This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
So, this is very interesting. I wonder: was his plan to essentially make this look like an Islamist attack, to stir up hostility toward Muslim immigration? I imagine he understood that everyone would, justifiably, assume that an Arab man driving his car into a Christmas market (with an explosive device inside, no less!) would be interpreted by all sides as an Islamist terror attack. Maybe he was hoping nobody would identify him and discover his Twitter account? If he did expect people to find his account, I really have no idea what political outcome (if any) he was hoping to facilitate as a result of this attack.
On the one hand, his background as a former refugee from the Middle East makes him an incredibly unwieldy weapon for progressives to use to discredit immigration skeptics; on the other hand, his support for the AfD and his criticism of Muslim immigration makes him pretty much impossible to use as a cudgel by the right wing. Some commentators, such as Keith Woods, are taking the position that this proves that all Arab immigration to Europe should be cut off, because even the apparently liberal/assimilated ones are still ticking time bombs of potential violence; this seems fairly tendentious even to me, given what we know about the guy so far.
He hated Germans and threatened them repeatedly. If it's an act it was a years long performance.
Did he hate Germans? Or did he hate the German government? I haven’t seen any evidence of the former, although I’d be perfectly happy to be confronted with some.
murdering them in a terrorist attack targeting them seems to be at least a weak evidence
Not necessarily! One of his messages that I did see said something like, “The only thing the German government respects is violence. I’m going to have to do something violent to get them to respect me.” It’s entirely possible that he was merely indifferent to the suffering of the people he maimed and killed; that the purpose of the attack was not to make them suffer, but rather to have the moment of their suffering become a political flashpoint.
Intentionally killing random Germans to punish Germans in German government counts to me as hating Germans.
Even if you do not agree with (1) then posting in public how you plan to murder Germans, finding justifications and then murdering bunch of Germans is at least a weak evidence that they in fact hated Germans. Even if they have not tweeted about it outright.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm going to have to write this story someday.
More options
Context Copy link
I’ll consolidate my replies to @SecureSignals, @Walterodim, and @Belisarius, since they’re all making similar points.
Firstly, I agree that this guy should not have been allowed to live in Germany. Now, to be clear, he came as an asylum seeker in 2006, nearly a decade before Merkel’s Mistake; at the time, Arab migration to Germany was, as I understand it, quite minimal (it was Turks who were by far the largest source of Middle Eastern immigration at the time) and it’s significantly more understandable that he would have been let in. There was no large insular Arab community in Germany into which he could have ensconced himself to obviate the need to assimilate. He was fluent in English, and had clear and explicit anti-Islam sentiments. He seems basically like an Ayaan Hirsi Ali type, and given how live a threat Islamist terror seemed at that time, I think it was understandable to expect this guy to act as a potentially impactful voice steering young Arab men away from Islamist radicalization. (And, to be clear, it’s entirely plausible that he did have some impact, substantial or not, of that nature at the time.) Given what we know now in hindsight, not only about him personally but about the larger effects of Arab immigration to Europe, it’s clear that the stance toward asylum seekers should have been far more exclusionary than it was at the time.
However, I want to make sure that opposition to Arab immigration is based on specific, articulable, predictive claims. I oppose large-scale Arab immigration because of the specific qualities that I expect most Arabs (and, especially, most Arabs choosing to emigrate to Europe) to possess, and because of the specific actions they are likely to take and the motivations behind those actions. Let’s look at what specific problems/pathologies I expect to accompany large-scale Arab immigration, and analyze the extent to which this guy embodied those pathologies:
I expect Arabs to create culturally-insular ethnic enclaves, in which they are able to continue to replicate the cultural practices of their homeland rather than assimilating. Well, this guy was fluent in English, and had already marked himself as not only culturally-distinct from the vast majority of Arabs, but actively in opposition to them. It is true that he brought baggage and cultural grievances with him from his homeland; however, those grievances toward Arab Muslims are pretty much exactly the same grievances that liberal Westerners had about Arab Muslims at the time. “They’re culturally backward, they mistreat women, their culture is anti-Western, and anti-science, they’re susceptible to radical jihadist beliefs.” All of those grievances are true and valid! This is the Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, Ayaan Hirsi Ali line about Arab Muslims. They’re not the sort of arcane inter-ethnic blood feuds and tribal jockeying we normally associate with foreign ethnic groups immigrating and co-mingling in places like the U.K. and Canada.
