‘He Will Not Divide Us’


The ambitions of terrorists are obvious. By their words and actions, we can be sure that all terrorists desire to disrupt, injure, kill, gain publicity for their cause, and arouse fear in a particular population. Faced with such a prospect, it is also fairly obvious that the only means of defeating it, and “winning,” are to demoralize, inhibit, and execute would-be terrorists, and to ruthlessly suppress their ideology. Furthermore, in instances where terrorism emerges from both a foreign ideology and a foreign population, in order to ensure the ongoing safety and prosperity of the native population, it would be perfectly rational to reconsider the position and privileges of these troublesome sections of society.

Despite these self-evident truths, a recurring feature of every incidence of Islamist violence is the promotion by mainstream politicians and assorted “liberals” of a different understanding of terrorism. In this understanding, Islamist terrorists don’t want to kill, gain publicity, or create fear. Rather, they desire to “divide us” and to “take away our values,” of which “tolerance” seems to be paramount. The last mangled body had no sooner been pulled into an ambulance earlier today than Brendan Cox, the widower of murdered MP Jo Cox, took to Twitter to announce: “Whoever has attacked our parliament for whatever motive will not succeed in dividing us.”

This is a short and arrogant statement that is rich with insincerity and disingenuousness. Note the feigned ambivalence about who the attacker may have been (when images of a bearded South-East Asian had already gone viral), and what his motive might have been (animal rights, tax cuts?). But note especially Cox’s implication that the attacker sought, as his chief or only goal, to “divide us.” In this narrative, Islamist terrorism in Europe, a symptom of neocon foreign policy and multiculturalism, becomes an enemy of multiculturalism. In this rhetorical device, designed to protect multiculturalism during periods when it is most vulnerable, Islamist terrorists don’t really care about establishing a Caliphate, avenging death and destruction in their distant homelands, and bringing death to the kuffar. In fact, they don’t want anything of the things they continually tell us they want. What they actually want, according to the liberal narrative, is to convince us that we can’t all get along.

In a similar vein, the Home Secretary, Amber Rudd, told a packed press conference a few hours ago that: “The British people will be united in working together to defeat those who would harm our shared values. Values of tolerance, democracy, and the rule of law.” I very much doubt that the cretin who plowed his car into a crowd of schoolchildren earlier today thought very much about such abstract terms. I imagine instead that he was motivated by his holy book, his social milieu, and his culture. To paraphrase the great English poet Rudyard Kipling, the gods of his far-off land had re-possessed his blood.

We witness, in the glib mutterings of Rudd, Cox, and their ilk, pathetic attempts at damage limitation. By Rudd’s estimation, the terrorist “lost” today because we will continue to be “tolerant” and allow hundreds of thousands of his co-ethnics to pour into Britain. Yes, that’ll show him! The terrorist did in fact win today. He murdered innocents, he made headlines around the world, and he died in precisely the manner he wanted to. There is no victory for the British people in today’s events, and we disgrace the lives and memory of the victims of Islamist terrorism in Europe by clinging to the very ideology that continues to facilitate it on our soil.

Islamic terrorism is a foreign-policy issue that became a domestic terrorism issue due to the modern phenomenon of mass immigration. Indeed, multiculturalism, by definition, results in societies with divergent cultures and values. In such societies, and contrary to the utterances of Amber Rudd, there is no “us” and there are no “shared values.” If we had truthful politicians in London today, a very different rhetoric would emerge. We shouldn’t have to tolerate terrorism. We shouldn’t have to accommodate foreign values. We shouldn’t have to sacrifice more and more of our long-cherished and hard-earned freedoms to the surveillance state, just so our liberal elites and their handlers can keep a close eye on their guests.

In some respects, penning this piece feels redundant. Attacks similar to those that happened today will be repeated across Europe and other predominantly White nations infected with the plague of mass immigration. The fact that such an assertion can be made with both confidence and numbness is a sad indictment of our society and the position of our people. One can only hope that we are crawling ever nearer to the limit of our tolerance, and the rediscovery of our dignity.

Andrew Joyce
the authorAndrew Joyce
Andrew Joyce holds a Ph.D. in History and Literature. He is the Editor of Washington Summit Publishers and a frequent contributor to The Occidental Observer among other publications. He is a father of three.


  • I wonder how many more of these attacks will seriously be tolerated, especially with what happend in Fresno and Spain today. My guess is business as usual within the next few hours and then they will get memory holed.

  • Look on the photo at the black woman with headscarf passing by pretty indifferent where others are nervously trying to help the victims. I can read her thoughts / her whatsapp she is typing: ‘Great to see these white scum dying!”

