Mud and Blood: How to Super-Charge First-World Economies with Third-World Fuel

Mud, sand and sawdust. These simple things make excellent fuels for sophisticated modern engines. All reputable engineers will tell you so. Simply fill your tank and zoom away, enjoying vastly improved performance and mileage. There are just two conditions. First, you have to source the super-fuels in the Third World. It has to be Syrian mud or Moroccan sand or Pakistani sawdust. Second, you have to use the Third-World super-fuels in the First World. Strangely enough, if you try to run an engine on mud in Syria, your engine will stop working. But use the same mud in Germany and your engine will pulsate with power. Trust the experts!

Showered with gold

Well, I’ve just written utter nonsense, of course. No engineer has ever said that mud, sand or sawdust makes good fuel for any kind of engine. Engineers aren’t idiots. They deal in reality, not fantasy. No, the idiotic group that makes nonsensical claims about Third-World fuel isn’t engineers but economists. They’ve been claiming for decades that mass immigration from the Third World is absolutely vital for sophisticated modern economies in the First World. The stale pale frail West will collapse without the dynamism and vitality of youthful Syrians, Moroccans and Pakistanis. Strangely enough, those Third-Worlders don’t make the economies boom in their own homelands. But in the West, they will shower their lucky hosts with gold. Trust the experts!

That’s the message of economists. Their idiocy is matched only by their arrogance. In truth, if you fuel a Western economy with mud, you get blood, not gold. At the end of July 2024, Southport in England saw how readily Third-World mud turns into First-World blood. A Rwandan Black invaded a schoolgirls’ holiday club and began laboring with a large knife. The fruit of his labor was three dead little girls and more seriously injured. At the end of August 2024 Solingen in Germany saw mud and blood too. It was holding a Festival der Vielfalt, a festival of diversity. The highlight of the festival was provided by a Syrian Arab, who shouted “Allahu akbar!” and began laboring with another large knife. The fruit of his labor was uncannily similar: three dead adults and more seriously injured. The expert economists at the Financial Times (FT) reacted to the attack just as you would expect – with arrogance and idiocy. They zoomed in on what they regard as the real problem exposed by the slaughter in Solingen. Not stabby Syrians, but the evil and inbred far-right:

Germany’s real problem: not stabby Syrians, but wicked Whites on the far right (image from the Financial Times)

An expert called Henry Foy, the “FT’s Brussels Bureau Chief,” explained “Why Germany’s stabbing attack has rekindled EU’s far-right fears.” I’ll reproduce his words below. When you read them, note the blithe unconcern revealed by the sub-heading “Knife edge.” It’s a pun referring to the danger of Europe tipping over into xenophobia. Yes, the Financial Times is punning about the bloody and barbarous slaughter and wounding of ordinary German Whites. The paper’s editors and writers simply don’t care. The elite currently ruling with West regard the violent death of ordinary Whites as no problem at all. It’s the reaction to violent death that’s the problem. Here is Henry Foy’s article:

Why Germany’s stabbing attack has rekindled EU’s far-right fears

Today, I unpack what Germany’s response to a stabbing attack this weekend could mean for Europe. …

Knife edge

A fatal knife attack in Germany has convulsed the country’s politics ahead of regional elections this weekend — but is also worrying officials across the EU nervous about the rise of the far right and anti-immigration rhetoric.

Context: A Syrian man stabbed three people to death and injured eight more on Friday night in the west German city of Solingen. The attack has boosted already strong support for the far-right nationalist Alternative for Germany party ahead of elections in the states of Saxony and Thuringia this Sunday.

Yesterday, alongside promising to tighten Germany’s laws on weapons, Chancellor Olaf Scholz pledged to reduce the inflow of irregular migrants and increase deportations. That followed remarks by Björn Höcke, the AfD’s leader in Thuringia, who blamed the attack on what he called: “This multicultural experiment on our country.”