I expect a large percentage of Arab immigrants to be uneducated, unskilled, to spend a long time (potentially their entire lives) unemployed and on welfare. Well, this guy was a doctor — okay fine, a psychiatrist, so barely a doctor, but at least it’s a well-paying job that kept him gainfully employed and interacting economically with the German public. He certainly doesn’t pattern-match to the average Arab in Germany; as @Walterodim points out, he’s more like the average educated Indian in Canada.
I expect large numbers of Arab men to fall into lives of crime, both petty and organized. Well, again, this guy does not appear to have any criminal record. He hasn’t fallen in with Arab gangs, he hasn’t become some listless glowering thug milling about the town square acting like a savage.
I expect some small number of Arab men to commit serious acts of terrorism, motivated by jihadist beliefs and by a hatred of their host societies. This is where we have to carefully discern what happened here. In pretty much all of the other terror attacks committed by Arabs in Europe, the ideological motivations were clearly religious and specifically Islamist in character. The Bataclan attackers, the guys driving their trucks into markets, the guys cutting priests’ heads off — they all make their Islamist beliefs very explicit. That’s not why this guy appears to have done what he did.
So, why did he? If we want to talk about ideology, his views are difficult to pattern-match to other large ideological trends. On the one hand, he was very consistent about Germany’s need to resist Islamization. In that sense, he aligns very strongly with the AfD and other right-wing nationalist groups. However, he also wanted more immigration of a very specific class of Arab Middle Easterners: ex-Muslim/anti-Islam refugees, and particularly educated women. In that sense he’s not only similar to the more moderate right (what wignats derisively call “the kosher right) but also to some of the more eclectic right-wingers who say the West should let in plenty of attractive female refugees, while cutting off all or nearly all male immigration. And of course his stated commitment to progressive values such as feminism and economic leftism puts him almost more in line with the sort of leftist terrorism Germany faced in the 70’s. (Although that terrorism had a strong pro-Palestinian valence, whereas this guy was a Zionist.) But in this case his choice of targets doesn’t really seem to align with any expected ideological movements. This was no act of right-wing nationalist terrorism — he’s no Anders Breivik or Brenton Tarrant — because his victims were (at least presumably) white Germans. He really did seem to resent Germany and to want to strike a blow against it on behalf of his in-group, but his in-group isn’t Arabs as a whole, it isn’t Muslims, and it isn’t even Saudis. It appears to just be “ex-Muslim apostates (especially women) fleeing the Middle East.” I was joking yesterday, “Is this the first Reddit Atheist terror attack?” Yes, he’s a brown Arab, but in terms of his worldview he’s got more in common with murdered Dutch anti-Muslim filmmaker Theo Van Gogh than with the Muslims who killed him.
So, in what ways is this guy’s terror attack similar to previous acts of Arab terrorism? What patterns does it match? Certainly in terms of its specific methodology it’s similar to other terror attacks we’ve seen in Europe, both with the use of a car driving through a Christmas market, and with the (thankfully unused) explosive device. But in terms of its motivations I think it’s sufficiently different from previous acts of terrorism that it’s not really instructive. While obviously there are genetically-influenced psychological differences between population groups, and Arabs are a population group with heritable traits, I don’t think anyone’s found any evidence for a “terrorism gene” among that population. If Arabs tend to be more violent than Europeans, it’s because they tend to be lower-IQ and to live in low-trust backward societies wherein violence is an effective and sanctioned way to obtain power and resources. It’s not because some voice in the back of their head, whispering to them like the Orc god Gruumsh, instructs them to drive their cars into crowds.