  • He Will Not Divide Us'” – we will do that ourselves by lying to ourselves about equality and the real world

  • If Britain shut the doors today, do you think the Pakis’ tendency to cousin marry would render the Paki population too retarded and infertile to carry on after so many generations? It worked for the Habsburgs. I often wonder what can be done about the Pakis that are already there. They can’t assimilate, and you can’t deport people who are citizens. Perhaps the gov’t could covertly encourage more of what they do best, inbreeding.

  • There are now three big forces in the world: Globalism(largely controlled by Jews), Nationalism(controlled by gentiles of each nation), and Islam.

    Nationalism is powerful but it is not a grand ideology. It is limited within particular national borders.

    In contrast, globalism and Islam seek world dominance. It is no wonder that the main clash is between these two ideo-empires.

    Islam is universalist, and globalism is imperialist. When Big Forces collide, each vies for supremacy.

    It’s like Cold Front meeting Warm Front. It leads to storms and hails.

    Both are violent on a worldwide scale. Muslims will use violence and war to spread Jihad.

    Globalism will use bombs, sanctions, financial warfare, and worse to destroy entire nations that won’t put out. Look at fate of Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, etc.

    Marxism was the other grand ideology, but it died. Whatever radical element it had joined up with globalism that is a fusion of oligarch capitalists, decadents, and radical nihilism. In former Soviet Republic states, many former Marxists reverted to Islam.

    So, it’s Globalism vs Islam.

    We accuse Islam of violence, and yes, Muslims can be violent.

    But globalism has been the far more aggressive, destructive, and invasive force. Muslim terrorism killed 1000s in the West. Globalist imperialism has come close to killing a million or more in the Muslim World.

    Because of the Cold War, there was a kind of alliance between globalists and Muslims, esp in Afghanistan. But fall of communism no longer made the alliance viable.

    In material terms, globalism is 1000x more powerful and well-funded than Islam despite the riches of Saudis and Gulf states(that, despite their Islamism, is allied with globo-US against Iran).

    But Islam has certain advantages. Islam is spreading worldwide. Muslims have no guilt conscience. Every Muslim is a warrior of the heart and womb.

    In contrast, the warrior culture of globalism is purely mercenary. It hires and pays soldiers to fight for ‘muh liberty’, but its ideology revolves around Beastie Boys ‘right to party’, homomania, ‘pussy hats’, and tattoos & piercings. Globalism is mega-rich but utterly vacuous and degenerate morally and spiritually. Whites and yellows who are the core demography of globalism have forgotten how to create life. They prefer materiality and ‘liberty’ over life, family, and culture.

    Also, there is lack of unity between elites and masses in globalism. Among Muslims, there is spiritual unity between Muslim leaders and Muslim masses. Among globalists, it’s a case of Jewish oligarchs like Soros and Adelson throwing cash around to foment divisions or support Israel in a world in which Jews are less than 0.1% of the population. Most people of the globo-west have no strong idea of what globalism is about. For some, it’s Hollywood movies for the world. For SJW’s, it worship of Statue of Liberty. For homos, it’s homo parade in every nation.

    Globalist soldiers are the best in the world in training and equipment, but the globalist masses have no idea what they’re fighting for.

    But every Muslim knows why a Muslim fights and carries on with Jihad either violently or culturally or reproductively.

    How much of Muslim terror in the West is for Jihad; how much is it for revenge?

    If it’s a matter of revenge, it has less to do with ideology and more to do with a sense of ‘justice’.

    It’s like US got revenge for Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Indeed, US extended the revenge for 9/11 even to Iraq even though Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11.

    So, the logic of revenge is part of politics.

    So, some of these attacks by Muslims are not about religion but about retaliation for globalism’s war on the Muslim world. Even 9/11 was ‘blowback’. If Muslims attack all things ‘infidel’, why don’t they target Brazil and Japan with their vile decadent cultures?

    Imagine if China became far more powerful than the US. Suppose China stations troops in the US and carries out operations that decimate entire cities. Suppose so many Americans are reduced to refugee status like in the original RED DAWN. Suppose China decides to put on a Nice Humanitarian Face and allow American refugees to come live in China. While some Americans might be cuckishly grateful for China’s generosity, might not some Americans want to get even with the ‘slanty-eyed buggers’? Might they not carry out acts of terror? Would it be proper to blame the violence on Uncle-Sam-ism? Wouldn’t the violence really be more about revenge than any belief in American values?

    So, I think much of the Muslim violence has to be seen as retaliatory than religious.

    If the US feels what it did in WWII against Germany and Japan was morally justified on grounds of revenge, then Muslims have a case too.

