It has been just over two months since a video went viral on social, then mainstream media, of a white, armed policeman kicking and stamping on a Muslim youth’s head in an airport terminal. The events preceding this scene were not included, but Greater Manchester Police (GMP) reported the officer involved had been ‘violently assaulted’ - along with female colleagues, one of whom was hospitalised with a broken nose, by two men.
The cause of conflict was initially unclear, the Muslims themselves quickly claimed that their mother was 'insulted' by a fellow passenger during the return flight from Pakistan. Then, as she was picking up her luggage, the same man pushed her with his trolley while making ‘racist comments’, with the mother later pointing him out to her boys.
The situation supposedly then escalated when one of the sons confronted the man, before a physical altercation took place and airport security were called. The family allege they then broke off the conflict and calmly walked away, before being accosted by armed police near the ticket machines a short time later, at which point one officer struck the mother in the face, just before the video began.
Days went past, where this unproven timeline of events was eagerly repeated across mainstream media outlets, unchallenged by all but a few brave souls. In an ominous repetition of scenes in Leeds the week prior, where a routine child protection order for a Roma child sparked widespread rioting, protestors descended on Rochdale police station, chanting ‘GMP, shame on you’ and ‘racist police, go to Hell’.
One balaclavad man, standing on a platform in front of the mob with a megaphone, pronounced - ‘There’s no point smashing this shit-hole up', gesturing to the (admittedly decrepit-looking) Rochdale Divisional Headquarters - ‘It doesn’t matter. But tomorrow, I tell you boys, if we don’t get justice, these motherfuckers are gonna get it!’ before leading chants of ‘Allahu Ackbar’ (lit. Allah is greatest) to the triumphant gathering.
At this stage, GMP should have heeded the words of the great American social philosopher, Thomas Sowell, who observed, ‘Today, some people are so used to special treatment that equal treatment is considered to be discrimination.’
The next morning however, as pitiful as it was predictable, GMP announced the officer was suspended, and the force had referred itself to the policing watchdog. Videos of the arrested men complaining about ’police brutality’ then began circulating after, bafflingly being released on bail without charge.
Further CCTV footage of what happened was eventually leaked, presumably by a bobby outraged at the treacherous deceit and hypocrisy on display from constabulary hierarchy. The second CCTV footage seems to tell a very different story from that proffered by the assailants and appears to show that they had been the aggressors, with most commentators from other countries expressing their shock at how restrained our police had been, given the breathtaking violence the CCTC footage shows was unleashed by the young Muslim men towards armed responders, male and female alike. In almost any other jurisdiction they would have been shot on sight.
One might have expected, given we now live in an age where you can be arrested, convicted and sentenced to years in jail for making rude gestures towards riot control, that literally battering a female officer in the face until her nose breaks would be met with equally swift and sure justice, in most cases no excuse or justification for such an attack would be given credence.
But who are we kidding? That only applies to people with unfashionably low levels of melanin in their skin. Fortunately for the two assailants, they are not so afflicted and remain free to walk the streets to this day, with no news of any prosecutory progress in the months since the incident took place. Rochdale police even had the gall to call for a criminal investigation to root out the source of the leak that revealed the inconvenient reality interfering with their preferred narrative.
Rochdale… now where have I heard that name before? Ah yes, this is where white children were sexually enslaved on an industrial scale by gangs of Muslim men for decades on end, all while police and local officials turned two blind eyes to the indescribable evils being committed out of terror of being called racist. According to their memoirs and testimonies, cries of ‘Allahu Ackbar’ were something those girls heard frequently as they were being tortured and gang-raped throughout their adolescences. Indeed, during the trial of yet another paedophile network in Rotherham, two of the convicted ringleaders shouted ‘Allahu Akbar' as their meagre custodial sentences were handed out, to the exultant cheers of friends and family in the gallery.
For myself, the events in Manchester Airport brought to mind another Mancunian Muslim, Salman Abedi. His family were granted asylum in this country, as his father's Islamist activism was too much even for Gaddafi to bear. Salman, having been born and bred in Manchester, repaid this kindness by self-detonating in a crowd of women and children in the city’s main concert theatre, killing 23 and injuring over a thousand. It is as though during the 1930s, Britain provided asylum to Nazis who fell afoul of Hitler's regime for being a little bit too fascist.