I saw some DR commentator (probably Captive Dreamer) say, “If that’s the model migrant, imagine how much worse the rest are.” This is probably effective propaganda, but it doesn’t seem very intellectually substantive. This guy’s pathologies, and the reasons he shouldn’t have been in Europe, were of a markedly different character from those of the true dregs of the Arab world which have been washing up on the shores of Europe. The “model migrants” in, say, Canada are problematic largely because they use their political power to facilitate bringing in more of their countrymen. In that narrow sense, this guy’s story is certainly instructive. It is true that his #1 loyalty was to his in-group, which did not include most white Germans, and that in the end he was willing to commit savage violence against his host country in order to (in some twisted, confused, politically aimless way) earn concessions for people like himself.
There are, though, two distinct sets of concerns when it comes to the immigration discussion - one is about the dangers presented by the importation of educated foreigners who will use political and cultural power to advocate for increased immigration, and who will dilute the political and cultural power of the native population. Whatever you want to say about these types of people, likelihood of committing terror attacks has simply never been a plausible vector of attack against them. This is, so far as I can tell, the first high-profile attack of this kind committed by a guy with this background and these specific beliefs, and I don’t think we’ll see many more examples in the future.
The other half of the immigration discussion is about low-skilled, unassimilable, criminally-inclined young, susceptible-to-jihadist-radicalization men and their welfare-dependent spouses. While this has largely been the story of Arab immigration to Europe (particularly post-2015) it is not this guy’s story. Whatever he is, he’s not an example of that. He did assimilate to an ideology with a lot of Western adherents; he was just willing to do what few of those Westerners would have done as a result of that ideology. (And I want people to be careful in their speculations about why he was willing to do so.)
People like Keith Woods would like to essentially merge these conversations and say that it’s all the same conversation: All foreigners in Europe are bad, none of them belong there, even the supposed best of them bring problems, they’ll never be assimilable, they’ll always work against us. And what I’m saying is that I don’t think this is credible. There are foreigners in Europe — for example, East Asian immigrants — who have not, so far as I can tell, created any problems for their host societies. If Germany let in 100,000 Vietnamese immigrants tomorrow, my prediction is that those immigrants would flourish, as they have in America. It’s not simply “being foreign” that makes Arab immigrants a bad fit for European society; it’s their specific traits, the specific beliefs they have, their lower IQ and lower impulse control, their hatred for Western norms, their parasitic dependency on the largesse of the welfare state, and the difficulty in integrating them into society. This guy’s problems don’t really map onto any of those concerns, except in a roundabout and strained way.
What precisely makes a psychiatrist barely a doctor?
More options
Context Copy link
The argument people like Keith Woods makes is that these Arab immigrants will never be German, no matter how long they are there or if they learn the language, whether they commit crime or do not commit crime, whatever they Tweet or whatever political policy they support, whatever religion they will follow, the only certainty is that they will never be German. So your rebuttal is not responsive to the issue they fundamentally have with the mass migration of non-European people to European civilization.
It's not just about crime, it's not just about religion, it's not just about terrorism, although those things can be relevant symptoms, it's about jealously guarding a European genetic and civilizational inheritance from being Africanized, replaced by Arabs or Chinese, Indians or whatever.
Your argument is most responsive to the Conservatives who just say "hey, I'm not racist I just oppose mass Arab migration because I don't want terrorist attacks in my Christmas villages." For those people you can do your well ackhually it wasn't Islamic extremism that inspired the attack, but that just doesn't work on the DR perspective.
Why stop at 100,000? Why not 100 million? Even if mass migration of Asians, Vietnamese, Chinese to Germany caused a reduction in crime and created economic growth do you think the DR should accept these foreigners because they commit less crime or raise GDP? Why not replace all of Europe with Chinese if it lowered crime and raised IQ? It's only conservatives who say it's about those things.
This terrorist attack is pertinent to the DR perspective because it provides a symbolic counterexample to the lie that, no matter who you are, you can go to Germany, learn the language and obey the law and, congratulations you're German! No you are not. The American Midwest family with Germanic ancestry they don't even know about is more German than they will ever be. So this man ostensibly being the "model" Arab immigrant but still become inspired to commit this act is shattering the liberal illusion of assimilation, or that being German is just an idea.
