douglas murray

Europas selvmords mordere

Douglas Murray er aktuel med bogen The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam og har i den forbindelse skrevet en artikel i Wall Street Journal, hvor i der bl.a. står:

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:

Anneli Rufus skriver i en artikel på psychologytoday.com bl.a.:

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.

 

Advertisements

Eichmann var også islamofil socialist

Ovre hos Snaphanen er der omtale af en boganmeldelse af en ny bog, der behandler jødehaderen, SS-Obersturmbannführer Adolf Eichmann, som blev henrettet 1. juni 1960, for hans deltagelse i de nazistiske jødeudryddelser.

Douglas Murray, anmelderen, skriver bl.a.:

The title of course refers to Hannah Arendt’s omnipresent and over-praised account of Adolf Eichmann’s 1961 trial, Eichmann in Jerusalem: a report on the banality of evil.  I would say that Stangneth’s book not merely surpasses but actually buries Arendt’s account.  Not least in showing how Arendt was fooled by Eichmann’s role-play in the dock in Jerusalem.  For whereas Arendt famously portrayed the man in the glass booth as a type of bureaucrat, Stangneth shows not only that Eichmann was not the man Arendt took him to be, but that she fell for a very carefully curated and prepared performance.  Putting together a whole library of scattered documents from Eichmann’s exile in Argentina in the 1950s, Stangneth puts the actual, unrepentant Eichmann back centre stage.

By this point Eichmann was also thinking of breaking his cover in some way.  In 1956 he once again attempted to write a book, this time provisionally titled Die anderen sprachen, jetzt will ich sprechen [The Others Spoke, Now I Want to Speak!].  But the conversations with the Sassen circle – which came from the same instinct of his to break his silence – turned out to constitute an attempt to square an impossible circle.  For Eichmann saw the Sassen circle’s efforts to minimize the Holocaust as something like a spitting on his life’s work.  Eichmann knew that the six million figure was accurate, and seems to have only gradually realised that his audience were hoping for something quite different from him.  The discussions clearly broke down under this unresolvable issue.  Among the reasons why I would suggest that this has some contemporary relevance is that it is the clearest possible reminder of how in open discussion even the people most committed to trying to prove the Holocaust did not occur (former leading Nazi officials) ended up being unable to disprove the facts. On that occasion – as so often – they slunk away.

In The Others Spoke, Now I Want to Speak! (the reference is to his former colleagues who – in another un-square-able moment – Eichmann believed had defamed him at Nuremberg) he had the opportunity to write about the recent Suez Crisis.  Here is one passage Stangneth quotes which was new to me at least.

‘And while we are considering all this – we, who are still searching for clarity on whether (and if yes, how far) we assisted in what were in fact damnable events during the war – current events knock us down and take our breath away.  For Israeli bayonets are now overrunning the Egyptian people, who have been startled from their peaceful sleep.  Israeli tanks and armored cars are tearing through Sinai, firing and burning, and Israeli air squadrons are bombing peaceful Egyptian villages and towns.  For the second time since 1945, they are invading… Who are the aggressors here?  Who are the war criminals?  The victims are Egyptians, Arabs, Mohammedans.  Amon and Allah, I fear that, following what was exercised on the Germans in 1945, Your Egyptian people will have to do penance, to all the people of Israel, to the main aggressor and perpetrator against humanity in the Middle East, to those responsible for the murdered Muslims, as I said, Your Egyptian people will have to do penance for having the temerity to want to live on their ancestral soil… We all know the reasons why, beginning in the Middle Ages and from then on in an unbroken sequence, a lasting discord arose between the Jews and their host nation, Germany.’

En anden der opfatter de stakels ægyptiske muhammedanere som ofre for de forfærdelige jøder er den statsbetalte og uhyre produktive, men ubetydelige Klaus Rifbjerg. Om den senere 6 dages krig, senere end den krig Eichmann skriver om, skrev Rifbjerg et digt, Støvlerne, hvor de første to vers er her:

rifbjerg støvlerneRifbjerg der var militærnægter beretter senere i et interwive fra 2011, der vel skal gøre det ud for en slags nekrolog, i kulturmarxistiske Des-Information om sit forhold til støvler:

Du synes, du har udtjent din værnepligt?

»Hvis jeg troede på noget eller nogen, ville jeg sige, at Vorherre ikke skylder mere. Jeg har fået alt det, jeg kunne ønske mig.«

Og givet det, du ville?

»Det synes jeg. Men jeg holder ikke op med at skrive af den grund, for det kan jeg ikke. Jeg vil dø som en soldat med støvlerne på — og buldre hovedet ind i pc’en.«