19 thoughts on “Terror Comes to the Frosch Nightclub”

1. Rules for dealing with Muslim men. In the context of a verbal altercation, if the Muslim approaches you, and is within striking distance, you MUST assume that battery (with knife, or club) is imminent. When the Muslim is within striking distance, it behooves one to step back if one can. If the Muslim pursues, or there is no way to retreat, the Muslim has forfeited all expectation of civil exchange. It is imperative at this point to strike first, and strike hard, with the aim of incapacitating the Muslim agressor. One must learn to drop one’s gentle composure. I know that this goes against the grain of our natures, having lived in civilized society now for centuries, but it is necessary to do so, if one wants to survive with dignity, and one has a right and duty to survive with dignity. This defensive tactic probably runs afoul of the law. The police will likely persecute the defender, but juries will see otherwise. The sense of the people and the law will ultimately change with this new reality of confronting the Muslim.

   Also, in the context of dealing with Muslim men, it is necessary to carry a defensive weapon of some sort. One’s confidence in their ability to grapple with hands is not sufficient. A club with a long enough reach can be suitable. A knife may be necessary. A gun would be best. Learning and training on how to thwart knife thrusts are important. Never give the Muslim man your back.

2. The Muslim man has an instinct for war. Throughout history, though smaller in number (often in vast proportions) than his adversaries, he has often prevailed in conflict. The Muslim understands that in a conflict it often does not matter that the adversary outnumbers him greatly in the larger scheme, if he, the Muslim, can bring a numerous and concentrated violent host to the point of contact, defeat the adversary and deploy exemplary violence and cruelty to cower the defeated.

   By winning battles piecemeal he demoralizes and terrorizes his adversary. Gradually he has overcome them and come to conquer large nations. Parley, entreaties, concessions are just signals of weakness to the Muslim, they embolden him, spur him on. It takes determined, ruthless and RELENTLESS resistant combat to defeat and cower the Muslim. Defensive measures will only succeed if they are carried on with the understanding that they must be applied – for years, for decades – until Muslim aggression is entirely defeated and suppressed. Is the West up for this?

3. This sounds like a stage in the demoralization of the target population as described in “The Quranic Cencept of War” by Malik. In this stage, the population is demoralized by being shown the government has lost the ability to protect them. The ultimate objective, of course, is to convert the country to Islam.

   There’s no better way to demoralize the native Germans than to overwhelm the police channels, such that even the most obvious of victims and gang violence fails to get a quick response, or any response, from the police. The population is disarmed and left to fend for itself against feral gangs of Muslims with nothing to do all day.

   I guess the lesson is, it can happen here, and happen readily. Trump may or may not win a second term (historically, unless he self-destructs like Bush’s new taxes, he should be reelected), but then the cycles of Presidential elections strongly suggest a Democratic President will be elected after Trump. At that point, there will be no impediment to the importation of even more feral, economic migrants looking for the best handout.

   • Indigenous citizens living in Western countries must ask themselves one fundamental question? Are you a Patriot who believes in national sovereignty, border protection, rule of law and preserving your culture and language? Or are you a Globalist who supports open borders, worldwide competition for jobs, housing, education and survival of the fittest?

     Forget about voting along party lines. The Prime Minister, Chancellor, President is either a Patriot or Globalist along with his/her administration.

     As more countries fall under Marxist-socialism they will become more dangerous for the indigenous citizens and tourists! I would not want to visit Venezuela, Spain, France and Sweden at present time. Same goes for London, Brussels, Detroit, Minneapolis and other Muslim dominated cities. We have enough untreated, mentally ill people in our own countries to worry about getting murdered or stabbed by random strangers. Absolutely insane for governments to allow unvetted, illiterate savages into Western nations! Thank God we can still bear arms in the 🇺🇸 USA under the Trump administration.

     • I daresay your perception is based on where you live, CL. My partner and I went to Andalucia less than a year ago and never felt insecure, but then we do live in London, she to the north, myself just south of the centre. If some of the pessimistic predictions for western Europe’s immediate future are correct, maybe you and others should make that trip you’ve been promising yourselves before it all goes pear shaped?

4. Daniel H’s prescription for dealing with the Muslim male mentality may seem extreme, but it is in fact the only effective way. The concept of fair play is unknown to them. The concept of accepting a mild slight and moving on in the logical interest of having a better day than one involving a violent altercation and hence a better future overall is not a currency they deal in. Their less than juvenile conception of masculinity and “honour” precludes moderation and compromise.