    That said, because Muslims do have a universalist, warrior, and missionary creed, Islam rage(even when retaliatory) takes on a prophetic and even apocalyptic tone. Once Muslims get riled up, their rage just keeps burning. It’s sort of like once Jews have a certain resentment, it never seems to go away until their enemy is totally ground into the dirt.

    Also, Muslims must be frustrated by the schizo character of globalism. It has the mightiest military in the world that can destroy entire Muslim nations in no time. But when Muslims go to the West, they don’t see a race of mighty warriors and heroes but a bunch of cucks, pansies, wussies, and dorks who get pushed around by shameless sluts, henpecking feminists, goofy Jews, funny homos, nasty Negroes, and even trannies.

    The West is still defined by the image of the White Male, and the globo military is still dominated by white men from top to bottom. They are badass killers who make Muslims shi* their pants in the desert, like in the movie AMERICAN SNIPER.

    But when Muslims come to the West, they see all those pansy white boys who cower before Negroes, kiss toes of Jews, get henpecked by wenches, pushed around by slut daughters, and do nothing to protect their women from rape gangs.

    Muslims fear the globo-mercenary force, but they see the west as a soft underbelly, or an overripe fruit just waiting to drop from the tree.

    Nationalism would be the best thing for most nations, but globalism weakens all nationalisms. Only nations sufficiently big like China, Russia, and Iran can maintain true nationalism against the globalist tide. All other nations have become vassals of the US empire whose invite/invade strategy is messing up the whole world.

    But unlike most peoples, Muslims will not succumb to globalist since they have a grand eternalist sense of what is right and wrong.

    In contrast, Japanese no longer feel any sacred connection to their culture or history. Into globo-disposable cosplay culture, they follow the US and even have homo parades. Japanese people have become like gadgets and robots and cartoon characters.

    So, non-Muslim nations that cannot sustain autonomous nationalism like Russia, China, and Iran just succumb to globalism.

    But Muslims resist because they do have a durable sense of what is right, holy, and sacred.

    Also, they still believe in the faith. In contrast, no one cares about the church of England whose latest theme is ‘gay marriage’. Because Christianity is a pacifistic religion, it wilts and fades without the protection of a Noble Warrior Class.

    In contrast, Islam is a fusion of warrior creed and spiritual vision. To believe in and of itself is to be a warrior. A Muslim can defend himself. In contrast, a true Christian must turn the other cheek, and if he chooses to fight, he must feel guilty afterwards.

    Also, materialist globalism means you are NOTHING unless you got status and money. In contrast, even the lowest poorest Muslim feels as the man of God.

    There is a kind of quasi-spirituality to globalism with its New Age do-gooderism, but can anyone explain what Ashley Judd and madonna were yammering about at the ‘pussy hat’ pandemonium? It’s virtue as faddishness.

    So, in a way, Samuel Huntington called it right. It is about Islam vs the West. But he was wrong in one sense because Globalism, not the West, is the main contender with Islam. Globalism has already swallowed up the West; it is fusing the West with the Rest, and this voracity is advancing at rapid pace and unfortunately succeeding all too well in Latin America, Asian, and non-Muslim Africa. They are all turning into variations of Rammstein’s Amerika, and the US and EU are being third-world-ized in turn by these crass materialists whose main culture is rap, hollywood, and video games.

    It is Muslims who’ve thrown the monkey wrench into this globalist project by rejecting globalist ideology and values(and we should be thankful for that since it sticks in the craw of the GLOB monster). Even though Muslim mass entry into the West happens under globalism, Muslims will not bow down to globalist creeds and fads.

    Now, I think sharia is pretty backward and brutish. But, does anyone really think current Western values are any better?

    Worship of homos and trannies? Christian bakers destroyed for decency and integrity?

    Goy worship of Jews and Zionism in Congress?

    Anti-white vitriol from the mass media?

    Rap Music as expression of america pride?

    White boys raised to be cuck-wussies into Gayria, Negria, and Zioria?

    What kind of girls white fathers are now raising? Should these men be prouder than Muslim men because they have ‘western values’ that is now little more than cuckery of the likes of Justin Trudeau?

  • Comments saying that England is finished etc.

    Keep your defeatism to yourself. We don’t need people like you chipping away at morale. Awareness of the issues we face is growing rapidly. I remember coming back from living in the Middle East in the late 90s and hearing of Muslim plans for Europe, and people in the UK I talked to were universally dismissive.

    Not any more. So many people I know now are aware of the problem. UKIP took 4 million votes in the last GE. They would have taken a fraction 5 years earlier. It is NOT too late. Tolerance is waning and the left are in retreat. They do not represent the majority.

