Brussels: Déjà vu


Brussels: Déjà vu
By Keir Martland

I remember watching with horror on the night of the 13th November 2015 as the news of the Paris atrocities came through. RT, the BBC, and Sky were all of them thoroughly confused by the events and yet I stayed up until the small hours of the morning. When I woke up, the death toll was well over a hundred.  It made me, and countless others, almost physically ill. It also made me very angry.

This morning, I sat down with my breakfast and switched on the television set with the intention of getting my 5-10 minutes of BBC propaganda. Instead, I was very nearly late for college. Just as in November, I was glued to the screen, only this time I don’t feel the same anger. Yes, I am repulsed. I would hope that the very idea that any one of us could be blown to smithereens by some lunatic while on the way to work or waiting for our luggage – in our own country – would repulse any sensible person. But I am incapable of reproducing the emotions of last year.Instead, what I mostly feel is déjà vu. 

brussels.jpg

Why not the same excitable reaction?

Firstly, simply because the circumstances are so similar. The perpetrators appear to be Islamist terrorists. They killed innocent Europeans. The death toll has crept upwards throughout the day, from about 10 while digesting my cereal to over 30 as I sit writing this.

Secondly, because the politicians have cried the same crocodile tears as they did last November. David Cameron has made it known to the world just how “shocked” he is that such a thing could happen. If that is truly the case, then David Cameron is the most retarded Prime Minister this country has ever had.

Thirdly, because our retarded Prime Minister has promised to “do everything he can to help.” This is perhaps the worst thing I have heard today besides the death of over 30 innocent civilians in terrorist atrocities at the Zaventem airport and the Maelbeek metro station.

I do not believe David Cameron should do “everything he can.”

David Cameron is a neoconservative. Having been a complete failure at home, he has turned his sights abroad, where he has also been a complete failure. David Cameron believes in spreading democracy throughout the world. More specifically, he believes, like Tony Blair, in imposing democracy on the Middle East through the waging of costly and ineffective wars and regime change.

Yet, David Cameron has proved doubly as bad as Tony Blair. For, at least Blair destroyed only Iraq. David Cameron has destroyed both Libya and Syria, albeit in league with other despicable men.

In 2011, our Prime Minister joined in enthusiastically in Hillary Clinton’s Crusade in Libya, along with the French, on the pretext of protecting civilians’ human rights. That Crusade was authorised by the modern equivalent of a mediaeval papal bull, a United Nations resolution. But unlike the First Crusade, they set out not to conquer and rule Libya as their own, but simply to destroy its state.

Now, I have anarchist sympathies. I have no qualms about the realisation of a stateless society. But the trouble is that if you destroy a Middle Eastern state, it creates a vacuum which will be filled by lunatics. The result was that Libya became a ‘failed state’, overflowing with mercenaries funded by the United States and the various Gulf Arab factions. Some of these mercenaries then went on to fight in the five-way Syrian Civil War.

Libya is now a mess and yet David Cameron to this day maintains that what he did was right.

After Ed Miliband’s Labour Opposition saved us from intervention in Syria in 2013 in support of the rebels against President Assad, David Cameron decided to take Britain into Syria in 2015 with the aim of fighting ISIS. Cameron exploited the November 2015 Paris atrocities in the most appalling fashion most likely to distract attention from his disastrous economic record at home. Not only did Cameron lie to Parliament when he claimed that there were 70,000 “moderate rebels” to assist in the fight against ISIS (whom he wanted to support in 2013), but he also maintains that “Assad must go.” Therefore, the British Government went into a five-way civil war, opposing two sides and supporting a side that is non-existent.

David Cameron has one of the worst, if not the worst, foreign policy records of any British premier to date.

Wars of this kind in the Middle East are not fought by only natives to the country in question. Rather, various Arab states such as Qatar and Saudi Arabia, along with the United States and the other Western powers, employ Islamist mercenaries to destroy these countries for them. And these mercenaries are seriously crazy. I have heard reports that the United States, for example, give out drugs to their Islamist fighters which make them think they are invincible. In any case, the psychological impact on any human being of the type of wars that are nowadays fought would be enough to turn even the sanest of us into lunatics.

Many of these mercenaries are Muslims who have recently settled in Europe. According to the rather conservative estimates of General Breedlove of NATO, in Syria alone there have been 9,000 ‘foreign’ fighters and 1,500 of them are on their way back to Europe. Indeed, it makes sense for many of them to do so, since the Russian bombing of ISIS bases, combined with internal strife within ISIS’ ranks, mean that the Syrian Civil War will probably die down soon provided the various factions don’t ignite it again by throwing more men, arms, and money into it.

