Some of you know that I work in the Parson’s Green area of Fulham, west London, which is mainly an affluent area from where people commute into the City and other parts of London. It has a significant population of people from places such as France, and many of the cafes around here might as well be in Paris or Lyons.
Well, any such activity will not be happening today; there has been an attempted bomb explosion, so it appears, on a Tube train in the station. It looks as if the device did not fully detonate – but even so, people were burned, and several injured in the scramble to get out of the train. A suspect is, according to reports, on the run and a manhunt is under way.
I am safe, and my colleagues are safe. But I cannot help thinking that in the first six months of 2017, 34 people have been killed in terrorist incidents. We are in danger of treating these horrors as some sort of normal, like rainy weather in August in the UK, yobbish footballers or naff UK television sitcoms. And that is the appalling thing.
In 2005, I was on a Tube train on my way to the Guildhall in London, and I got off the train about 10 minutes before dozens were murdered by Islamic fanatics. Whether we are in the middle of a financial district, a suburb, beach resort, shopping mall, tourist site or concert venue, there is no escape from these nihilists, nor any quick solution.
Oh well, let’s at least hope that the good folk of Fulham will be spared another fucking “candle-lit vigil”.
It is almost certain that this was the act of some sort of Islamist terrorist, and the savage irony is that this attack occurred in a station that is a few yards away from a small mosque; on Fridays, as today, I often see Muslims off to, or depart from, their prayers, and I occasionally stop and chat to a few of them and this area has always seemed a friendly one. The maggots who carry out attacks are as dismissive of the lives of Muslims as they are of anyone else, let it not be forgotten.
Our area is also buzzing with armed police as well, which is not far from your place of work. Seconded on the fucking “candle-lit vigil” 😉
When I went to London on Tuesday I was shocked by the barriers everywhere, and the police officers with submachine guns. But I suppose that J.P.’s post has reminded us why such things are now needed in these times of terrible decline.
However, what is needed far more than barriers and submachine guns – is the honest naming of the opponent and the peaceful effort to refute-and-discredit the ideas and life of Mohammed. Whilst we in the West persist in pretending such attacks are a “perversion” or “distortion” of the life example and teachings of Mohammed, things will continue to get worse and worse. But Western governments, including the British government, are committed to persecuting those who seek to discredit the ideas and life example of Mohammed. Only in the United States does real Freedom of Speech continue to exist – in spite of the “best” (read – vile and evil) efforts of the education system and and the “mainstream” media to crush Freedom of Speech in the United States, under their Frankfurt School of Marxism “Crush Hate Speech” idea.
It is no exaggeration to say that if Prime Minister Gladstone and Prime Minister Winston Churchill were around today, in the United States the “liberal” (read Frankfurt School of Marxism – not liberal) establishment would seek to have then dismissed from their jobs for what they said and would seek to ruin and destroy their lives, and outside the United States (for example in Britain) such people as Gladstone and Winston Churchill would be put in prison for expressing their opinions in the way they did.
This conflict will not be won with bullets – it can only really be won by convincing Muslims that the life example of Mohammed was bad (not good) and that the religious doctrines he taught were false (not true). It is wrong to say that all religions are the same (because they are not the same), and it is wrong to just hope that people will “assimilate” into a life of casual sex, drinking and drug use – for such things give no answer to the fundamental questions that EVENTUALLY people face in their minds. Muslims must be treated as the human beings that they are – not patted on the head like dogs with a “there is a good boy then”. Reason and evidence must be presented to turn Muslims (by their own freedom of intellect) into ex Muslims.
And, finally, something can not be defeated with nothing. False beliefs are (in terms of basic comfort) better than no beliefs at all – and casual sex, drinking, and drugs can not fill the hole-in-the-mind-and-spirit that people have. If false beliefs are to be defeated, true beliefs must be offered with evidence and reasoned argument.
“Bullets may still be needed Paul – to defend the Freedom of Speech”.
