It has only been just over a week since the Christchurch terrorist attack but this short space of time has demonstrated more than sufficient to prove that we live in Clown Land.
The response to this terrible event has been mind-boggling in its emotion (understandable) and sheer stupidity (entirely unforgiveable).
So much rubbish has been written, so much hypocrisy and virtue signalling has been displayed and so much melodrama has unfolded that the really important things have been completely forgotten as the eggs crack around us.
There are only two things that are critical to understand.
Firstly, Islamic immigration has become such an irritant and cause of concern to the wider population that people are now taking the law into their own hands.
Secondly, the general knee-jerk response by politicians and the media is only going to further increase the likelihood of violence.
I hope I am wrong, desperately so. But I gravely fear that we have not seen the end of this terrible tale. It will make my life miserable but I can live with that. I am far more concerned about my children and the shambles of a world we seem intent on handing over to them.
Let’s look at each of these points.
The end of January seems so long ago, but it is where we need to go.
On 31 January 2019, New South Wales Supreme Court Judge Fagan handed down these words in judgement:
Terrorists’ reliance on verses of the Quran to support an Islamic duty of religious violence has been seen with more or less clarity in a number of NSW and Victorian cases…The many Australian Muslims who wish to live in peace with the whole community may reflect that if Islam accepts the entire Quran as Allah’s eternal instruction to believers, without explicit repudiation of verses which ordain intolerance, violence and domination, that unqualified acceptance will embolden terrorists to think they are in common cause with all believers and indeed that they are the spearhead of the religion.
The scriptural support for the terrorists’ perceived obligation of jihad cannot be rebutted by Australian courts or law enforcement authorities. If the verses upon which the terrorists rely are not binding commands of Allah, it is Muslims who would have to say so. If Australian followers of the religion, including those who profess deep knowledge, were to make a clear public disavowal of these verses, as not authoritative instructions from Allah, then the terrorists’ moral conviction might be weakened.
The incitements to violence which terrorists quote from the Quran cannot just be ignored by the many believers who desire harmonious coexistence. Those verses are not ignored by terrorists. As seen in this and numerous other prosecutions, the hostile verses are inspiring serious crimes. In turn those crimes have the capacity to provoke social division and mistrust.
The apparent message of these verses is not answered by non-specific and unelaborated suggestions, from various quarters, that “there are other verses” or that “it is an interpretive religion” or that the hostile passages are “cherry picked”. Assurances are from time to time offered to Western communities that “Islam is a religion of peace” and that the faith of Muslims requires them to obey the laws of a country in which they are in a minority. But in the absence of express public disavowal of verses which convey Allah’s command for violence, as quoted in the jihadist literature tendered in this case, such assurances are apparently contradicted. Certainly that is how the matter is seen by jihadi propagandists and those who have followed them, including these offenders.
It is precise, un-emotive legal language that directly calls out the irrefutable link between Islamic terrorism and the Quran, which Muslims hold to be the word of Allah.
And most Australians reading them would simply say, well duh.
Most Australians are not dumb.
They know that most Muslims are not violent. They also know that violent Muslims are inspired by the Quran. And they know that, unfortunately, you cannot always tell who is who.
That’s not a deep knowledge of Islam but it contains enough of all the important details to make a logical decision about Islamic immigration.
It’s a decision that is not based on the irrelevant peaceful majority. It’s based on the unsafe and all too relevant violent minority.
But, truth be told, if Australians did know about Islam there would be a lot more ‘Islamophobia’. Mohammad’s example teaches that violence is best reserved for struggles that can be won. It means that as Islamic populations grow, the conditions justifying violence do too.
Most Australians don’t know this. But they already know enough for opinion poll after opinion poll to show that far more of us want a halt to Islamic immigration than those who think the front door should be jammed open.
In August 2016, an Essential Research report found more Australians ‘strongly supported’ a ban on Islamic immigration than any other answer given. Overall 49% wanted to see Islamic immigration cut with another 11% undecided.
In October 2017, an Australian Population Research Institute report found that almost half of all Australians supported a partial ban on Islamic immigration.
In November 2018, a Fairfax-Ipsos poll showed most Australians supported a reduction in immigration from Islamic nations.
This has nothing to do with ‘racism’ and everything to do with concerns about safety.
The Grand Mufti’s vow that he would ‘never, ever, ever’ reject the violent texts of the Quran after the judgement above was handed down only reinforces this sentiment.
And as sad as a terrorist attack on unarmed Muslims in a mosque in New Zealand is, it not a cause for this concern to evaporate.
As Islamic immigration grows, Islamic terrorism continues and ghettos are formed, some Australians will simply lose faith in the ability of the state to protect them.
When this happens they will take the law into their own hands.
While this is troubling and evil and dangerous and violent and unlawful and every other negative word you can utter, there is one thing it is not: surprising.
More importantly, this concern is now so great that reprisals could come from anywhere.
Brenton Tarrant is a white supremacist. But his manifesto shows he is other things too.
Tarrant’s manifesto contained these words:
Conservatism is dead. Thank god.
And these words:
There is no democratic Solution
And these words:
The nation with the closest political and social values to my own is the People’s Republic of China.
And these words:
Why focus on immigration and birth rates when climate change is such a huge issue?
Because they are the same issue, the environment is being destroyed by over population, we Europeans are one of the groups that are not over populating the world. The invaders are the ones over populating the world. Kill the invaders, kill the overpopulation and by doing so save the environment.
And these words:
Green nationalism is the only true nationalism
And these ones too:
No, when I was young I was a communist, then an anarchist and finally a libertarian before coming to be an eco-fascist.
