In the story below, we see a man tried and convicted in one day from Tunisia, who murdered an Austrian couple, inside Austria, because he “hated Austrian society and especially those who oppose the mass migration party, FPO”.
So a person who was already inside Austria, and was safe from whatever he claimed he was escaping, and enjoyed all the benefits of Austrian society, probably far more than most such as welfare and state sponsored dental care, if Austria has that, threw it all away on what was a horrifying yet symbolic gesture of murdering two strangers because they opposed the full on invasion of their country by muslims from anywhere and everywhere.
He went from a safe comfortable life presumably, to life in prison for a symbolic act of murder because it prevented people unknown to him, but to whom he felt far more kinship than the Austrians, from entering Austria for those same benefits illegally.
This is a lot of meaning and points to a general rule that we insist on ignoring, even making illegal to point out, as the more you oppose a truth the more force is required to suppress it. And we ignore that truth at great peril.
Tunisian migrant Mohamed H. was sentenced to life in a Linz court Monday after being found guilty of murdering an elderly Austrian couple because they supported the populist, anti-mass migration Freedom Party (FPÖ).
The prosecutor in the case put forward that Mohamed H.’s motive for the crime after he admitted to committing the two murders, was a hate for Austrian society and specifically the fact that the elderly couple supported the anti-mass migration FPÖ.
The Tunisian, who had been living in Austria since 1989, has previously been arrested for animal cruelty following a complaint from a local FPÖ politician in 2012 and had allegedly blamed the populist party for all of the things going wrong in his life from that point on.
The man knew the elderly couple as he worked as a delivery driver and delivered groceries to them. In late June of last year during his regular deliveries, he hid a knife, a jerrycan, and a stick and approached the home of the couple.
The case also had an Islamic extremist element to it as the court heard that the Tunisian had praised Islamic State and endorsed terror attacks carried out by the group. The 55-year-old even praised terror leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi in court.
Despite his praise for Islamic State, he was found not guilty of affiliation with a terror group.
If one reads the whole article at source, there also appears to be a personal motive. But even if we accept that it appears that the personal motive is derived from the collective one. The one where the Ummah and its interests are upstream from action.