Sadly so – but remember that the First Amendment comes before the Second Amendment. Do not love the sword for its sharpness, or the arrow for its swiftness – love what they defend.
Of course today believing in either the First Amendment or the Second Amendment is considered a “Texan” (not even an American) point of view – so be it then. We who believe in the basic liberties are all “Texans” then – where ever we happen to live.
It’s a pity there’s no sentiment for starting a resurgent Thuggee sect of Kali-worship in London or Washington today. What fun it would be, watching the professionally tolerant labor under the strain!
“peaceful effort to refute-and-discredit the ideas and life of Mohammed”
The people trying to do the refuting and discrediting can be as peaceful and pussyfooting as they like but there isn’t the remotest chance that they won’t be met with hostility and ultimately violence.
Haven’t you got the memo from Big Brother? Winston Churchill is literally, like, Hitler and a Fascist! He’s not only an f’ing white male, he’s an old, dead, f’ing white male!
🙄
You can import millions of people who follow a creed that explicitly states the world is divided between believers and non-believers, and that the relationship must be resolved through either conversion or submission.
Or you can have a modern progressive country with high levels of social trust. Can’t have both.
At this point, the UK resembles a frog being slowly boiled in the pot. It’s not going to jump.
“It is almost certain that this was the act of some sort of Islamist terrorist”
This is staggeringly incompetent even given some of the attempts of Islamist nutters (Glasgow airport and the underpants bomber – there’s a good name for a band – spring to mind) so there’s scope to hold off until we do have better info.
As soon as we hear that there is a person of very definitely unspecified origin, I’m with you, but until then, maybe not so much.
“It is almost certain that this was the act of some sort of Islamist terrorist”. No it wasn’t. It was a concerted act by the Islamic community as a whole in another attempt to scare the general population into destroying the current social structure and accepting Shariah law in this country or ‘face the consequences’. Every time I see a muslim spokesman (it’s always a man as women don’t have a voice of their own in Islam) proclaiming that such acts do not reflect ther muslim community as a whole, I long for someone to ask them what ‘Taqiyya’ means. Every time something like this happens, a mosque should be shut down on the grounds that it is suspected of formenting terrorism and it is uip to the Imam or Mufti pr prove otherwise – just like everyone else has to when arrested under the preventiuon of terrorism act. I will accept that Islam can be a religion of peace when the next suicide bomber is a 7th Day Adventist, Scientologist, or Welsh Baptist.
Thus Johnathan:
followed by a couple of comments saying, effectively, “No it isn’t [almost certain]….”
I bow to no one here in my Pedantic Credentials, but I don’t understand this objection. “Terrorist” instead of “terrorists“? Someone says “The whole
MuslimIslamic community,” but I wonder myself whether this, strictly speaking, means the whole ‘MuslimIslamic community’ or rather an unfortunately large, but still proper, subset of Muslims. Or does the commenter take the position that by definition the “MuslimIslamic community” consists of all those, but only those, who are minded to do away with the West and such values (e.g. that of human life) as it holds?.
It seems to me that the thrust of Johnathan’s statement is correct.
Pedantically yours,
–J.
Why is ironic that there is a mosque nearby?
I keep up to date with the news and I can’t recall a terrorist incident which has anything at all to do with Islam.
By the way, I agree that Islam and a great proportion of its adherents constitute one of the most important threats of our time, not just to Civilization — Western civilization — but to the lives of its non-adherents as well. (“Non-adherents”: Those not inclined to knuckle under.)
I also agree that Islam would be much less of a danger if the Left and the squooshy libruls influenced by them had not done such thorough spading and ploughing and fertilization of the ground as to cost our societies their moral self-confidence, and to teach us not to distinguish among the categories “evil,” “well-meaning but terribly ill-advised,” and “correct, but inadmissibly so because PC.”
I do not agree with any implication that this means we should put fighting the Left/libruls/ignorant ahead of fighting Islam and its tenets. By all means despatch WW II Germany, but also deal likewise with Japan.