His motivation was European immigration policy. You try to be ultra-specific about it to brush it as a one-off, but it introduces the likelihood of violence in response to Right-wing Immigration reform in Europe. We may see more of that type of violence than radical Islamic-inspired violence, although a lot of it will be blended together.
We have seen a similar pattern with Free Speech in Europe: terrorist attacks in response to offensive speech did not motivate backlash against mass migration it motivated crackdowns on "hate speech" out of fear of offending Muslims. So if we see more Arab terrorists attack Europe because of European immigration reform we will likely see pressure put against immigration reform. This is relevant especially at a time when parties are flirting with the idea of remigration.
You don't think that AfD and other European parties beginning to support remigration is likely to inspire any more of this violence? We already see race riots and organized street violence by African and Arab gangs. That already happens, and it's political, it's not driven by radical Islam. So your denial that we won't see more of this sort of political violence is absurd.
Yes, the likelihood is near 100% that this sort of violence is going to influence European policy on immigration, most likely it will cause authorities to crackdown harder on political support for remigration because authorities will plausibly be able to say that supporting this policy is likely to foment violence. Certainly if that policy were to be pursued, then violence from deportees would be a top concern of that policy. So there's simply no reality in which the prospect of violence from these African and Arab migrants is irrelevant, Muslim or otherwise.
This attack is more relevant because it was motivated by European immigration policy than if it were just radical Islam. It's proof that mass migration irrevocably influences politics and "assimilation" is fundamentally a lie.
Obviously there are different tiers of the anti-immigration position that include various forms of nativism and not-nativism.
What is likely, though, is that most Western Europeans would probably have quietly acquiesced to mass immigration and demographic change without any major drama if the migrants had been, say, all Vietnamese or Filipino. Not because the nativist position would have been ‘disproven’, but because there would be none of these extreme staccato incidents of terrorist violence, things like Rotherham, Charlie Hebdo etc that draw a great deal of public attention.
In the US the majority of the public are still relatively torn on mass immigration, and the large scale deportation of most legal immigrants, let alone actually stripping naturalised migrants of citizenship, is an extreme fringe position. In Canada the public only really turned after they started importing pretty much the entirety of the Punjab at like 2% of the whole population per year.
There isn’t a huge (foreign) religion/race-neutral nativist constituency in most Western countries, meaning the population that wants everyone gone regardless of who they are, how they act and what they believe. Even in Iberia where there’s been huge legal immigration (often of people who are rather far from being of pure euro descent) from Latin America almost all anti-immigrant hostility is directed towards migrants from the Islamic world.
Counterpoint: there seems to be a massive backlash to migration in Canada from Indian immigrants, and that is not caused by crime or terrorism by Indian migrants.
What's happening is the European groups, too, take the political playbook from US Conservatives. "We're not racist (that would be evil!) we just think radical Islam is bad mmkaay." But that is downstream of the political pressures of liberal hegemony, there's a practical reason it centers on a religious critique of migration rather than a racial critique of migration.
Remigration strikes a more nativist cord than it does a purely anti-Islamic cord.
I think in the counterfactual where the majority of recent non-European migrants to Europe aren’t from the Islamic world is one in which anti immigration sentiment is far lower. As far as Canada goes, they did the equivalent of the US importing like 7m Indians a year several years in a row, which is very unusual even by Western mass immigration standards.
Before 2020, Canadians didn’t seem to care much about immigration, Trudeau won a landslide, and there had been mass immigration of Chinese and Indians for at least 25 years.
Depending on whether you think they are Europeans or not, you have a non-counterfactual point of comparison: Spain has had tons of immigration from Latin America, and while there has obviously been some backlash, it doesn't seem to be as strong as in the rest of Europe.
Latin Americans are already Spanish-speaking Catholics, so you'd expect them to be more culturally similar and willing to integrate when they're not.