Clearly, Tarrant’s path to racial violence was not a journey through conservative Australia or the ‘Right’, as portrayed by the media. If police monitored viewers of Andrew Bolt, readers of The Australian and supporters of this website 24/7 they would never have stumbled upon him.
Tarrant’s political journey started in Leftist politics. It seems ‘greenies’ can be racists too.
And it means we also need to have a debate about ideas promoted by the Left in videos like this (but I’ll leave that for another day):
The important point is that if a former young communist can open fire in a mosque in New Zealand, then you cannot pigeon hole retaliatory anti-Islamic violence on any one group. The next attack will come but no one can predict from where it will emanate.
And that message has been completely lost in the virtue-signalling of the last week.
It also means that this disaster is approaching a point that is beyond the control of a normally functioning state.
Government response will fuel anti-Islamic violence
If things are already bad enough, there is every likelihood that they are only going to worsen.
The events of the last week indicate that the state will move towards laws that protect Islam from criticism and even entrench it within the apparatus of the government.
And, in this regard, New Zealand has particularly jumped head first off the stupid cliff.
It is one thing to mourn the dreadful loss of Muslim lives in an act of terror.
It is another thing entirely for a Prime Minister to adopt the hijab, for Islamic prayers to be introduced into parliament and for the national broadcaster to transmit the Islamic call to prayer into every home.
Women voluntarily cover their heads as mark of respect …and now the #Muslim #CallToPrayer rings out over #NewZealand-from the state radio and television- as the prayer service begins.#memorialservice#Christchurch pic.twitter.com/gbGbgB0Dkp
— Bonnie Greer (@Bonn1eGreer) March 22, 2019
And it’s now almost arrived at the book burning stage. One of New Zealand’s largest bookstores has pulled Jordan Petersen from the shelves.
But it still happily sells the Quran and Hitler’s Mein Kampf (which, by the way, it should).
These are all signs of a world gone mad, overrun by emotion.
Even normally logical people have lost the plot. For instance Greg Sheridan, of The Australian, wrote an article claiming ‘we are all Muslims’.
No, we are not.
And it is not ‘Islamophobic’ to say so.
Nor is it Islamophobic to remember that the Al Noor mosque in Christchurch was the place where two men were first radicalised before they were recruited by al Qaeda.
But in this entirely emotional environment, the Christchurch massacre has been cynically exploited by Left wing politicians to smear their opponents and create momentum for laws that will destroy all diversity of opinion.
Bill Shorten’s media team has deliberately implied Pauline Hanson is a Nazi and suggested the Liberal/National Coalition will preference Nazis at the next election.
I guess that’s one of the side-effects of smearing anyone you disagree with as a Nazi.
And a number of Green and Labor politicians have actively canvassed changing the rules of parliament to boot Senator Fraser Anning after he expressed concern about Islamic immigration.
Loathe or love him, that was the primary issue he raised in his press release. And it just so happens that polling shows every second Australian shares his concern. Are all of them to be banned from politics too?
Unsurprisingly, the Greens are also pushing for laws that will basically ban any criticism of Islam.
Brenton Tarrant claimed in his manifesto that democracy was no solution. If the Left uses the Christchurch attack to get its way, it will be killed off entirely.
Way to go Einsteins. In all of eight days you’ve managed to do little more than legitimise the Christchurch terrorist’s manifesto.
Perhaps the most bizarre statement of all in the last week has come from the Prime Minister himself, Scott Morrison. Earlier this week he called for end to ‘tribalism’, while warning against ‘shouting from the fringes’ over issues like multiculturalism.
But that is just what multiculturalism is. A multicultural nation by definition is a nation of cultural tribes. And because there is no unity, every voice is on the ‘fringe’ of someone else’s version of normal.
The world is the most multicultural place there is. And it is also violent. If you attempt to make Australia look like the world, you must necessarily mix ideas and cultures that clash. And, just as it does in the world, multiculturalism will result in violence in Australia.
Yet all the indications of the last week point to more state-enforced diversity, more multiculturalism and less freedom of speech and thought.
Perhaps the most important segment of Brenton Tarrant’s manifesto were these words because they explain why he picked up a gun:
The final push was witnessing the state of French cities and towns. For many years I had been hearing and reading of the invasion of France by non-whites, many of these rumours and stories I believed to be exaggerations, created to push a political narrative.
But once I arrived in France, I found the stories to not only be true, but profoundly understated.
In every french city, in every french town the invaders were there. No matter where I travelled, no matter how small or rural the community I visited, the invaders were there.
The french people were often in a minority themselves, and the french that were in the streets were often alone, childless or of advanced age. Whilst the immigrants were young, energized and with large families and many children.
I remember pulling into a shopping centre car park to buy groceries in some moderate sized town in Eastern France, of roughly 15-25 thousand people. As I sat there in the parking lot, in my rental car, I watched a stream of the invaders walk through the shopping centre’s front doors.
For every french man or woman there was double the number of invaders.
I had seen enough, and in anger, drove out of the the town, refusing to stay any longer in the cursed place and headed on to the next town.
Many, many Australians have the same concerns but they have not resorted to violence.
However, if they cannot speak their mind, if they cannot vote for a political party that recognises this concern and if the push for multiculturalism continues, this will change.
The ideas espoused by Richard di Natale and others inside the Greens and Labor are not only foolish in the extreme in their failure to deal with the reality of Islam, but they will be primary reasons the next Brenton Tarrant decides that the only solution is to become a white supremacist, like a Hitler meme and broadcast a live feed of madness.
I do not want to see this happen. But my hopes and my best assessments of the future are going in two different directions.
Welcome to Clown Land, where if things go well we’ll still be stuck with Krusty.
And if they don’t? There’s a good chance Pennywise from Stephen King’s horror novel It will be unleashed.