It is a two-front war.
You need the muslim community to track its extremists and snitch on them.
Good luck with that.
To those who live in London – how does it feel to be Eloi?
Dunno, we still more or less have property rights here and our cops hardly ever shoot us, so you tell me.
This is staggeringly incompetent even given some of the attempts of Islamist nutters
If you are a nutter, incompetence is likely, given that competent people are, usually, rational, and why would a rational being subscribe to the doctrine of psychopaths, nihilists and losers, as is the case with Islamfascists?
Oh goody, everything’s fine then! Nevermind the monthly outbreak of Morlock rage. After all, as your esteemed Mayor said, it’s part and parcel of living in a big city.
Likely, but not a given. Sept 11 just passed a few days ago – how fast memories fade.
We’re not as prone to get hysterical, you can do that for us and just lock everyone up, seeing as how everything is so fucking great over there.
“If false beliefs are to be defeated, true beliefs must be offered with evidence and reasoned argument.”
Sorry, Paul, I’m not buying it. Who gets to decide which beliefs are “false” and which (if any) are “true”? On what basis? By definition, beliefs aren’t subject to proof or verification, or even rational thought (so much for your “evidence and reasoned argument”). The best you can offer are alternative beliefs, in the hope that they will be accepted in place of the ones you wish to displace. But I very much doubt that approach will be successful with very many, if any, Muslims. It’s a vain hope.
Well — this time, I’ll just observe that devout Christians have become atheists and devout atheists have become Christians. Not that I would expect many Muslims to convert out of Islam. Yet there are also some living, and vocal, former Muslims who have done just that. Notably Miss Hirsi-Ali; also, Wafa Sultan; also Ali Sina; and others.
However, rearranging the contents of other people’s minds is a difficult task indeed. But at least promoting alternative beliefs, presenting them from both rational and emotional points of view, can’t hurt.
Nevertheless, the sword is important as well as the pen and the pulpit.
.
But as to “who gets to decide,” you do. I do. Paul does. Even Lenin and Mohammed did, if you think they were capable of the concept of a “true” belief. (Not everyone is — I think.)
The question for each of us is, “By what criteria do you [Paul, Laird, Julie, etc.] decide whether a belief-postulate is true or false?
Anyway, in fact we choose our belief-postulates according as they do indeed seem to be reasonable based on the evidence we have observed (or experienced) in reality; at least to some extent. And we do think about our experiences seriously and sometimes even rationally, question whether other observations bear out our interpretations of and inferences from them, and so on.
And this is true even though emotional predilections also play a part in our choices.
By the way, I lost the whole morning hunting for a reference I saw recently to some neuropsychologist (I think) who challenges Pinker, Piaget, and illustrious others, in that he says his researches indicate that even unborn babies who are still developing in the womb show a rudimentary moral sense. If I ever track this down, I’m sure y’all will be the first to know. (Of course, there’s always “What is this ‘moral,’ kemo sabe?)
We are in danger of treating these horrors as some sort of normal, like rainy weather in August in the UK, yobbish footballers or naff UK television sitcoms. And that is the appalling thing.
When bombings lose their emotional resonance the terrorists gain nothing by doing them. And so they stop doing them.
It’s why all terror bombing campaigns fail in strong states. The bombs achieve nothing except to bolster the pathetic insecurity of the bombers by how powerful they are. When it is apparent that they aren’t powerful, then they fade.
In all the years of bombings and shootings, what did ETA achieve? (And they mostly targeted meaningful targets, not just randoms.) The IRA discovered that random bombings achieve little and mostly stopped. The “Real IRA” had to learn the lesson all over again, but they still learned it.
If Britain wants to decrease the bombing campaigns, then they should get rid of the security theatre after the event. Flooding an area with visible police once a bomb has gone off is a total waste of time, and plays to the bombers’ egos. By all means flood with invisible security apparatus, but don’t play the propaganda war for the enemy.