They are also themselves largely Spanish, so immigrants with actual Spanish ancestry causing less trouble than purely non-European immigrants is proof of the DR perspective, not the other way around.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Counter counterpoint- they're Indian. Mexican and Ukrainian and Vietnamese immigrants would have gotten away with it.
Minor counter counter counterpoint
There is some minor hostility to Ukrainians in Poland. But it is far from widespread and that is after massive shock migration due to war.
Though if 4% of country would be imported from Syria/Libya/Turkey/Nigeria/Russia/China/etc within months then reaction would be much poorer then welcoming then minor hostility months/years later.
Canada is much more welcoming of outsiders than Poland, though.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I mean, the right wing normie answer is ‘people like that don’t belong in Europe’. And when pressed on ‘people like that’ they’ll eventually come down with ‘Arabs’ or ‘children of Muslims’.
As far as what his motivations are, I’ll point to A) him almost certainly having screws loose(see the mass murder, and also being a psychiatrist) and B) it’s entirely possible he doesn’t make much distinction between Christianity and Islam and just hates theists. Stranger things have happened. There was a mass shooter in the US who seemed to have new atheist motivations as well; it’s not an everyday occurrence but it’s happened at least once.
These Christmas markets are not theist occurrences in any meaningful way, and as he had been in Germany a long time he would know it. In fact, many of them have been renamed to Winter markets to be more inclusive (to the disdain of the defenders of the Christian Occident), and there is nothing specifically Christian about drinking Gluehwein, eating all kinds of food from food booths and shopping for overpriced small presents in the other booths. It would be like going after Coca-Cola for being Christian given that the central figure of Christmas is Santa Claus and ad spots by Coke have shaped the public image of Santa.
I mean I think it’s culturally Christian in the sense that Christians is specifically Christ’s Mass in the origin of the name. And almost all the trapping can ultimately be traced back to Christian stories and practices. Santa is a repackaged St. Nicholas of Myrna (who actually punched Arius in the face at the council of Nicaea) who was generous with the poor. The Christmas tree is seen as a symbol of Christmas and the star comes from the magi seeing the Bethlehem star. It’s a holiday with a lot of secular trappings, bu5 it is based in Christianity and in no other religion. I don’t think he could have plausibly mistaken it for a Jewish or Muslim thing, as those groups don’t celebrate any of Christmas.
I think that European Christmas, like Easter, is actually a syncretism of early Christian traditions and pagan ones. The barn with figurines of Joseph and Maria and the magi is obviously based on the bible, while the date (Winter solstice) and the Christmas tree (as a symbol of something visibly being alive in the depth of winter) seem pagan-ish to me. Likewise Easter: remembering the crucification and supposed resurrection of Jesus is one thing, but the rabbits and eggs seem pagan to me -- after all, Jesus died for mankind's sins, not to restore fertility to the natural world.
My point is though that while of course being based on vaguely Christian traditions, this is way removed from the reality of Christmas markets.
An Jihadist terrorist targeting German Winter/Weihnachts markets to specifically strike a blow against Christianity feels roughly like a Persian terrorist targeting the Winter Olympiad in Salt Lake City to strike a blow against the Athenian League -- I could see their path of reasoning, but still think that either terrorist would have some fundamental misconceptions about their enemy.
The date of Christmas is actually based on philosophical beliefs about great men dying on the same day they were conceived, plus math(Good Friday actually has a known date if you take the bible completely literally- March 25 33 AD). And Christmas trees probably have a real origin of 'it's one of the few things that looks nice that time of year, and Christmas is a major religious Holiday so we want decorations to look nice'.