Returning to the November 2015 Paris atrocities, ISIS claimed responsibility for this and all of the perpetrators were EU citizens. ISIS justified the murder of 130 civilians in Paris by reference to the French bombing of both Syria and Iraq. A number of the perpetrators had been Islamist fighters in the Middle East who had come ‘home.’

One example is Bilal Hadfi, who was associated with Boko Haram, and both the Libyan and Syrian branches of Islamic State. He had French citizenship and the authorities were aware that he had gone to fight in Syria.

Another example is the Syrian Ahmad al-Mohammad, who claimed to be a Syrian refugee.

I am not usually a betting man, but I would be willing to bet a few quid that the bastards who blew themselves up today were in some way connected to ISIS, and may even have recently come home from Syria.

While the Cameron Regime was elected on a promise to get net migration down to the tens of thousands, it has instead risen to record levels, with the figure for last year being well over 300,000, the equivalent of another Wigan or another Enfield in the space of just one year. The politicians talk glibly about the impact of immigration on housing and school places, but they dare not mention the impact on racial and religious tensions. Immigration is effectively Balkanising this country, which will mean ultimately the collapse of civil society and the rise of an all-powerful State.

But a number of British Muslims have also gone off to fight in the Middle East. Britain is also home to a number Syrian refugees – the numbers are difficult to ascertain, but I would guess into the thousands. Many of them are being housed in hotels which now have lucrative contracts with the British State to become, in effect, makeshift detention centres. The fact that all of our existing detention centres are full tells you all you need to know about the scale of the problem.

The reason I am not angry when I hear about terrorist attacks in France or in Belgium is because I am relieved it is not Britain’s turn…yet. The British State’s foreign and immigration policies guarantee that there will soon enough be a London atrocity, or a Manchester atrocity, or a Liverpool atrocity, or a Birmingham atrocity. However, there may yet be time to remove the inevitability.

What, then, should David Cameron do?

Firstly, he should end all British involvement in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations.

Secondly, he should temporarily close Britain’s borders, only to be re-opened “when our leaders figure out what the hell is going on” as Donald Trump would say.

Thirdly, he should get Parliament to repeal all anti-gun legislation so that if an Islamist former mercenary starts killing civilians left, right, and centre with a Kalashnikov,  we can shoot the bastard, before he shoots us.

While I said I’m not a betting man, I am willing to make another bet: that not one of these measures will be taken by the Cameron Government. Instead, the latest round of atrocities in Belgium will be used to get the Investigatory Powers Bill passed into law.

 

Advertisements

13 comments

  • Pingback: Brussels: Déjà vu « Attack the System

  • Pingback: Brussels: Déjà vu | Keir Martland

  • A very timely and well-written response. I agree with every word.

  • And yet you Brits cheered on obama and like to tell us how he is so much better than bush. They both suck.

    • I’m willing to make some allowances for Bush. 9/11 obviously meant that the Dept for Homeland Security and the wars were politically astute actions. He was acting in his own self-interest, as any politician would.

      Obama doesn’t seem to have been personally behind the Obama administrations wars, not all of them at least. The Obama foreign policy has been too complicated for me to understand fully, but Clinton was behind Libya and is a firm neoconservative. John Kerry is a confusing figure, as is Joe Biden. There probably is no “Obama foreign policy”, since Obama is fairly anti-Israel, while Biden is pro-Israel, etc etc. None of them can make their mind up about Putin. Obama has had to satisfy all of the various interest groups within his Cabinet and executive office. But all this is probably better, on balance, than a confident neoconservative foreign policy, which we would have seen under McCain or Romney.

  • About guns. Having been a member of a pistol club at one time I agree with KM point that we would be able to shoot them before they got us. Indeed, couple of years ago I wrote to our local Chief Constable suggesting that the necessary crisis has arisen and gun clubs should be re-instated. My letter was forwarded to the Home Office and a nice Mr Baker (Lib Dem coalition man) replied that we don’t do guns any more. So KM is right. My point is that a couple of heavily armed cops on the street corner could be very easily taken out by a terrorist before they even knew he was there, whereas, “we chaps” being in mufti would be incognito. Unfortunately that does not stop the body bomber who also will be incognito.
    I do to some extent not describe the victims as “innocent” since there ought to be some relationship between them and the government THEY elect which makes these guys so angry they want to bomb us. Osama Bin Laden did admit that the 9/11 affair was a response to Palestine,so why not this too?. While with the SAS I saw a photo of some poor Arab and his guts hanging out, having been shot by SAS troopers who were standing by laughing!!! He was probably PLO. in those days I was a political ignoramus but now I am glad it was not me who shot him. I would never forgive myself. May I add that I was not IN the SAS, thank God.
    Of course, since we have surrendered our “sovereignty” we no longer have any need of armed forces (they are there to protect sovereignty) so, as he rightly points out, they are available to help the New World Order destroy the other nation states still in the way. At least that nasty bit of work Theresa May spoke the truth at theri 2014 conference when she said “We can’t go around just overthrowing dictators and expect liberal democracy to follow automatically.” True, but collective responsibility being what is it she is as guilty as that psychopath Cameron.

