questioning the assertion that mass immigration may not be an automatically positive virtue is succumbing to religious fundamentalism. The religious cry “Diversity is our strength” is the humanitarian atheistic version of “Allahu Akbar”
Responding to the Berlin Christmas terrorist attack Nigel Farage tweeted rather aptly:
“Terrible news from Berlin but no surprise. Events like these will be the Merkel legacy.”
Brendan Cox replied to Mr Farage
“[B]laming politicians for the actions of extremists? That’s a slippery slope Nigel.”
Brendan Cox is the husband of the murdered MP Jo Cox. Jo Cox was murdered by the supposed Neo-Nazi, White Supremacist, Thomas Mair a few days before the historic Brexit referendum, when Britain chose to leave the soft totalitarian EU to regain its national sovereignty. On 1.00pm 16th June 2016, Jo Cox was stabbed multiple times and shot by Thomas Mair outside a library in West Yorkshire. Thomas Mair, it has been strongly hypothesised, was acting from the belief that he was about to lose his rented accommodation to third world migrants entering the UK from policies that MP Jox Cox was vigorously campaigning for.
Thomas Mair, despite his heinous actions, had the perception (rightly or wrongly) that he was losing something valuable to him, whilst the third-world refugees should be grateful that they have been un-democratically granted access to the white western world where they reap untold suffering and destruction.
Brendan Cox is claiming that if Angela Merkel is responsible for the actions of the refugee Islamic extremists then Nigel Farage is just as responsible for the actions of nationalists that supported Brexit.
If you think the claim from Brendan Cox is just is absurd as it sounds, then you would be correct – it is. However, this is the new tactic the Left have begun to hunker down on in response to the overwhelming terrorism from the third-world twenty-five-year-old, apparently, children. So it deserves attention.
Is Brendan Cox correct in his assertion that Farage is just as responsible for extremists as Merkel? This criticism appears identical to the argument: White Nationalists are just as bad as the Islamic terrorists/ the far-right are the real threat!
The strongest argument versus this Liberal defence is to simply play the arithmetic card, since when it comes down to it, it’s a number’s game and the numbers will always be on our side. Just comparing the amount of deaths from terrorism by White Nationalist groups in European countries compared to the third-world immigrants due to the migrant crisis will suffice to settle the debate once and for all. Can the single death of an MP really compare to the 12 dead (49 injured) in the Berlin Christmas market attack – especially in a world obsessed with the notion of equality? Doesn’t this make the Christmas Market attack atleast 12 times worse! Going further, does the single murder committed by the nationalist – Thomas Mair - really equate to the murder, maiming, wounding, raping and physical violence committed to thousands of people across Europe from the influx of mass immigration?
Of course, I do not condone any violent actions from White Nationalists unless the circumstances especially demand it, however the actions of a white citizen in a white country should be automatically looked upon differently than that of a non-white refugee. It should be obvious why? It is the homeland of the native white citizen. A murder from a native compared to a murder from a refugee are ethically comparable on the local act, say the act of committing murder, but these actions are not comparable on a larger perspective of running the native society. Criminal behaviours of the native population can be internally criticised but the population cannot be extradited from the country. On the other hand, third-world refugees can easily be exported from the country and barred entry into Europe. A logical consequence of this (if you want to run your society in a sane manner) is that suffering and destruction committed by refugees is by necessity unnecessary and constitutes extraneous suffering. So, since third-world refugees murder, injure, rape and commit sexual assault at rates incomparable to the native nationalists they should be barred entry into Europe. However, this would even be the case if refugees committed less suffering and destruction to the native population than the native nationalists.
Suppose you’re not convinced by this reasoning, take the reins of this thought experiment. If roles were reversed and European whites were the refugees in Sub-Saharan Africa, should we expect these Africans to deport themselves to be replaced by us because they committed more crime? Alternatively, if we committed any unnecessary crime, especially violent crime, should we expect to be deported and barred from entering Sub-Saharan Africa? Should we expect the natives to hold the same attitude to the violence committed by themselves to the violence committed by the refugees, who should be grateful to the granted asylum and respite to the troubles that follow them in Europe? Hopefully the answers to those questions were intuitive and obvious.
In our age of the dying leviathan of multicultural egalitarianism, Brendan Cox’s assertion that Nigel Farage is just as responsible as Angela Merkel for the actions of the respective extremists is guilty of being a false equivalence. Obviously, third-world immigrants cause untold misery on Western Civilization and Europe in contradistinction to White Nationalists. Moreover, we should have different attitudes to violence from those that we offer refugee asylum compared to those who are natives; to the former we should adopt a rule of zero tolerance as a group whilst the latter should only be severely condemned for their actions as is commonplace.