Rabbits might be an unrelated folk tradition(but it also might just be seasonal associations- right around Easter is when you start seeing rabbits in Europe), but eggs come from fasting rules in the medieval church. Easter was a huge feast in the throw-a-giant-party sense in the days when Lenten penance was quite a bit more rigorous than it is today, and foods which were forbidden during lent but otherwise part of the diet were a big part of that. Eggs are one example- I believe that in Eastern Orthodox cultures which forbid dairy during lent, butter or cheese plays a role in Easter celebrations. Of course eggs are also easy to decorate and play fun games with.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The muslim angle is overrated. People wouldn't have been happier if the migrants were christians from Ethiopia. Muslim at this point means non Asian, non white immigrant. Islam is just an easy and relatively politically correct term to use. The basic premise holds regardless if he was muslim, Christian, athiest or Zoroastrian, MENA migration doesn't work in Europe.
The same people would not have been any happier to take South African Zulus but would have gladly taken South Africans of a Boer persuasion. Trying to own AfD by pointing out the specifics of a Saudi's religious beliefs isn't going to work because the AfD voters don't want mass immigration from MENA regardless of religion.
Yes they would have. They wouldn't have been perfectly happy but they certainly would have been happier. Islam obviously isn't the only issue but it is a fairly major one.
Indonesia is the largest muslim country. They would probably be less disliked as immigrants than christians from Zimbabwe.
Religion isn't the only thing that matters but it is important. Would people have been happier if Syrian Maronites or Sunnis came when the civil war started? Or what about Christian Zimbabweans or Muslim Mozambicans?
There are functionally no Maronites in Syria. There were, however, quite a few Melkites, a different tradition.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Eh, I think Maronite and Coptic immigration is mostly pretty uncontroversial in the societies to which they migrate.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You really have to be kidding? The Right Wing argument is that he does not belong in Europe, no matter if he's a doctor or what he tweets, in a box or with a fox, not here or there, not anywhere in Europe. That argument can and should be used as a cudgel by the right wing, at least the Right Wing who acknowledges that this is about race and not merely about religion. The people who can't use this as a cudgel are those who pretend that this is just about Islam, and mass Arab migration to Europe would be fine if they just weren't Muslim. Is that an argument you accept Hoffmeister?
"Arabs don't belong in Europe." "But this Arab who slaughtered a bunch of Europeans tweeted pro-Israel stuff!" How could you think that's responsive at all to the argument?
How does a refugee slaughtering a bunch of people in a Christmas market not validate the anti-refugee political perspective? Because the refugee wasn't Muslim? That is just ridiculous.
Keith Woods is correct, and the Right Wing who pretends that mass migration from the third world is only a problem because of religious incompatibility do not form the ranks of the DR, and people like Woods have long made the argument that it's about race and not about religion.
SEcUreSignalS—coincidence? I think not. I'd read the shit out of an anti-Arab and African migration book written in this style.
I'm not familiar with Keith Woods, but my sense is that the part I bolded isn't true. Granted the dissident right (I presume that's the DR) is a nebulous coalition, but I think most of them are not HBD-pilled, or at least believe the religion aspect is more important than the racial one. Change that from a descriptive "do not" to a prescriptive "should not" and I'd agree.
Do you like men of Islam?
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
I do not like men of Islam.
Would you like them here or there?
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
I do not like men of Islam.
Would you like them in Berlin?
Even shorn of their foreskin?
I would not like them in Berlin.
I care not if they have foreskin.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
I do not like men of Islam.
Would you like them in a mosque?
Or standing 'round their big black box?
Not in a mosque. Not round a box.
Not in Berlin. Without foreskin.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
I do not like men of Islam.
Would you? could you? in a car?
Let them in - here they are.
I would not, could not, in a car.
You may like them. You will see.
Living in our land, rent-free.
I cannot stand them here rent-free.
Nor in a car! You let me be.
I do not like them in a mosque.
I do not like them 'round a box.
I do not like them in Berlin.
I care not if they have foreskin.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
I do not like men of Islam.
A plane! A train! A plane! A train!
Could you, would you on a train?
Not on plane! not on train!
Not in a car! Sam! Let me be!
I do not like them in a mosque.
I do not like them 'round a box.
I do not like them in Berlin.
I care not if they have foreskin.
I do not like them here or there.
I do not like them anywhere.
I do not like them, Sam-I-am.