   The best analogy I can think of is that of a friend of mine from my 20’s, Phil. A slightly built, shortish, mild-mannered guy who grew up in a working class area, his early high school years were an era of terror due to being physically bullied and tormented by one much larger classmate on a daily basis. One day in woodworking class, Phil found himself next to his tormentor at a work bench. The teacher was looking in another direction or distracted in some other way. Phil picked up a plane and silently swung the heavy metal tool into his unsuspecting tormentor’s head. The tormentor dropped to the ground and didn’t get up for a few minutes.

   “You could have killed him Phil! You could have been charged with serious assault!”

   Phil shrugged and mildly replied: “He never spoke or did anything to me again. He never even made eye contact with me again”

   Regrettably this is the way the Western world must deal with the Muslim world if it wants to survive. At the beginning and again at the end of the 1973 Yom Kippur war, Israeli Defence Minister Moshe Dayan recommended that Israel commit a nuclear strike against Damascus. He was overruled by Prime Minister Golda Meir. Dayan’s thinking at the outset of the war was: this will stop the Syrian ( and Egyptian) attack upon Israel. His thinking at the end of the war was: this will send an unambiguous message to the Arab-Muslim world that trying to destroy Israel will result in severe consequences. In simple terms: “Don’t do it again!”

   That time has passed and I’m not advocating nuclear strikes by any nation upon any other nation. Contemplate, however, how the Middle East would have been since 1973 if Dayan’s advice had been acted upon. Does anyone imagine that Iran today would be threatening Israel with nuclear annihilation? That Hezbollah in Lebanon would be amassing stockpiles of missiles to attack Israel from the north and Hamas would be launching missiles from Gaza into Israel from the south as a matter of routine? No. They wouldn’t dare do so for fear of the possible consequences.

   Meir’s concerns in 1973 were partly humanitarian and partly concern that the world would bear a huge animus towards Israel for using nuclear weapons for the third time in human history and that the Muslim world would thereafter be implacably hostile towards Israel. Could the world at large in the 21st century be any more opposed to Israel than it is now? Could the Muslim world be any more hostile towards Israel than it is now? I very much doubt it.

   And. in terms of the quantum of human suffering. would a 1973 nuclear strike upon Damacus be remotely comparable to the human suffering that has been taking place in Syrua for the past five years? No. The Syrian military killed 20,000, possibly more, Syran citizens in Hama in 1982 by aerial and artillery bombardment and the world paid no attention; the episode is barely known or remembered. Would the PLO and its allies have started a civil war in Lebanon in 1975 in order to create a Muslim state committed to the destruction of Israel? Unlikely. And now Hezbollah rules Lebanon and the future of the Lebanese Christian communities is looking very bleak.

   • I don’t agree with you.

     After the initial attack, Israel was on the ropes. They didn’t prepare their troops or positions, either because of faulty intelligence or, as some claim, they were acting on the advice of Nixon’s Secretary of State, Kissinger, who advised them not to provoke the Egyptians. In any case, it was a strategic, possibly fatal, blunder on the part of Israel.

     After the initial Israeli setbacks, they were able to regain the initiative because of massive airlifts from the US ordered by Nixon. It’s quite possible that one of the conditions of the airlift was that Israel not use its nuclear bombs.

     So, actually Israel had only one major opportunity to use nuclear weapons: at the very beginning, as soon as it was attacked. This would have saved Israel without massive US dependence, and would indeed have established Israel as being extremely dangerous to attack. No reasonable person could really have criticized Israel for saving itself.

     Bombing after the war would likely have broken agreements and trust with the US and still establish Israel as indecisive. Israel would not have shown itself to be independent of massive US assistance, and worse, such assistance in the future would be jeopardized. So, the window of opportunity was at the beginning. If Golda Meir was too indecisive to use the nuclear option at the beginning, when Israel was actually threatened, then it would have made matters worse to use them at the end.

     What’s more, there’s no way to say that it would have had a positive effect on the future of Syrians, since the very deadly Syrian civil war was sponsored by the CIA supporting Islamist “non-terror” groups rebelling against the Syrian government, for reasons I am still unclear on.

     • The pipeline. It’s all about the natural gas pipeline, in my opinion. The intelligence services are dedicated to stopping Russia from securing any more gas pipelines into Europe. Since Assad is a Russian client, he must go. We only want pipelines through territory controlled by OUR thugs and despots.

       • I would have thought a stable Assad-ruled secular Syria was pretty much in the West’s and Russia’s interests. Syria had been more or less quiescent since 1973.

         • Not if you have keeping Russia down as your greatest priority. Then your interests include toppling Assad, to keep the Russians from building or controlling more pipelines.