The problem facing us will remain insurmountable so long as the widespread assumption persists that the 'universal values' we take for granted, are the inevitable consequence of civilisational development; that these ‘human rights’ are shared everywhere and originate from all parts of humanity equally. In reality, far from being universal, these ideals emerged out of a tiny sliver of mankind - an Anglo-American tradition of individual liberty tracing all the way back to Magna Carta, and the ancient Christian Revolution preceding it. What we consider as default positions: freedom of speech/religion, the sanctity of all human life, property rights, secular law, democracy, etc. are all incredibly rare phenomena, emergent of this narrow corner of Western Civilisation.
In the wake of recent scenes, a friend of mind admitted a grudging respect for the way in which Muslims will instinctively rally in support when one of their number faces adversity, and frankly I have to agree with him. Reflexive solidarity, regardless who is at fault, certainly played an instrumental role in Islam’s success since its inception, as it did with all monotheistic religions. ‘All for one and one for all’ was a mindset held every bit as much by followers of Christ as those of Mohammed throughout the ages, as demonstrated by The Crusades in response to escalating Muslim attacks on Christian pilgrims to the Holy Lands.
Ethnic solidarity too has been a powerful protective factor historically. When, in 1731, British merchant, Robert Jenkins, had his ear severed by a Spanish coastguard while searching his ship for contraband, the public outrage led to open war between their respective empires lasting for almost a decade.
We live in different times however. The idea of British Christians marching through London in their hundreds of thousands to protest the (actual) genocide of their co-religionists in northern Nigeria today, is so absurd as to seem laughable. As is the thought of the white English rioting en masse after a white career-criminal is killed by foreign police while resisting arrest in a foreign country.
Admittedly, the English did try showing solidarity with their own people, as we saw during the EDL phenomenon in the early 2010’s, where their primary concern was the (then as-yet unreported) Muslim child sex-slavery rings they were suffering up and down the map. Rather than addressing these concerns however, which proved to be entirely legitimate; police, politicians, celebrities and mainstream media outlets alike united to decry them all as far-right, racist neo-Nazis - successfully hounding the movement into submission and its leaders into jail. Lesson learned.
We are thus become a people lost of its survival instinct, a lobotomite cast into the wild to fend for itself, surrounded by hungry predators eager to exploit any weakness.
When Usman Khan was shot dead on London Bridge, during his own attempt at securing eternal paradise by stabbing as many infidels to death as he could, our authorities flew Usman’s body to his Pakistani hometown, to receive a grand martyr's funeral attended by hundreds chanting... you guessed it, ‘Allahu Ackbar’.
A people serious about self-preservation would have done what General Pershing did to jihadists during the ‘Moro Rebellion’ in The Philippines at the turn of the last century - publicly burying them in the same grave with a dead pig. He found the suicide attacks stopped shortly thereafter.
Alas, instead of Pershing, a procession of increasingly treasonous cowards have led us for as long as I can remember at the age of thirty. After each outrage inspired by Political Islam in modern times, be it street protests, street grooming or street terrorism, the same disingenuous platitudes are mouthed by our leaders every time; that ‘diversity is our strength’- ‘Islam is peace’ and ‘dividing our communities’ is the terrorist’s main objective all along. Whether they say this out of fear or ignorance or both, it is nonsense nonetheless.
Needless to say, their objective is not to divide us, we are already irretrievably divided. Visit a Muslim ghetto in Bradford or Birmingham if you doubt me, or the ironically named Saint-Denis suburb in Paris. It is akin to witnessing the early European colonies in America, fortified encampments amidst a sea of bamboozled natives, both living in totally parallel worlds. It is interesting to note that those colonists could always find indigenous individuals willing to collaborate against their own people, the short-term gains blinding them to the long-term destruction of their own civilisations.
It is, arguably, even more interesting to note that while denominations may have evolved, the vast majority of Americans today continue observing the same Protestant Christianity as practiced by their colonising ancestors four centuries earlier when they first arrived.
When Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind behind 9/11, was being interrogated in Guantanamo, he told intelligence agents, 'We will win, we will win because you don't have the guts to do what needs to be done in order to stop us from winning.' He said that, far from being impressed by our compassion, generosity and tolerance, they see such traits as weaknesses which Allah has placed in our hearts to make it easier for true believers to destroy us from the inside out.
What many do not appreciate is that Islam is a highly dualistic religion. It has a kindly, Jesus-like face and a hardened, ruthless, Genghis Khan-like face. If you read the scriptures it becomes clear there are really two Qurans and two Mohammeds - the one before he and his followers immigrated to Medina, and still acted like a conventional, pacifistic holy man; and the one after, whence he promptly began his politico-military campaigning that resulted in the entire Arabian Peninsula's submission within a decade.
One face can be deployed just as legitimately as the other when the occasion suits it. Muslims are incredibly concerned about minority rights when they themselves are in the minority, but wherever Muslims become the majority, minority rights are nowhere to be seen. We in the West might view all humans as equal, but that is simply not the case for the rest of humanity, where most people see themselves as part of a tribe, to whom they owe their allegiance above anyone outside it.
Islam does not operate under a unitary ethics system, as in Buddhism, Christianity, Confucianism, etc… In other words, no golden/silver rule exists in Islamic theology. There is instead a dualistic ethics system. Muslims are taught the world is divided between Dar al Islam (lit. ‘House of submission’) i.e. land already controlled by Muslims and under Sharia law - and Dar al Harb (lit. ‘House of war’) i.e. the rest of the world yet to be so submitted.
Both Mohammed and the Quran are explicit that moral empathy should only be extended towards fellow believers, the Ummah. Infidels are to be fought and humiliated and forced to submit by any means necessary, overt or covert. One can be ‘friendly’ with non-Muslims, in the same way a car salesman can be friendly, but genuine comradeship is strictly forbidden, lest it lead to conflicting allegiances down the line.
So-called ‘moderate’ and ‘extremist’ Muslims thus act as the good cop/bad cop routine of Islamic supremacy. First the 'extremists' come in with guns blazing and knives flashing to forever silence blasphemers for mocking their prophet - then 'moderate' Muslims come out with, ‘Sure, it was bad and all, but you know, they really shouldn't have mocked our prophet, so they kinda had it coming.’ Never forget that Charlie Hebdo won 'Islamophobe of the year' award a few months after their staff were brutally massacred for the crime of committing blasphemy in a capital city of the once-Free World
The vast majority of Muslims in this country and around the world may not necessarily support the methods of ISIS, but many most certainly share their ultimate aims. Namely, a world united in submission to Allah and His eternal law as revealed to Mohammed, His final and definitive prophet. Terrorism is merely a means to that end. ‘Moderate’ Muslims may object to this tactic in favour of more subtle, patient methods, such as filing 'hate-crime' complaints, funding a new mosque, infiltrating school boards or local councils, protesting at any perceived slight, or simply bearing as many offspring as possible; but all have their part to play in the great struggle (lit. jihad).
Indeed, the jihadist we pay most attention to, those of the sword, are actually the ones we should be least concerned with. If anything, terrorist attacks serve a useful purpose in highlight the far deadlier forms of jihad, those of speech, writing and money. These are the true termites in the woodwork, boring away at the very foundations of our civilisation day after day, week after week, year after year.
While the cultural landscape may ebb and flow with the rise and fall of empires, Sharia remains constant throughout the centuries. As their prophet Mohammed said himself, ‘The Law is a fortress on a hill that armies cannot take, nor floods wash away.’
Yet the rise of Political Islam in Britain is merely a symptom, not the cause of disease. An opportunistic infection in a patient whose innate immune system has completely shut down. The true pathology is the collapse of civilisational self-confidence. Once, we exported liberty and prosperity throughout the world via our Empire, but we have been importing tribalism and impoverishment ever since.
We are the colony now.
The sad truth is there are many who rejoice at that fact, indeed, see it as our just deserts. Though I suspect their celebrations will be short lived the moment such useful idiots lose their usefulness in the eyes of their new masters