I do not like men of Islam.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
So if a tourist from the US does something similar next week should the EU ban all American tourists? There's more of us entering Europe every year than the entire Arab population of the continent.
Do American tourists consume taxes on net, disproportionately commit sexual and violent crime, turn neighborhoods into no-go zones, and leave behind another generation of themselves to do largely the same? Or do they mostly just stimulate and support local economies with their relatively large disposable incomes and bounce?
More options
Context Copy link
I live in a small town, and somehow found myself sharing a rented office with 2 Californians. Quite frankly my opinion on the matter is: why wait?
Are you sure this is making the argument you want to make, given that precisely zero of these attacks were committed by American tourists, despite such high traffic?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
My position is not quite that, but not too far from it. If we take the story that this is about his anti-Islam grievances at face value, it seems to me that it's an example of how importing people from places that have ethnic and religious conflicts that Westerners don't even understand results in importing their conflicts along with them. See also, the disputes with Sikh violence that have stirred up India-Canada tensions. I don't want Muslim immigrants from Saudi Arabia and I don't want anti-Muslim immigrants from Saudi Arabia in my country. I don't want to think about Saudi Islam anymore than strictly necessary for international relations. There are enough domestic tensions without needing to add Saudi conflicts to Germany.
More options
Context Copy link
He attacked a Christmas market, does it matter if he secretly supports AFD? If he wasn't brought to Germany he wouldn't have committed this act. It really is easy for the right to portray it favorable terms. It is also gives leftists the opportunity to frame this of course in a manner that tries to deflect from it. I have seen both.
According to Keith woods he was a zionist leftist who wanted more muslim migration that commited this act because Germany is not doing enough to give asylum from Saudi Arabia.
If that is correct then this is a leftist but not Islamic, pro migration terrorism act. Exactly the opposite that is claimed bellow. If of course it is true.
Edit: Woods quotes the terrorist in 2023 saying that he will make the German nation pay the price of the crimes committed by the goverment against Saudi refugees. He also says that he will take revenge even if it costs him his life. https://x.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1870428721632481719?t=TeBZdhjRJUJdWKMBMS-5nQ&%3Bs=19
It is certainly correct to limit people like this guy from coming to one's country.
Moreover, it seems almost everyone forgets that the biggest genocide commited by Muslims against Christians was not commited by the biggest muslim fanatics even though Islamism has been an element of this. I am talking about the genocide of Christians Greeks, Armenians, Assyrians, by the Muslim populations of Turkey. Of which secular Kemalists who also called for Jihad had been a core component as has been Turkish nationalism. The ethnic resentments of people like this, and not just any human capital problems is something that has been way too understated. A secular muslim might still carry both ethnic resentments related to his homeland or even the general Muslim population. Just like with other groups who aren't particularly religious but still are hostile foreigners.
Was this man actively “treating” patients while saying all this?
Good Lord.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I'm hearing that he was apparently angry about not enough being done for (presumably anti-Islamic) refugees:
https://x.com/banjawarn/status/1870393623210078601/photo/1
Too soon to be sure of course, there's no community notes or anything on this post. It does seem plausible, he was complaining about Sweden expelling this refugee.
https://x.com/DrTalebJawad
Other people have been going on about him retweeting Israeli military posts, apparently he has Zionist sympathies. There's truly something for everyone with this guy. He seems like a nut.
More options
Context Copy link
But why couldn’t the AfD thing be the red herring itself? The entire thing makes literally zero sense. He’s an Arab Muslim committing a terrorist act because he doesn’t believe that Arab Muslims should be in Germany because they’ll commit terrorist acts, which he then did. The more plausible explanation is he’s an Islamic Jihadist who is either being misidentified as a supporter of AfD policies, or he was using that as a front to hide behind.
Or, uh, hear me out here, but the motivations of someone who committed mass murder don’t have to make sense, because he’s batshit insane.
More options
Context Copy link
How many cases have there been where an Islamic jihadist commits a terrorist attack and pretends to be something other than an Islamist while doing so? Being open that you are, in fact, doing jihad has always been one of the points of the jihadists.
