After the slaughter of innocents, the ritual of abnegation. While parents pleaded for news about the pieces of their children, the citizens of Manchester met in a public show of solidarity, in an all faith meeting to show that “the bombers would not win”. We have plenty of experience of organizing those. Commendable, very Christian, but hardly proportionate. The plan, such as it is, appears to be to keep on taking casualties in the hope that a policy of massive unselective racial and cultural immigration can be made to work. Sometime. Like actors in a tragedy foretold, the politicians have issued statements bemoaning the events, though one of the contenders to become Prime Minister remains a prominent supporter of the IRA and will not condemn their bombing campaign even years after the event (he condemns all violence, he says), so his statement must have involved some selective reinterpretation of his own deepest beliefs.
The Police are on alert, or heightened alert, or something like that, and have made an arrest, which will usually be followed four days later by the arrested person being discharged for lack of evidence. The emergency staff have been applauded. Parents and friends have remembered their dead, ordinary and lovely lives rendered into a pulp. After a delay, the perpetrator is named, to no great surprise. This one was a 22-year-old Libyan, Salman Ramadan Abedi, born in Manchester, a college dropout who liked cannabis and football, and attended the Didsbury mosque, which is described as moderate, modern and liberal.
Feelings are not a proof of accuracy in judgment, but they are a guide to examining new actions. The Islamic terrorists are making a clear statement: We can kill you whenever we like; we can kill your children; we can kill you in your most important public places; we can make your leaders hide behind bodyguards; we can make you partly undress every time you go through an airport; we can make fools of you by using your laws against you; we can make you scared of making fun of our religion even while you make fun of what remains of your own; we can have more children than you do and get you to pay for them; we can breed resentful losers in such large numbers that any one of them can become a murderer, and it is unpredictable which Mohammed will take the predictable step of murdering you; and you will accept our excuses that we had no idea that that particular Mohammed would take the logical step of biting the hand that fed it, in the sure and certain knowledge that you will feed us once more.
Meanwhile, at a desk somewhere, a young intelligence officer is doing a simple calculation: we have over 3000 Mohammedans with an urge to kill us, embedded in almost 3 million Mohammedans with no particular urge to kill anyone, but with some reluctance to denounce a fellow religionist on the basis of no particular feeling other than that they are taking their religion too seriously, if that is possible. Any of those 3000 hard line militants can murder, “don’t know where, don’t know when, but we’ll meet again some day” and that is too many to keep under constant surveillance, so one or two or three of them can go pop at any moment. The fact that a bomb was used in this mass murder makes it likely that other people were involved, since although making a bomb is not difficult, it usually requires more logistics, and therefore more chance of finding co-conspirators.
The general outline on the link between Muslims and terrorism was given by Noah Carl
This paper examines the relationship between percentage of Muslims in the population (logged) and two separate measures of Islamist terrorism for a large cross-section of countries (n= 168). The first measure of Islamist terrorism is the number of Islamist terror attacks 2001–2016 (logged); the second is the number of casualties from Islamist terrorism 2001–2016 (logged). Percentage Muslim was strongly associated with both measures of Islamist terrorism (β = .49–50). These associations were not disproportionately driven by co-variation within one or two global regions: positive associations were found within Sub-Saharan Africa (β = .35–38), South & East Asia (β = .49–50), Eurasia (β = .31–37), and the West (β = .32–50).
The raw associations within Latin America & Caribbean (β = .06–13) were very weak, and those within Middle East & North Africa were negative (β = –.18–21). Yet the results for Middle East & North Africa were attributable to Israel being a major outlier; when Israel was omitted, strong positive associations emerged (β = .65–69). In a multiple regression analysis, both associations were robust to controlling for region fixed-effects, land area (logged), absolute latitude, average elevation, terrain roughness, legal origin, GDP per capita (logged), democracy, and ethnic fractionalisation (β = .32–33). Consistent with a previous study, both percentage Muslim (β = .21–56) and indicators of military intervention in the Middle East (β = .17–80) were associated with Islamist terrorism across Western countries.
The UK terror threat level has been raised to “critical” which apparently has only happened twice before. Prior to that it was “severe”. I think that the other levels are “irritating” “a nuisance” and “very tedious”. At some stage the powers that be will have a little meeting, and discuss whether they might consider telling the 3000 most dangerous Mohammedans that their presence in the United Kingdom “is no longer conducive to the public good”. The Home Office used to do that decades ago. However, I doubt that such a proposal would ever be accepted, on the grounds that it would antagonize the Muslim “community”. Antagonizing them might provoke them into bombing us even more.
Keep alert, but do not panic, and whatever you do, do not question the wisdom of unselective mass immigration. There are some values we hold dear, and after many sacrifices we will prevail a bit.