“The rocket bombs which fell daily on London were probably fired by the Government of Oceania itself, ‘just to keep people frightened.’” – 1984
There is much to say about the attacks that took place in London last night. If Teresa May has her way, however, there will be little chance to say anything. The ice queen of the common people has, in the wake of the horrific attacks, not only called for a suspension of the general election but also for greater control over the Internet. Now, with British SAS troops moving into London and much of the city already acclimated to seeing fully armed British soldiers on the streets, Britain has abandoned all pretense of the “Western freedoms” it once inaccurately portrayed itself as representing. The U.K. is now openly embracing the commune-fascism it once went great lengths to keep hidden.
May, in her totalitarian speech, claimed that the Internet needed more control because terrorists were allowed “safe spaces” online where their ideology could take root and blossom. Therefore, May wants the U.K. to bring legislation and pressure to bear on private companies to regulate and censor content and spaces online under the guise of preventing terrorism.
Of course, the U.K. could stop funding ISIS and other terrorists and terrorist organizations across the world. It could immediately ban Saudi Arabia from funding Wahhabist mosques all across England. It could cease allowing more immigrants from entering a country that has long suffered from an enormous shortage of jobs and whose communities are the locales from which these terrorists almost solely come from. The U.K. could even re-prioritize police efforts to arrest and prosecute victimless drug crimes and focus on actual violence and terrorism but, I digress. It appears that freedom, economics, and reason are now passé, while shutting down free speech and free thought sounds like a much better option.
There are, however, at least three points that need to be made about these acts of terrorism as well as the previous ones in relation to the U.K. Indeed, there are three levels to any discussion of the attacks at London Bridge.
First, after decades of unfettered immigration from cultures often far different than that of the U.K., the British people are now reaping what has been sown by their government in the form of often violent hostility to anything British and British culture in general. Granted, many of the immigrants have entered Britain from lands that jolly ol’ England bombed, occupied, or generally terrorized for decades and, thus, you can see why British patriotism might not be the highest on their priority list. Still, after decades of such policies which were admittedly implemented for the purpose of changing British culture forever, England’s cities contain areas where white Britons are now afraid to go for fear of being attacked by “immigrants,” and members of council who refuse to shake the hands of their female constituents because it violates their extreme form of religion. Anyone who has traveled to England and especially London in the last few years can attest to the vast demographic changes that have taken place as a result of Britain’s open immigration policies.
The elephant in the room is that the overwhelming majority of terror attacks are coming from these communities. Most Westerners, however, are afraid to state the obvious because doing so will undoubtedly open them up to catcalls of “racism” and “xenophobia,” the punishment for questioning the sacred cow of “cultural diversity.”
But the question of terrorism in the U.K. is not that simple. Right wingers would have everyone believe that such terror is the work of “Muslims” and immigrants and that the issue doesn’t go any deeper than that. Some people, according to them, are just bad seeds at the macro level and so “they” are the problem and “we” are the good guys. “Muslims” are taught from day one to hate Westerners, Christians, Jews, and all non-Muslims. Even the ones who aren’t violent and who act like any other Westerner, according to the right wingers, are just acting, waiting for their chance to destroy Western society and impose the caliphate from within.
But where does radical Islamic terrorism really have its roots? It certainly is not in Syria since both the Syrian government and the Syrian people have been the greatest force against it for the last six years. It certainly wasn’t Saddam Hussein and it isn’t Iran. In fact, it’s nowhere that the United States and the U.K. have been bombing for the past several decades. The roots of extremism come from British allies like Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states.
More importantly, the roots of extremism are firmly planted in the halls of MI-6, the CIA, and other Western intelligence agencies as well as the halls of the British government who not only manipulate jihadists, but actually create, fund, and direct them throughout the entire world, including on British soil.
Simply put, the U.K. is experiencing the results of the arming of terrorists across the world, allowing Saudi Arabia to fund Wahhabist mosques throughout England, and engaging in imperialist wars all over the planet. Whenever you dump money into terrorism and incubate it on your soil, shit tends to happen.
After all, when you allow a foreign country to pour millions of dollars into mosques that teach children and angst-ridden young people in the ways of extremism as well as hatred for an authoritarian government that keeps them down, all the while dropping bombs on their next of kin overseas, what exactly do you expect to follow?