By Sifu Crockett
Sticking strictly to most recent times, and London particularly, we’ve seen a number of ‘alleged’ terror attacks.
Regardless of who did what to whom, when, and where… it’s all disgusting, reprehensible, criminal behavior.
An odd phenomenon that has not been missed by many of the astute social media followers of such events is that, almost without fail, the moment an attack occurs, out comes — almost hand-in-hand with the “It has nothing to do with Islam” chant pushed out by politicians and the media — immediate calls for candlelit peace vigils, and the spreading of “the love”, along with calls from politicians saying we must unite, we must remain calm, we must move on.
Twitter and Facebook almost sink under the calls for prayers and pop concerts. But I reckon it’s all enough peace, love and brown rice to make one sick.
We may even get told that “Terrorism is a part of everyday life,” so we ought get used to it.
We also get told, when terrorist acts are committed by Muslims, in the name of Islam, that “It’s not all Muslims.” We’re also told to watch ourselves because our criticisms and challenges and questions are all deeply and unapologetically and indefensibly ‘Islamophobic’.
So how is that, right now, things don’t play in reverse? How come there aren’t warnings against people getting all “white-o-phobic?”
Why aren’t we allowed to respond to this despicable act in the same way we’re told to respond to Islamic-related acts?
Why can’t we just light candles, send prayers, and go to pop concerts?
Why can’t we shout at Muslims “Not all whites?” Why aren’t prayers and tweets enough? More than enough?
Why can’t I ask not to be harassed and stereotyped? Isn’t that what Muslims get to do following “Not all Muslims; Nothing to do with Islam” terror events?
And when I say they “get to do,” I’m also referring to the mass support they get from apologists, politicians and the MSM [mainstream media].
I’m gonna add my bit here, which is something I posted recently in response to the Finsbury mosque incident. That way there’ll be no confusion as to where I stand, or whether I can be accused of condoning it:
“What we so often hear is that the West is responsible for Islamic terrorism. That they are simply fighting back.
“While that’s not true, let’s say it is. The same logic must then apply here.
“Doesn’t condone anything. But it does rely on the exact same circumstances.
“Tommy Robinson has repeatedly said, as have many others, that the risk exists that if spineless governments don’t take the necessary steps, militias will be formed and the people will fight back. Including the lunatics like the one in this incident.”
Well, if that lack of logic is allowed to stand, so, too, should it be applied here: If the twits among us keep hating on this Finsbury incident as being an atrocious act of ‘white terrorism’, will they not be responsible for inciting more of the same?
Yes, I know: Logic holes. That’s cos you’re sensible enough to recognize the hypocrisy.
In case you missed it, Rowling posted:
“Radicalised by British media.”
“The Mail has misspelled ‘terrorist’ as ‘white van driver.’ Now let’s discuss how he was radicalised.”
Terrorist Breeding Ground
Because of the Finsbury Mosque’s extremely fucking sinister history, it has been called out.
So, in return, and in reference to headlines describing the mosque’s links to radical Islamic extremism, Rowling, the master of fiction who can’t write anything but, said:
“Victim blaming in the usual newspapers is disgusting. #FinsburyPark mosque won an award for combating extremism.”
Or should we take our lead from the U.K.’s Independent?:
“There’s only one way Britain should respond to attacks such as Manchester. That is by carrying on exactly as before.”
I’m Sure You Get the Point:
After EVERY terrorist attack, we’re told the same old denial, apologetic stories, along with the recommended responses.
So why change that now?
All the foot stomping that people like you and I have done in the past hasn’t brought one iota of change or rationale to the argument. Yet, somehow, the Finsbury Mosque incident is… different? Go figure.
Before I Get Called Out
Am I outraged about a man driving a van into people? No. I don’t do outrage.
Am I pissed about it? Appalled, disgusted? Yes.
Is he a so-called lone wolf? I suppose. Maybe. I don’t know for sure but it looks that way.
Did he do it in the name of a superstitious cult at the behest of a great sky fairy? Well, unlike Islamists, no.
