As the blood of innocent civilians is washed away from yet another, vibrant cosmopolitan British town centre the now ritualised supplication before Muslims, the offering of meaningless platitudes and the excuse making begins.

Australian Nationalists need not concern themselves with any immediate ramifications for our people in these matters, we understand that these events are remote and unconnected to our lives and we need not be unduly alarmed, nor behave any differently than usual.

The response by Australian politicians to the Borough Market atrocity in London has followed the same template as their response to every other act of barbarism perpetrated upon civilised people by Muslims in the name of their religion.

Distilling the rhetoric of Malcolm Turnbull, Bill Shorten, Julie Bishop and Penny Wong we are left with the basic ideas that terrorists hate democracy and freedom, that they seek to divide multicultural communities, that they win if we show disunity or turn away from globalist, cosmopolitan ideas. This, of course, is patent nonsense, the Islamists of ISIS, Al Qaeda and their non-violent support groups in our country strive to unite all people in submission to their god, Allah.

lebos housos
If the media put as much effort into lampooning Jihadists as they do Lebos and Bogans, they might make a genuine difference

A harmonious, homogenous society in which people see themselves as having shared interests and values would seem to render that goal more easily achievable since, at some imaginary tipping point at which Islamists would take over the reins of state there would need to be a collective surrender or acceptance of terms by the general population.

Australia, we might guess, may have been spared the worst excesses of the Jihadis precisely because, while Muslims are integrated into our society they are not assimilated to the degree that they are in the U.K or Europe; that is to say that they are highly visible in their ethnic subcultures as they go about, living their lives among us.

The response by Australian politicians to the Borough Market atrocity in London has followed the same template as their response to every other act of barbarism perpetrated upon civilised people by Muslims in the name of their religion.

The profile of the modern Jihadist is routinely that of the well integrated, second or third generation non-White who, at some stage has been de-integrated from society through a life of crime or drug use, only to re-emerge as a radical Islamic convert.

So the threat clearly comes, to a greater degree, from the assimilated insider turned violent insurgent against his hometown and the people with whom he has the most in common, rather than the alien or the subversive immigrant.

cuba-guantanamo-10th-anniversary
Be careful what you wish for because you might get it

Could we ask if it is familiarity with cosmopolitanism which breeds contempt in the de-integrated, then radicalised Muslims?

After all, even if we were to accept the spurious claims of cowards and apologists for terrorism that it is because “we invade their countries” that the mind of the radical convert goes rotten, then is it not irrefutably the case that those adventures into the Mid-East and West Asia are done in the name of pluralism, democracy, human rights and cosmopolitan values?

Of course, to ask those questions in the Australia of 2017 is to run a gauntlet; a jail term is possible if the wrong person hears you pose a benign head scratcher such as: “Why are young, integrated people turning from cosmopolitanism, the material comforts of consumerism and multiculturalism to throw their lives away in Jihad against their neighbours?”

So the threat clearly comes, to a greater degree, from the assimilated insider turned violent insurgent against his hometown and the people with whom he has the most in common, rather than the alien or the subversive immigrant.

The question of what is to be done should be obvious to any political dissident, be they Nationalist, Civic Patriot or of the dwindling and moribund ranks of the real Left; it isn’t difficult, we need only employ the tactics against radical Islamists which are used against us: public ridicule, slander, relentless online stalking by vigilantes and co-opting of the Jihadist message by counter gangs.

The most effective tools in crippling problematic social movements like Jihadist Islam are the creation of a climate of fear, distrust and paranoia within the groups and the provocation by outsiders of infighting between factions of the movement.

UPF bendigo
The tactics used to break the civic patriot movement should logically also work on Jihadists

Whenever an outrage, such as Manchester or Nice occurs the apologists and enablers of terrorism cry loud and long over the fear of a violent “backlash” against Muslims by unsavoury elements of the “far-right” and so forth.

The fact that this backlash, this much-hyped revolt against sanity and decency never materialises is due to the reality that openly Islamophobic groups are relentlessly hounded by vigilantes and riven with internecine conflict due to the paranoia and distrust fomented by their tormentors.

We know this tactic is effective and the larger and more publicly active the group grows the more easily it is penetrated, fractured and ultimately dispersed by outside agents. So, to pose another twee, rhetorical question: why are counter-radicals forbidden to use these tactics and why are activists who do confront radical Muslims head on jailed or persecuted?

The fact that this backlash, this much-hyped revolt against sanity and decency never materialises is due to the reality that openly Islamophobic groups are relentlessly hounded by vigilantes and riven with internecine conflict due to the paranoia and distrust fomented by their tormentors.

The process of Islamic radicalisation is probably misunderstood and definitely misrepresented by Australian and other Anglosphere politicians; the elected officials and social commentators seek to make it fit their worldview, rather than take the Jihadists seriously.

U.K prime minister Theresa May, in her press conference concerning the Borough Markets attacks proposed a crackdown of the online safe spaces available to Jihadists, from whence they spread their dangerous ideology and, presumably sour the minds of impressionable youngsters.

isis one finger
There is no god but Allah and Muhammad is his prophet…not a complex philosophy by any means

In the first place, there is no separate Jihadist ideology, only propaganda pieces and discussions of the virtues of a pious life; their only doctrine is the Koran. Secondly, the meaning of “safe space” refers a set of restrictions or a code of conduct put in place to protect those inside such a system from any criticism or censure which might alarm or distress them; so Theresa May is right, but for the wrong reason.

It is true that Jihadists are afforded safe spaces online but these exist as a result of codes of conduct enforced by the social media companies which protect all Muslims and all expressions of Islam from criticism or harassment by counter-Islamist agents.

Nationalists and all true dissidents know that the internet is not a safe place to plot or plan anything illegal or that which might arouse suspicion from the authorities; anyone who would do so is either not serious about their plans or so inept and deranged that their arrest would be inevitable. So too we realise from years of experience that the internet is useless in terms of recruiting and radicalising people, no matter what your political leaning or the goal of your activism; radicalisation must take place in person and is achieved through camaraderie and the bonds formed in a shared struggle.

It is true that Jihadists are afforded safe spaces online but these exist as a result of codes of conduct enforced by the social media companies which protect all Muslims and all expressions of Islam from criticism or harassment by counter-Islamist agents.

theresea may
Theresa May has been as much a part of the problem as she has the solution

 

The mainstream image of the Islamic radical casts him as an almost supernatural being, a cartoonish construct of film and television scripts who is one part technical wizard and two parts Third World sage. We suspect that the chattering classes, through their silly Orientalist mindset, really see the Jihadist, and non-Whites in general as superior beings capable of reaching out through cyberspace to twist the minds of their followers.

The truth is more mundane, the terrorist cells are formed largely by friends, cousins and brothers, the young are simply given a Koran and shown brotherly love; given mentoring, shelter and a purpose in life greater than anything offered by cosmopolitan consumerism; then behold, radicals are born.

So no, the measures proposed by the heads of state and their bureaus will not work, calls for unity, suppression of dissidents and state-run de-radicalisation programs will keep failing. We have discussed in this article the counter-radicalisation tactics which are proven to work, what’s more, they are a lot cheaper, more immediately effective, and less violent than kicking down the doors of council flats searching for terror cells or bombing Helmand and Raqqa into dust.

Amrosi_648x365_2289540338-hero
Enough should have been enough in 2003

 

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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