To find the answer to these and other questions it is necessary to ask deeper questions. Why did Europe decide it could take in the poor and dispossessed of the world? Why did we decide that anybody in the world fleeing war, or just seeking a better life, could come to Europe and call it home?
The reasons lie partly in our history, not least in the overwhelming German guilt, which has spread across the Continent and affected even our cultural cousins in America and Australia. Egged on by those who wish us ill, we have fallen for the idea that we are uniquely guilty, uniquely to be punished, and uniquely in need of having our societies changed as a result.
When people point out the downsides of this approach—not least that more immigration from Muslim countries produces many problems, including terrorism—we get the final explanation. It doesn’t matter, we are told: Because of globalization this is inevitable and we can’t stop it anyway.
All these instincts, when put together, are the stuff of suicide. They spell out the self-annihilation of a culture as well as a continent. Conversations with European policy makers and politicians have made this abundantly clear to me. They tell me with fury that it “must” work. I suggest that with population change of this kind, at this speed, it may not work at all.
Yet still it is possible that the publics will not go along with the instincts of their leaders. Earlier this year, a poll of European attitudes was published in which citizens of 10 countries were asked a tough question: whether they agreed that there should be no more Muslim migration into their countries. Majorities in eight out of the 10 countries, including France and Germany, said they wanted no more Muslim immigrants.
Jeg er ikke enig med Murray i, at det er europæerne eller europæisk kultur som sådan, der har et døds- eller selvmordsønske. Men mistanken om, at visse af vore politikere har et ønske om at agere selvmords-mordere er nærliggende. Nærliggende fordi det forekommer patologisk, at insistere på at fortsætte et projekt – islamiseringen – som kun kan ende i en katastrofe.
Klip fra et par artikler om selvmords-mordere:
There’s a special way to commit suicide, and that is: Take someone else with you.
But killing others, then killing oneself, is a spectacle of monstrous contrasts: It’s a display of terrifying power (over life itself, and not just mine but yours) but also of pathetic impotence (he couldn’t handle life but also couldn’t handle death, thus needed company). It’s fierce but cowardly. Self-obsessed yet hyper-social. It is at once a cry for help and a command to be condemned.
…combined with anger that he had been ‘forced’ to follow his wife to confirm his suspicions.”
Ah, “forced.” Those of us who have lost loved ones to suicide know this word all too well, along with “I have no other choice” and “Without him/her/it, I have nothing.” The world goes black-and-white for the suicidal person, and the future goes blackest of all: a total blank. Believing himself “forced” to kill his unfaithful wife and then himself, Grinhaff was also “forced” to render his young daughters not just orphans but the children of a murderer.
The passive voice: I am forced. Which is to say: Someone or something else besides me is to blame.
En psykolog, Daniel C. Claiborn (Ph.D.) forklarere om, hvad der får selvmords-morderne til at gøre som de gør, til BBC relaterede KCUR bl.a.:
“Well I think we really in a way have to separate out the murder part from the suicide part…I think there are certain factors that influence a person to be willing to take the step of murdering someone. I think that has to do with a person who is highly emotional, who is impulsive. Most people who commit murder are young, so they are more of an age where people are impulsive and they do things quickly…Probably it’s more common with people who are highly self-centered, who are used to being in control of themselves and other people, and also have a very strong need to protect their image… ”
“Then the suicide part is probably related to similar things. If a person is very self-centered and has a lot of pride and a lot of concern about their image, once they’ve committed some horrible act, they may be a lot less able to imagine a life after that in which they make amends, are accepted again by the community, are able to recover, overcome this and do anything healthy and productive. They may not be able to imagine that happening. It may be a bigger blow to their ego to imagine the disapproval and the condemnation of others after this has happened, and so those factors might propel them to feel that they have to remove themselves from the situation, rather than to face consequences.
Snaphanen har også en post om udgivelsen og linker Mark Steyn interwive med Murray, som også kan ses her.