  • I agree entirely with your recommendations (1) and (3), though quite frankly, (1) is far too little far too late.

    But your idea (2) of “temporarily closing the borders” is way over the top. (You did mean close, didn’t you? No-one going either in or out? For an indefinite period?) I had a look at some of the UK migration statistics for last year, here they are:

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/2015-08-27

    and Figure 6 for entry clearance visas (I know that’s not the same as immigration, but they don’t make these things easy, do they?) suggests that, at least among the “top 10” countries, only about 20% of the individuals coming in are from Muslim countries. Stopping Chinese, Indians and Americans, to name only the top three, from entering the UK is a crazy way to try to prevent Islamist terrorism.

    It does worry me when people here, who should know better, buy these panics and react in a horribly illiberal (and xenophobic) way by demanding MORE power for the state – the very state that, as they well know, is utterly hostile to us human beings and to our freedom.

    • I expect he meant “temporarily close Britain’s borders” for Moslems, though personally I would support the permanent closure of Britain’s borders and deny entry to all non-whites, making exceptions only for people who can satisfy the border agency that they are tourists/temporary visitors.

  • [quote]”What, then, should David Cameron do?

    Firstly, he should end all British involvement in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern nations.

    Secondly, he should temporarily close Britain’s borders, only to be re-opened “when our leaders figure out what the hell is going on” as Donald Trump would say.

    Thirdly, he should get Parliament to repeal all anti-gun legislation so that if an Islamist former mercenary starts killing civilians left, right, and centre with a Kalashnikov, we can shoot the bastard, before he shoots us.”[unquote]

    I agree entirely with 3, partly (but not entirely) agree with 1, and 2 doesn’t go far enough, but none of these things will happen under present conditions anyway.

    The first suggestion runs contrary to long-standing priorities. The reason Britain interferes in the internal affairs of Middle Eastern countries is because the government perceives it to be in the British interest (i.e. economic and business interests) – which to be fair, is entirely legitimate. Why shouldn’t British governments look after the interests of British businesses?

    More critically, British and other Western governments are being influenced by the Israeli/Zionist lobby, who want a divided and weakened Middle East. The Middle East used to be a civilised region and during the 20th. century underwent a process of Westernisation under various nationalist leaders in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Jordan, and Egypt. The Islamism that began to take hold in some of these countries during the latter part of the 20th. century is largely attributable to our disastrous strategic alignment with Israel, which is especially strong for the United States and Britain, and seems to bring us no benefit at all (though I am sure there are powerful people who would disagree with me on that point and argue that there are benefits).

    Your second suggestion would have been acceptable twenty years ago, but now it would be too little, too late. The horse has already bolted. Donald Trump’s pledge to close the borders “while we figure out what is going on” [I mean, come on, seriously..????] is just laughable, but Mr Trump is not a stupid man, so I assume this pledge is meant for popular consumption – a way of ‘setting the tone’.

    The reality is that we will need much more than a ‘temporary’ closure of borders, and our priorities must be in the opposite direction. The question is how we are going to organise mass deportations of Moslems and other non-whites, not how many we should take in (which, when you think about it, is what Trump’s policy really means).

    Non-whites must be deported and the borders must be sealed, and permanently closed to non-whites (allowances can be made for reasonable exceptions, so that a tourist industry can be sustained, and so that we can accept diplomats, other temporary visitors and so on). Nothing less will be acceptable. I think it follows that fundamental and revolutionary political change is needed in this country (and other Western countries), and the logical implications of this are obvious and needn’t be spelled out. Apologies if that kills the libertarian dream for a generation or two, I don’t like it either, but this is reality not an academic seminar.

  • Pingback: Shamelessly Exploiting Another Atrocity | The Libertarian Alliance Blog

  • Pingback: Shamelessly Exploiting Another Atrocity | Keir Martland

  • Pingback: Imitating a Broken Record | The Libertarian Alliance Blog

  • Pingback: Keir Martland

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s