Stop Shopping Till You Drop, Or Till A Terrorist Drops You


By ilana mercer

“Another attack in London by a loser terrorist, “tweeted President Trump. “These are sick and demented people who were in the sights of Scotland Yard.”

Prime Minister Theresa May and the mad media fumed over the president’s insinuation that the Parsons Green “bucket bomber” was a “Known Wolf,” and not a lone wolf. But Donald Trump was entirely on the mark. May and her men knew Yahyah Farroukh (whose information the British press is protecting).

The “Known Wolf,” left free to hunt for prey, is the rule more than the exception in a country, Britain, that will do nothing to stop the likes of the little snot who struck in a London underground train, on September 14.

The same authorities find the will and the legal wherewithal to jail Englishmen for thought crimes, say, reciting verbatim anti-Islam verse from a book by Churchill.

Where President Trump went wrong was in calling the hissing snake “sick and demented.” The snake, taken in and housed by a tenderhearted, stupid British couple, was just being a snake; doing what his ilk has done since the seventh century.

The “sickest and most demented” of the lot are the British authorities.

Scotland Yard? MI5? All are MIA.

When it comes to protecting the lives of innocents, British security is missing in action, habitually, and some say intentionally.

Khuram Butt, one of the London Bridge attackers, starred in a Channel 4 TV documentary, The Jihadis Next Door. Butt was not on the lam during the shooting. He was not being investigated by the security forces, or hunkering in a bunker in Iraq. He was parading around in Barking, east London, broadcasting his intentions to the British people and their protectors. Why, even the Imam at the local mosque had expelled Butt for his murderous lust. But to his British groupies, within and without government, Butt was fit to be filmed living among them, scheming against them.

Twenty-two-year-old Salman Abedi murdered 22 youngsters in the Manchester Arena. He packed his bomb with shrapnel, ball bearings and nails. With such a fiendish device, surgeons must slice open the surviving victims, picking from the flesh and burrowing in the bone for embedded shards. To most decent people, Abedi was detritus. He ought to have been watched, segregated from civilization, deported, and, hopefully, dispatched one day.

But to the security service MI5 Abedi was part of the terrorist “assets” they had cultivated in Manchester “for more than 20 years.” The sanctimonious Ms. May has the audacity to scold President Trump for cryptically hinting at her culpability in enabling terrorism, when May was the home secretary under whose imprimatur Manchester’s resident terrorist cell was developed as an MI5 asset. (“Terror in Britain: What Did the Prime Minister Know?“)

The London tube attack was the fifth attack in Britain this year. Naturally, the state sluggards of British counterterrorism are seething over any leaks of information to their lowly subjects. Leaks reveal their ineptitude, their dereliction of duty and the elaborate protections they put in place for their privileged wards.

If not complicit, as veteran journalist John Pilger has convincingly contended, the British government and counterterrorism outfits are certainly criminally negligent.

LIFE WITH ISLAM

Clips of the carnage that is life with Islam are few and far between following an event like Barcelona, in which a Maghrebi Muhammadan (helped by two or three or more, including a holy man) drove his van into the crowds on Las Ramblas street. (Yes, August 19, 2017 is already a distant memory, just as the politicians want it.)

The grisly footage warning viewers of “graphic content” is quickly sanitized, stylized, set to somber but pleasant music. The camera pans out to focus, not on the prone victims, never to rise again, but on the prettier, vertical survivors.

But before images of the worst of Barcelona (or Brussels or Berlin or Paris or London) under Muslim assault were cleaned up for sensitivity’s sake—it was possible to glimpse the bloodied bodies and belongings strewn on the streets. Among them milled the survivors, some dazed and confused, others crouching near lifeless bodies, beside themselves with grief and disbelief.

Alas, many were visibly bored—as in, “This is the price of ‘freedom.’ Let’s get on with life. I wonder when the shops will reopen.” A reaction politicians are banking on must stop. The prey must become a little dangerous and unpredictable (like Donald Trump).