Did he do it as a direct result of spineless governments doing nothing to prevent Islamic terror on non-Islamic soil? Well, in combination with the quite likely serious mental health issues, it certainly seems that way. And I guess if it’s true that he shouted “I want to kill more Muslims” that then speaks for itself.
So, because I’m not a hypocrite, I think this fuckwit’s behavior is just as fucked as the fuckwit behavior of those fuckwits who incite and enact Islamic-based acts of fucking terror. There, I’ve said it.
Equating/Conflating — Not the Same
I find, like you no doubt do, that this whole game of equating — CONFLATING — this van driver with the entire mechanism of the war machine that is Islamic Jihad, is nothing short of intellectually dishonest.
It’s called selective outrage: Duck and dive every incident of Islamic terror, but focus on and amplify out of all proportion any and all incidents that directly or indirectly target Muslims.
Unfettered hypocrisy is yet another way to describe it.
It is no small irony that people like you and I are mislabelled and shouted down as ‘Islamophobes’ by deadshits properly labelled as Islamophiles.
June 4 2017, on Twitter, Charles Clymer wrote:
“I apologize to our sisters and brothers in the United Kingdom for Trump folks exploiting this tragedy for political gain.”
Yet, following the Finsbury incident, Clymer tweeted (June 18 2017):
“This is a terrorist attack. The perpetrator is a white terrorist. We need to say these things out loud, as much as possible.”
Have you ever wondered how many people out there are not seeing the double standards?
I mean, really… Islamic related murders are excused, with candles, while those of us who point out the overwhelming and obvious evidence are called racists.
Yet now it’s ‘okay’ to insist that the van driver of the Finsbury attack be clearly labelled and called out by his skin color. As ‘Ali Official’ did on Twitter (June 18 2017):
“Mainstream media, call it what it is! The #FinsburyPark attack was TERRORISM by a TERRORIST. Don’t downplay the incident because he’s white.”
No doubt it also hasn’t escaped you that when Islamic terrorist attacks occur, those of us who call out hate preachers are quickly labelled as Muslim haters. They very quickly call for people like Tommy Robinson to be arrested. But never — NEVER — do they call for Islamic hate preachers to be deported.
I hate to point out the obvious here, but I just have to insist that it’s in print:
“Hate preachers actively call for violence. You and I actively call to end it.” Spot the difference.
If I may, I’ll quote Paul Joseph Watson, cos he got rather choice on this:
“The same people who refuse to say Islamist terror, are the same people who jump at the chance to say Islamophobic terror.
“The same people who rail against the surveillance of mosques are now calling for the surveillance and imprisonment of journalists and commentators.
“The same people who say ‘keep calm and carry on’ are now saying ‘be afraid’.”
Considering the Finsbury incident occurred in London, it’s only fitting to close with a moment’s exposing of the hypocrisy and Islamic agenda of its Mayor, Sadiq Khan.
It was only last year that Khan, a devout Muslim, infamously said that he believes the threat of terror attacks is
“part and parcel of living in a big city.”
“I think keeping London safe is becoming increasingly difficult.”
Which flies in the face of:
“I’m reassured that we are one of the safest global cities in the world, if not the safest.”
Make up your fucking mind please.
In regards Finsbury, the Khant said:
“My prayers are with the victims and their families. It appears from eyewitness accounts that the perpetrator was motivated by Islamophobia.
“Over the past weeks and months, Muslims have endured many incidents of Islamophobia.
“…with many Muslims going to local mosques, we expect the authorities to increase security outside mosques as a matter of urgency.”
This comes from a man in public office who staunchly defended a 9-11 conspirator, no less, arguing that the case against that terrorist should be dropped completely as it was “a farce of a trial.”
Before Khan entered politics, he was busy defending radical Islamists and self-confessed terrorists, including deadshit hate preacher and Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, whom, he argued, should have be allowed to enter the UK on a propaganda tour back in 2002.
The list of Khan’s links go on.
So, comrades, we need to talk about this. If politicians don’t implement legal steps to combat Islamic terrorism; if the media don’t stop lying; if apologists and deniers don’t stop facilitating acts of terror by shouting down the rest of us… then people, of the unhinged variety, are going to take matters into their own hands.
Do tell me what you think.