     • I agree especially with your second last paragraph.Using a touch pad, I can’t make a substantive reply, but I’m sure you would agree with my overarching point that had Israel nuked Damascus at the outset, things would have been very different in the Middle East power dynamic subsequently.

     • Correction: third not second last paragraph.

5. Julius, you make my thoughts drift away…. a nuclear strike? The kaaba transformed into a tiny piece of glas, the arab world back in stone age busy 15 hours a day with providing subsistence? And in some years, maybe a vacation home on the Mediterranean coast east of St.Tropez with good food and wine…but without muslim zealots.

   • There existed a more pragmatic alternative to keeping the Arab-Muslim world in its millennia-long backwardness. The Islamic resurgence of the C20th has been fuelled solely by oil money (see the Daniel Yergin book).

     In order to secure the oil resources of Ibn Saud’s newly-minted Kingdom, FDR sucked up to the King. As the British already controlled the oil-producing Persian Gulf statelets from Kuwait to the now-UAE (including Bahrain and Qatar), as well as inland Mesopotamian oil fields and those of Persia on the northern side of the Gulf, the US could have filled in the exceptionally thinly-populated gap between Kuwait & Bahrain by engaging in some neo-colonialism and created a US-controlled emirate just as the British did and told the poor and technologically backward (Ibn Saud conquered the central New-Riyadh area with swords not guns) Saudi Kingdom (whose primary source of revenue was fees collected from haj pilgrims to Mecca) to go jump in the lake.

     The British and US should have just held fast and robustly retained their control of the Persian Gulf littoral indefinitely. No oil money, no modern arms, no power, no vast Arabian & Iranian population explosion and therefore no spread of Islam. When Western do-gooders and locals belated about autonomy post-WW2 the US and UK should have responded:”Sorry fellas, your oil is far too strategically important to the economy of Western civilisation for us to let you tribal barbarians to have any control over it”.

6. If Islam is at war with the rest of the world (it is, in fact) than ground zero is Mecca. The ONLY way Islam has been kept from spreading its truly vile teachings and arrogance in the past was with ruthless subjugation, colonization and humiliation.

   • Agreed. Your second sentence should spill from the lips of every sober minded Western statesman, historian and commentator. It is the paramount tragedy of our era that it doesn’t. And it puzzles and deeply perturbs me, and has done so for my entire adult life, that it doesn’t as it is so obvious.

7. Note that this happened in the German – Polish border town Frankfurt at the Oder ( river) and not at the bigger better known Frankfurt at the Mainz ( river) .
   This German city lies a stones throw away from Poland , I still have to check what and if the Polish media have written about this attack . Warsaw is seeing an influx of foreigners since a few years now , bangladeshies , Indians , Africans , the city will become more and more like Western Europe if this trend keeps up at the pace it is going now .

8. >>If Islam is at war with the rest of the world (it is, in fact) than ground zero is Mecca.

   Ground zero is Islam itself, or the Koran, same thing.

   Western intelligence, military and police agencies spend enormous time and resources looking for active Muslim “conspiracies”, replete with communications infrastructure, financing, member rosters, stockpiled weapons, etc.. They are wasting their time, missing the point and endangering westerners. The conspiracy is not tangible, it is abstract. Today’s mechanical engineering or medical student is (literally) tomorrow’s jihadi. Ten Muslims, 5 Muslims, 2 Muslims, 1 Muslim…….none need communication, logistics or planning from a central source other than Islam itself as the source. ISLAM IS THE CONSPIRACY. All Muslim men are potential soldiers in furthering this conspiracy to conquer. Once they are tuned into Islam they are a great danger to the rest of us.

   It is too much to expect Islam to be defeated, but it is not too much to expect that Islam be neutered, that it be quarantined, bounded and hounded, the way it had been for hundreds of years, before the late 20th century. Our governments are failing us.

9. “It is too much to expect Islam to be defeated, but it is not too much to expect that Islam be neutered, that it be quarantined, bounded and hounded, the way it had been for hundreds of years, before the late 20th century. Our governments are failing us.”

   Indeed. Neutered and quarantined would have sufficed. Imagine how the world would be now if that had taken place, beginning with decisive Western action to restrain Turkey post-WW1 from expunging its large non-Muslim minority populations: Armenians, Greeks, Jews and others.

   Certainly preventing Iran from going theocratic in 1979 would have been an even more important step. Thank you France for hosting the Ayatollah in Paris for decades and enabling him to orchestrate the Islamic revolution from there. Idiocy!

Comments are closed.