    Reconquista 2.0 is coming. The doom mongers on our own side are doing the work of the left and the Islamists.

  • The problem with the “x will not divide us” virtuous statement is that underneath that facade there is a false unstated assumption. That assumption is that we are somehow united with muslims and other groups. We were NEVER united with these people in the first place and thus division is actually impossible.

  • It’s a sure thing that Britain’s 100% cucked government will show the terrorists up by admitting thousands more Muslims into the country, The politicians will beat their chests and say, “See? You haven’t scared us!” when, it fact, they should be scared.

    • Sadly, the real retona4 has retired from commenting. I still remember that raid on Alternet when he followed us home, those were fun times, and how far we have come since then.

  • Yup. That is it in a nutshell.

    Rape, crime, riots & gangs?

    “I didn’t hear about that!”

    Terror attacks?

    “Sure, its been on TV all morning. Diversity is our strength. We are not afraid. We are Charlie Hebdo. Blah…and such and such too…”

    These ‘events’ are used to further constrain what is or can be ‘acceptable’ ideologies. They use ‘radical islamic terrorism’ because it is an ‘ideology’. A perfect example that we can all agree should not be in a ‘liberal democracy’.

    Of course ‘white supremacy’ is also an unacceptable ‘ideology’. And once we are sufficiently flooded with arabs that no longer have the dangerous ‘ideology’ of ‘radical islamic terrorism’. Then they will shift the game and start having ‘terror attacks’ that are committed by ‘far right’, ‘white supremacist’, ‘fascist’ or ‘nationalist’ groups.

    It will be an easy sell job too.

    You see, it will all be explained to the masses by Dr. Cohen and Dr. Ahmed that it is a response (the new, more dangerous, rightwing terror) to the beautiful ‘liberal democracy’ that we now have.

    After all, they just stamped out ‘radical islamic terrorist ideology’. So now we must devote all of our resources to stamping out ‘hate’.

    “Thank all the different gods, yashems and allahs; now we have EVERYONE on our side to get rid of ‘fascism/supremacism/seperatism/nationalism’ for good!”

  • England is done for anyway and once again you see that the EDL or any other pro-english Group on this cursed Island doesn’t hold England as important as the Islamist values his Islam. Nothing happend after Rotherham, nothing will happen after this Terror Attack. Nothing happend after the 7/7 Bombings. England is done for cause the English don’t care. Now lets lean back and watch this shit show burn to the ground.

  • Great article, Andrew.

    English patriot (((Tommy Robinson))) (yes, yes) was out yesterday near the attacks and gave a stinging condemnation of Islam to TV interviewers. Immediately, a huge army of left-wing twitter bots attacked him for daring to state the bleeding obvious. A few others like Paul Weston took the same line, but weren’t given any airtime. Sadly, the whole narrative was the one that the likes of Amber Rudd pushed. We can get the word out on social media, but 70% of the population will be hearing just constant ‘a one off’, ‘mental illness’, ‘extremists won’t divide us’, ‘our common values’, and the old favourite ‘nothing to do with Islam’; and although plenty of people see through such nonsense, there is no shortage of those who really believe it.

    • Precisely, that’ll fix everything. Also can you imagine how bad things woulda been in London if Richard were still allowed to come?! He woulda been knockin down skyscrapers with his fashy lazerbeams.

  • “By Rudd’s estimation, the terrorist ‘lost’ today because we will continue to be ‘tolerant’ and to allow hundreds of thousands of his co-ethnics to pour into Britain. Yes, that’ll show him! The terrorist did in fact win today. He murdered innocents, he made headlines around the world, and he died in precisely the manner he wanted to. There is no victory for the British people in today’s events, and we disgrace the lives and memory of the victims of Islamist terrorism in Europe by clinging to the very ideology that continues to facilitate it on our soil.”


  • Multi-culturalism is the nice word put to hide white-genocide. It is no strength it is a weakness and a fatal one. The reasons for that will not be analysed as anyone visiting this site knows why.

    The only thing that I see positive from this is that the point that tolerance snaps comes close or it has already been reached. Everybody needs to know that when the backlash comes it will be a surprise to everyone, the reason is no one is allowed to speak of it. The fact that the alt-media start to have influence equal to that of the traditional media is the only thing that indicates this change.

    Our last obstacle is that of political conservatism, a phenomenon under which people continue to support the same parties out of fear of the unknown. This is the only thing that stands against the retaliation of Europe to the Third World and it’s enablers in the civilised world. That is what keeps the establishment on power still.

Leave a Reply