Back in 2014, three German Muslims got drunk and threw firebombs into the Wuppertal synagogue. Mercifully, no one was hurt.
The synagogue is rather old, but its building isn’t. The original quarters were burned rather more successfully during the 1938 Kristallnacht.
Both acts of arson suggest that the arsonists had some misgivings about the Jews. The first lot were quite open about this motivation, knowing that the state welcomed it. The trial or two that ensued were perfunctory, and the firebugs got off with only a word of nudge-nudge, wink-wink reproach.
Now, because the current German state hasn’t yet got around to the same delights of Judophobia, the Muslim chaps pleaded innocence of anti-Semitism. They simply sought “to draw attention to the Gaza conflict” with Israel.
One has to say that firebombing German synagogues is both a criminal and illogical way of taking issue with Israel’s policy. After all, most people inside weren’t Israelis but Germans who happened to worship the first part of the Bible more than the second.
Of course back in 1938 that would have been regarded as a distinction without a difference. It didn’t matter how, if at all, German Jews worshipped God. What mattered was that they were Jews. Killing them was laudable because it advanced a noble political cause.
Times have changed altogether though, haven’t they? Well, yes, they have changed. But not altogether.
For last Friday, the regional court affirmed the original court ruling that the firebombing wasn’t anti-Semitic at all. It was a valid form of political protest.
Even taking anti-Semitism out of it, one finds it hard to accept Molotov cocktails as a valid form of political self-expression in a country where legal means exist. A long custodial sentence is the only punishment that fits the crime, with the proverbial key thrown away. Isn’t it?
Evidently not, for the arsonists only got suspended sentences. Their political, as opposed to racial, motivation was seen as a mitigating circumstance.
There’s nothing new about this sort of lenience, and I’m proud to know that Russia pioneered it back in 1877, when the socialist terrorist Vera Zasulich shot and wounded the Governor General of Petersburg Fyodor Trepov.
However, the jury trial, a short-lived novelty in Russia, acquitted Zasulich on the same grounds as those on which the Muslim arsonists were spared jail. Her brutality was political and therefore justifiable, if unfortunate.
Since then, similar suicidal idiocy has taken root even in civilised countries, both in Europe and North America. Any strong political feelings are ipso facto seen as extenuation if not exculpation, regardless of the cause.
But when I read about the German trial, I was aghast and bitterly disappointed. What do you mean Mrs Merkel’s Palestinian guests were drunk at the time?
I thought pious Muslims, those ready to die for their faith, didn’t drink – because Mohammed didn’t drink and he was perfection personified.
It was in a state of perfect sobriety that he had 800 Jews slaughtered by way of saying hello to Medina after his move from Mecca – and yet today his followers get drunk before trying the same sort of thing, if on a smaller scale.
Does this mean the arsonists aren’t real Muslims, and Islam is indeed a religion of peace, as so many of our leaders have proclaimed? This would be a spurious conclusion to draw. The true one is that Islam is neither a religion of peace nor, for most of its followers, at least in Europe, a religion at all.
It’s a licence to kill (mostly Jews and other infidels) and to enslave (mostly women). In common with other violent doctrines, such as communism, fascism and Nazism, the function of Islam is to turn mass murderers into freedom fighters in the eyes of our ‘liberals’.
Yet the only purpose of mass murder is to murder masses – and killing Jews is the only purpose of killing Jews. Everything else is just an attempt at vindication, be it in courts or at fashionable leftie parties hosted by senior Labour figures.
It must have escaped the German judges’ attention that the number of anti-Semitic incidents in European countries is directly proportional to the number of Muslims there. Such incidents may involve murder, assault, desecration of Jewish cemeteries and synagogues – whatever it is, the more Muslims, the more such outrages.
Now we’re talking mathematical relationships, the likelihood of a Muslim committing such crimes is directly proportional to the extent to which he self-identifies as a Muslim. If, say, a British Muslim sees himself as a Muslim first and British a distant second, he’s more likely to firebomb a synagogue than someone who’s British first and foremost.
The task of mullahs and Muslim activists is to draw as many men as possible from the second group into the first. And – back to mathematics again – their success is directly proportional to what they’re allowed to get away with.
Our governments, utterly corrupted by the bien pensant ‘liberalism’ they themselves have fostered, let them and their acolytes get away with anything, including – as in this arson case – attempted murder.
As a direct result, Jews are emigrating en masse from precisely the countries with large Muslim minorities, such as France. In other countries they are warned to take precautions by, for example, not wearing skullcaps in public.
The mathematics I mentioned earlier strongly suggest that the only way to reduce Muslim violence (and not just against Jews) is to reduce the number of Muslims – and also of the venues, such as mosques and Islamic centres, in which they receive their absolution, aka the licence to kill.
I’m not saying anything new here – everybody knows this. Yet few are those who can say it openly – and even fewer the governments capable of doing anything about it.
So yes, Mrs Merkel, zeitgeist says those arsonists aren’t anti-Semites. Were the SA?