LIFE WITH LESS ISLAM

To peacefully bring about desired, desperately required, immigration and deportation policies; people must secede from the public square to the extent possible.

Shop online. Make the home your new happening hub. Dine with friends, at home. Break bread with new friends, in homes. Patronize spots less trendy and off the beaten track. Organize neighborhood block parties.

It is the political class that the public must defang, if we wish to safeguard our lives and way of life. You see, politicians win if you don’t withdraw from the public square following a terrorist attack.

Let’s unpack this:

Politicians know their subjects well. All-too well do Whitehall, Washington and the EU-club know the speed at which the human anthill will return to the streets, following a terrorist attack.

Had not their flunkey, Shepard Smith of Fox News, exalted the Belgian human anthill for the speed with which the ants returned to darting back and forth, following a Muhammadan’s attack on Brussels’ Central Station (June 21, 2017)? In Shep’s compliant “thinking,” the terrorists win if we don’t return to our aimless consumption, laughing and making merry as we’re being picked off periodically by the enemy within.

Translated, this means that the terrorists win if we, their potential pool of victims, don’t do as our politicians say.

Like Shepard Smith, Obama kept intoning, “Dare do x, y or z on matters Muslim, and you guarantee that ISIS wins.” Or, “ISIS wants you to do x, y, and z.” Is this not, at once, reverse psychology and cliché?

How did that astringent mind know what ISIS wanted? It’s more likely that Obama was channeling the political class. Politicians are deploying reverse psychology to get their subjects across the West to comply with their own wishes. To wit, “If you stay away from the very public square we politicians refuse to protect—ISIS wins.”

In practice, you are being ordered to shop until you drop, or are dropped by a Muslim behaving badly. Oops.

But think about it: If ISIS wants you—regular Americans, Europeans, British—to do what in your estimation is best for your longevity; perhaps ISIS is right, in this instance, and the politicians and pundits are wrong? Perhaps ISIS is right and Shepard Smith and Obama are dead wrong? What a concept!

Only when their Keynesian edifice of non-stop consumption suffers and, consequently, their re-election chances are imperiled—will politicians consider carrying out their duty to enact immigration and deportation policies that safeguard precious, innocent lives.

If ISIS approves, too, so be it. ISIS is happy, we’re happy because alive; everybody’s happy, except the politicians. Joy!

 

Ilana Mercer has been writing a paleolibertarian column since 1999, and is the author of The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016) & Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons for America From Post-Apartheid South Africa (2011). Follow her on Twitter, Facebook, Gab & YouTube.

Advertisements

One comment

  • The issue is fundamentally one of the sort of society we want to live in and what we consider to be the basis of civilisation.

    Some people think that civilisation is based on values and cultures. Others believe civilisation is a result of peoples (races). The former category of people are now in power. They fall into two main sub-categories: some of them believe that different sorts of people can live together within the same geopolitical space under a system of shared civic values, others of them believe that different sorts of people can mix together within the same geopolitical space under a system of shared civic values. In either form, they sincerely believe in civilisation as idealism, and they dismiss any incidences such as Parsons Green as unhappy by-products of their beliefs, not fundamental challenges to their beliefs.

    There is the problem that you must address. It is a homegrown problem, the import of Islam and Moslems is just a manifestation of it. It’s a distortion of traditional liberalism into a postmodern liberalism that over-strains the concept of the individual and turns us into fungible economic units. Its indigenous origins perhaps began in the post-industrial period, starting in the 1850s, when a parasitical middle-class began to develop in England who were detached from the land and from industry.

    We partly need a return to genuine liberalism, in which the dignity of the individual is respected, the ecological link between a folk and their land is acknowledged and the importance of the collective sphere is recognised, especially the folk rights that help define and give meaning and direction to our lives. If I, as an Englishman, cannot assert the rights of all Englishmen to a common space within which we are free to live as we like and want without terror, fear, intimidation and interference from aliens, then I have no rights as an individual, and any so-called rights and liberties as I may have granted to me by fiat or law amount to saw-dust and can be kicked away.

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