You know what I mean. Every time this happens – and it’s always the same thing happening – you have the exact identical response, namely people reposting soulful messages about hate not winning or letting off steam with a few comments along the lines of “How could our leaders be so stupid?”
And then, of course, there are those sheep-like individuals who simply change their Facebook or Twitter filters to reflect the nominal flag of whichever part of the West has been utilized for the latest atrocity, before returning to their kitten-posting.
The internet’s rise coincides quite well with the escalation of multiculturalism in the last 20 years. It’s easy to understand the synergy. What the internet mainly does is create virtual space, virtual communities, and virtual gestures for the actual spaces, communities, and emotions that have been lost to multiculturalism, the same blight that hollows out the social vacuum and thus facilitates terrorism.
When this kind of event happens, you always have the same emotional trajectory – a sense of something happening and of an emotional group response that we momentarily feel might reach to the highest corridors of power and transcend our impotent atomized condition.
This usually lasts all the way to the first nebulous comments from our leaders that this is just a meaningless attack by a “few bad apples” and that we have to double down on our tolerance or “hate will win.” By then our rage, fear, or concern has been largely dissipated and dissolved in the vent of cyberspace.
When this kind of event takes place, you invariably run into the same narratives – the sensible ones and the stupid ones. Two of the most idiotic are:
- The vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists so stop blaming all Muslims
- Someone is simply using these incidents to divide us
The thinking behind this idea is that, despite these negative behaviors, there are good Muslims who would suffer if we judged them collectively in this manner; and also that judging them in such a manner would increase their tendency towards such behavior.
Whites, of course, can be judged not only collectively but trans-generationally going back hundreds of years. If Muslims might be pushed further into terrorism and child rape by collective judging, isn’t there at least a slight danger of Whites being pushed into Nazism and slave-holding by the same mechanism? But I digress.
The main flaw with this way of thinking is that it ignores the complexity of human individuals and groups, and postulates a simplistic notion of atomized individual creatures who either obey or disobey fixed societal norms. This is a childishly simplistic model of human behavior.
Firstly, it ignores the existence of groups. Supposedly Muslims are only Muslim because they came from Muslim countries. Their identity is simply a designation of origin, and must in no way be seen as determining how they act or interrelate with their own kind or us. To think otherwise, according to this view, is to be racist and to deny them their full potential as individuals in our society.
Secondly, this view ignores the competitive nature of groups – and therefore represents a form of unilateral disarmament by those who subscribe to it.
Given the conditions under which Muslims came to the West, of course, only a tiny minority will resort to radical violence, but how do the rest of the Muslims feel about it? I believe that they have a dual attitude. On the one hand they have no wish to be directly blamed for the actions of others, but they also enjoy the aura of strength and virility that these acts project, and the leverage they gain by being seen as potentially violent and dangerous – something along the lines of “Don’t fuck with us, we’re Muslims.”
Also, many normal Muslims see themselves as the ascendant group in the West, one that is steadily growing in numbers, while viewing Westerners as decadent and declining. But they also occasionally put themselves in our shoes, and think how they would act if the roles were reversed.
Even in our degeneracy they expect some kind of backlash. This might incline some to taqiyyah and keeping their noses down until the numbers favour them, but even such a Muslim has a concept of societal struggle with the indigenous population that must make his attitude to terrorism extremely ambiguous.
“As long as the Kufar remains weak and confused maybe a little terrorism is a good thing,” he may think deep in his heart.
This kind of mindset would certainly explain the surprisingly high support in the Muslim community for suicide bombers, as revealed in polls.
The other trope mentioned above – the notion that someone is committing these acts as a false flag in order to “divide us” – is indeed laughable, not because false flags don’t happen – they do – but because the ancillary supposition of this trope is that we must work hard to overcome these divisions in order to demonstrate to the “evil elites” or secret cabals committing these acts that we cannot be divided by their sinister plans.
This view is simply one part conspiracy theory, one part utopian poppycock. But, of course, you can’t prove that it isn’t a false flag, as such theories are constructed to be unfalsifiable in that any proof to the contrary is claimed to be planted and therefore is merely confirmation of the plot. One is reminded of the Victorian Christian notion that god planted the dinosaur bones merely to test the faith of Darwinists who doubted the Creation.
But if you should run into this opinion, it is relatively easy to deal with. Rather than going along with the notion that we should sing “Kumbaya” with our Muslim brothers, simply point out that nothing plays into the hands of malevolent elites quite as much as an inherently divided society, in which racial and religious divisions can be easily used to set us at each other’s throats. The obvious thing to do in such a case is to dismantle multiculturalism. Brussels is yet more proof of this stronger glowing truth.