It says over at the Daily Telegraph that 1.5 million people have “marched for unity” in Paris, accompanied by “world leaders”. This gives the drones warm wet feelings between their legs of course, as is intended.
In about a week, the shooting-up of an ordinary (if left-wing) newspaper’s offices will have been forgotten, and “world leaders” will be able to resume the chip-by-chip chipping-away of liberty and freedom of expression for those people and groups in our civilisation that are not currently favoured and petted for vote-farming.
“Ordinary people” like those in the rallies, and their “leaders”, have to either shit or get off the pot. Either this keeps on happening (and it will) and these ralliers keep on rallying and saying “We Are All Americans Now” (like the day after 9/11) and then _do something positive_, or not. (Just like they didn’t then, and won’t now.)
One particularly interesting thing I noticed was what Boris Johnson, the elected mayor of London (for any readers who don’t know him by now, as if that was a possibility) said on Sky News: “I am not interested in this civil liberties stuff. If they are a threat, I want their email and calls listened to.” Speaking for myself here, although I disagree with his major premise in a most general way, I’m not saying that, were I to be Principal Secretary of State For War, I would not authorise the wiretapping of “certain people’s comms”, in this situation.
However, “ethno-religious profiling” would have been already enabled by me, quietly, to do this, on the mere basis of the available evidence which is empirical and clear, about what soert of person is (always) doing the terrorizing and killing – that is, if I had the geek-resources of a large and busy hyperactive State at my disposal. There would be no need to tell anyone that this was being done: it would only enrage the leftoids and university-teachers (a terrible problem that we have these days, specially in the Anglosphere, where the intellectuo-anti-liberal infection is raging at its increasingly raging height) and anti-liberal fascists in our midst. We’ve got enough of a difficulty about these awful intellectuo-people already, without having to deal with actual armed assaults.
One would do this because the probability that “someone (of a certain belief-system, and from somewhere equatorial and hot) who believes “this supercool stuff what it says in this book” ” would do such attacks, is clearly greater than that “someone else” (of a different ethnicity and/or religion and/or none, and from, let us say, Slaidburn or Southport) would do the same acts.