He wasn’t tweeting while he was attacking. Those posts came beforehand. It might well have been a sort of cover story so those who are looking for Jihadists don’t look to hard at him. And Muhammad Atta was drinking late into the night before 9/11 despite alcohol being forbidden by Islam.
That just doesn't add up. Why would he engage in years of carefully constructing a cover story for doing this sort of an attract that seems highly impulsive? If it's important for the authorities to not find him then why does he conduct the one form of attack that almost guarantees to end up with him either dead or being hauled off to hospital and then interrogation? Isn't this rather a convoluted explanation in comparison to him simply being pretty much who he claims he is?
That's just being a sinner, not a cover story. Insofar as I've understood he believed martyrdom would wipe the record clean, so to say.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sarah Adam’s is reporting that Hamsa Bin Laden is now commander of an Islamic Army that brings Aq isis and other groups under one command. Accomplished through him marrying into influential Islamist families.
She also reports that he and they are now less concerned with getting credit for terror and more concerned with opsec and covert tactics.
She seems credible.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I guess we'll see if further details emerge. But to me this looks like someone utterly deranged, with no coherent plan at all. Maybe he had some recent health issue like Luigi, or maybe he cracked from the stress of working as a doctor for so long.
More options
Context Copy link
Well, wignats will have a field day. (Maybe that was his objective?)
Certainly the more moderate right will find it uncomfortable. An educated, apostate Arab who's vehemently against the Islamification of Europe -- well, if Germany is anything like the USA, he'd be held up as one of the "good ones" and a solid ally. (The moderate right is of course desperate to latch onto any token PoC so they can assert that they're not racist!)
I don't think you can quite square this circle without accepting an ethnonationalist framing, so I expect this to be swept under the rug. It looks bad for Arabs, obviously bad for the pro-immigration left, bad for the moderate right; the only people who can point to this incident as confirming their priors are the ones saying these immigrants are fundamentally incompatible with Western civilization by virtue of their ethnicity, regardless of their professed views.
Assuming this wasn't some 4D double layered false flag: https://x.com/stillgray/status/1870306075695546383 (this reads like premium copium to me, but, I guess it's not impossible.)
More options
Context Copy link
It seems the attacker was only a critic of Muslim immigration on unusually principled anti-religious grounds. Here he is in 2019 (fedora and all -- wow!) discussing his website for aiding the asylum claims from secular Gulf refugees. More recently, he accused the German state of conspiring against atheist Saudi asylees and threatened to fight and kill over this:
Rather than the hard right, it will be assimilationist centrists and center-rightists who want to make the problem of immigration to be about Islam who won't have much to milk out of this.
More options
Context Copy link
Yes, excellent analysis. Thanks for laying out exactly what I was thinking in such agreeable prose.
More options
Context Copy link
There was a similar attack like this in Germany a few years ago. An Iranian Muslim born in Germany became radicalized about mass immigration into Germany and committed a mass shooting targeting immigrants. It’s barely remembered now because the story got dropped like a hot potato, since it would have been extremely difficult for either side of the culture war to make hay out of it.
The terrorist has claimed in December 2023 that he will make the German nation pay the price for the crimes committed by its goverment against Saudi refugees. He also said in the quoted post that Woods Therefore this looks like a leftist terrorist attack of a Saudi Arab who sympathizes so much with Saudi Arabians that he wants to harm the nation of Germany.
https://x.com/KeithWoodsYT/status/1870428721632481719?t=TeBZdhjRJUJdWKMBMS-5nQ&%3Bs=19
So it would be exactly the opposite as the anti immigration narrative and really this should had been the more likely theory rather than him playing 5 dimensional chess.
More options
Context Copy link
Toxoplasma quotient counterintuitively low.
What's the opposite of a scissor statement?
A null statement?
staple statement
Opposite along a different axis.
A scissor statement is seized-upon by multiple actors with conflicting interpretations.
A statement like "atheist muslim converts hates islam" is ignored by all actors as it there are no interpretations that are convenient for their positions.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link