‘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.”
Whoever has attacked our parliament for whatever motive will not succeed in dividing us. All of my thoughts with those injured.
— Brendan Cox (@MrBrendanCox) March 22, 2017
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.