Candle vigils etc also play to the enemy as they raise the publicity level and don’t actually help to solve the problem. We didn’t have candle vigils in WWII to express our dislike of the Nazis.
Get a grip — more than 34 people have also been killed by non-terrorists in that time. Hell, doctors and nurses with sloppy hygiene have probably killed that many. The bombers are weak and we should treat them as the pathetic weak scum they are.
Amen to that.
Paul Bloom at Yale? He wrote a book about something close to what you’re describing.
Yes, many people are killed in many ways through inattention, or brain misfirings, or sheer incompetence, or accident. What has that got to do with the murder of many, albeit fewer, persons by deliberate acts intended specifically to murder?
If there’s really no reason to distinguish deliberate, intended deaths from those which are not, I don’t see why bother to have “justice,” let alone libertarianism, in the first place.
.
We do try at least to decrease the number of deaths arising from the first four causes. But those arising willfully from acts of terror are justly and correctly treated by entirely different means.
I’m not arguing that the means that get the attention are any use (“security theatre,” candlelight vigils, etc.). My specific point is that it’s a dreadful mistake to lump all these kinds of death together, even if it does send the message “go about your business, your chance of being killed by a terrorist attack is less than your chance of getting killed by a human mishap.” Some of us go, Oh, that’s a relief! and more-or-less carefree (in this regard) return to the normal status quo. Some of us mutter “Oh, that’s a relief!” and continue to think that terrorism of epidemic proportions really does need to be taken seriously.
And I do have to point out that a great many people (but thankfully, not I) lost dearly-loved ones, parents, children, family, friends, in the attacks on 9/11. On 7/7. In Mumbai (but I forget the date). Etc.
Not the same thing. No, not the same thing at all.
bobby, thanks for the lead! I will Search. :>)
Just three long lifetimes ago, our grandparents’ grandparents- honestly, not falsely- used Christianity as a justification for unprovoked invasion and slaughter. A very specific and tailored intellectual program over a century and a bit, with lots of cooperation from science and war, was required to render that faith largely (but still not entirely) irrelevant as an open reason for state action.
Moslems aren’t about to abandon their beliefs, or betray their fellows, because the targets ask them to. Enough believers are in this fight that it’s not going to stop from their side.
And, P. S. , Gerry Adams and Martin Mcguinness might disagree that the Irish bombing campaign failed.
Yeah that always makes my relatives in Belfast giggle when they read about people claiming the fact Sinn Fein is part of the UK’s governing structures in Northern Ireland is evidence they won. Holy fuck, if that is what an separatist movement winning looks like, I would hate to see what losing look like.
It’s like trying to fight WW2 by only killing the ‘bad’ Nazis. If they stand under the flag of islam, they are the enemy.
No, it is like trying to fight WW2 with a governmental class that does not want to fight WW2.
“The bombs achieve nothing except to bolster the pathetic insecurity of the bombers by how powerful they are. When it is apparent that they aren’t powerful, then they fade.”
Well, no. The death toll from terror is low but the toll on a free society is very high. Just today, PM May was calling for more censorship of the internet, on top of the thousands of cuts inflicted on liberty by the expanding security state. Islamophobia is now a thing that makes the police knock on your door.
Islam, unlike the IRA, is waging a war on the culture of freedom, and doing so with a great deal of encouragement from politicians who like the idea of a big state and small people.
86% of nice secular moderate Jordanians, according to Pew’s poll of the Ummah, believe in the death penalty for apostasy.
They are all Islamicists. Every farking one.
Here’s Pew on Pakistan, one of the fastest growing sources of migrants to the UK.
Only 2% think society should accept gays. Some 82% say laws should “strictly” follow the Koran.
http://www.pewglobal.org/2012/07/10/most-muslims-want-democracy-personal-freedoms-and-islam-in-political-life/
The average earnings of Pakistani Britons is 35% lower than Indian Britons.