There are two major concerns for Brussels from the Solingen tragedy.

Short-term, it has rammed home the political dangers posed by a resurgent far right across Europe, just weeks after centrist parties celebrated what they saw as European election results that confirmed their dominance of the EU’s political stage.

Longer-term, many in Europe worry that a knee-jerk reaction in Germany — potentially including new border controls and possibly even checks on movement inside of the country — could prompt a rash of similar unilateral moves by other countries where anti-immigration politicians are popular.

That would undermine the core principles of the EU’s Schengen free movement area, and further strain a fundamental aspect of the bloc’s single market.

“We can’t react to this by slamming the door in the faces of people who are often themselves fleeing from Islamists,” said Kevin Kühnert, general secretary of Scholz’s Social Democrats party.

Many in Brussels hope that calmer response prevails. (“Why Germany’s stabbing attack has rekindled EU’s far-right fears,” The Financial Times, 27th August 2024)

Three ordinary Whites have been bloodily slaughtered. Eight more have been wounded. Henry Foy glides past the deaths and woundings with a perfunctory reference to “tragedy.” He simply doesn’t care. When he speaks of “dangers,” he isn’t referring to stabby Syrians but to the “resurgent far right.” He’s also deeply concerned about a “knee-jerk reaction” in Germany that might “prompt a rash” of “unilateral moves” elsewhere in Europe. Note the medical marvel apparent in that mixed metaphor: a “knee-jerk” creates a “rash.” As George Orwell pointed out in his magisterial essay “Politics and the English Language” (1946), mixed metaphors prove that writers are not thinking and not seeing reality. Instead, they’re using what Orwell had earlier called “duckspeak.” It’s not language “in the true sense” but “noise uttered in unconsciousness, like the quacking of a duck.”

Not idiots, but evil

Foy is a duckspeaker, someone who quacks out orthodox opinions without any concern for reality, only for ideology. In his case, it’s the ideology of open borders. That’s why he quotes with approval the duckspeak of another open-border enthusiast: Kevin Kühnert, general secretary of the Social Democrats party. Kühnert said: “We can’t react to this by slamming the door in the faces of people who are often themselves fleeing from Islamists.” He too isn’t concerned about the slaughter and suffering of ordinary German Whites. No, the important thing is keeping the borders open. Kühnert wants Germany to protect people “fleeing from Islamists” by allowing Islamists to accompany those people to Germany. Is he an idiot like Henry Foy and the other experts at the Financial Times? Well, no. In truth Foy, Kühnert and company are evil, not idiots. It’s not their intelligence that’s faulty, it’s their ethics.

Jews’ views

That’s why they demonize the “far right” for not welcoming the slaughter and sex-crimes committed by Third-World invaders. It’s also why they censor their own lies. Recall that the stabby Syrian in Solingen set to work at a “festival of diversity.” That’s ironic, isn’t it? One moment Solingen is celebrating diversity, the next moment diversity is slaughtering Solingeners. Well, the Guardian decided that the irony was too rich for the delicate palates of its readers. As Mark Steyn pointed out: “The original Guardian headline referred to three dead ‘at diversity festival’ …but it was quickly revised to three dead merely at a ‘festival’.”

Mendacious Michael Mann, the Jew who screwed Mark Steyn (images from Wikipedia and Daily Sceptic)

Not that Steyn himself is honest about the disaster of Third-Worlders invading the West. As I’ve often pointed out at the Occidental Observer, he refuses to admit the central role played by Jews in the invasion. So there’s more irony in the legal battle Steyn has fought against Michael E. Mann, a leading advocate of global warming. Steyn has shattered his health and lost huge sums of money trying in vain to defeat his sly and slippery opponent. Guess what? It turns out that the mendacious Michael Mann is a Jew. You can be certain that Mann is just as firmly in favor of open borders as he is opposed to global warming. After all, those are Jews’ views: even as Jews praise the flood of mud, they order Whites to fight the sky.