Theresa May is waving her cudgel at the Internet today, but there is no logical reason why Pakistan (and Bangladesh) should be one of the biggest source of migrants into the UK.
It’s a form of madness.
Looks like another practice run.
Train the lemmings to run and panic at every sign of “potential hazards”.
Get them used to being herded willy-nilly in and out of various spaces.
Then; Go for a Big One where the lemmings are being herded to a “safe place”.
Encourage, nay, DEMAND that the full force of state terror be brought to bear on peasants who express any dissent regarding the actions of their “betters” or of the primary enemy.
Repeat until the “authorities and experts” are curled up in little balls of bewilderment.
Then REALLY make a move.
It is not like this has not happened before, with almost monotonous regularity.
I second Mr Black’s comment of September 15, 2017 at 10:39 pm. Perry’s response to it, although expressed as disagreement, isn’t really wrong, but is merely an adjunct to to Mr Black’s point. The reality is that there are two problems, and they can be attacked simultaneously.
Yes, Laird. Precisely.
Agree. It really makes no sense at all. None.
Unless destabilisation and destruction is the aim.
Exactly. The US has had plenty of attacks. I find it irritating to be told how crap the UK is at these issues.
There was nothing rational about the 9/11 deathcultists’ view of the world. And they could have been thwarted, and knew it.
@JP – True, there have been many attacks in the USA. The successful attacks, however, typically took place in gun-free locations. Things didn’t end well for those cunts who tried it on in Garland, TX, for example.
I was born an Englishman and only became an American and a Texan late in life (which might explain my liberal use of the “C” word). It seems to me that USAians referring to Elois and Morlocks are, in fact, speaking of the insane gun control laws that have turned most of the UK into (officially, at least) a gun free zone (AKA a target rich environment).
In conversation, earlier this week, I remarked on the contrast with the position of the Czech government, which is in the process of amending the country’s constitution to guarantee the RKBA and recently issued a statement along the lines of “In the event of a terrorist attack, we encourage our citizens to shoot them dead.”
I’m always amazed by the blow back people get when discussing the ideas of Ayn Rand, where she says that rights are rooted in existential facts of reality rather than purely arbitrary synthetic constructs, whims out of the blue granted by favor by some authority figure head or body, and to survive and flourish, we need to have a good grasp of reality, use reason and logic.
All the while this blow back is going on, we have masses of people pretending that those most devoted to destroying the civilized cultures and civilized people of the word, either can’t be identified or that we don’t know their reasons. Of course, we really know both. We know who these savages are and what their reasons are. And by savages, I mean those hell-bent on destroying the civilized.
If Islam were a religion of peace, their extremists would be extremely peaceful.
Laird, unfalsifiable beliefs (or theories if you wish) may be false, but can’t be shown or proved to be false, hence unfalsifiable, but likewise, nor can they be shown to be true (not false). And, let’s be honest, people generally don’t require their beliefs (preferences) to be justifiable, especially in a religious or pseudo-religious context, where people consider holding unjustifiable beliefs to be virtuous.
Hm.
Let us suppose that a hypothesis/conjecture/proposition/understanding/belief/theory S does happen to be true.
Then by definition, it cannot be “falsified,” i.e. disproven. (Regardless of insufficient or misunderstood evidence misleadingly seeming to disprove it.)
.
Actually, S is disprovable (“falsifiable”) only if there is sufficient evidence available to produce a disproof. (As is obviously never the case, by definition, when S is true.)
.
Aside: S may not be disprovable given the currently available evidence (or the current knowledge of the investigator), but may become disprovable if additional evidence comes to light. But, again, this can’t if S is true; that is, factually and logically true or correct at the time of its statement.
Example. In 733 B.C. it would have been factually untrue to assert that JnC was born in Cambridge, Md. in 1943. But today that statement is factually true and correct. And nothing, ever, can disprove it.