24 March 2017

Terrorists ... or Adrians?

What a difference it makes to learn that the terrorist who managed to cause such murderous and evil mayhem with just a hired car and a couple of kitchen knives was really a Man of Kent (or do I mean a Kentish Man?) called Adrian.

In other words, home-grown. The product of the errors and tensions and cultural alienations of our own society. Not a phenomenon we can blame on immigrant hordes.

I'm not sure I agree with my correspondent who is glad that Adrian ended up dead. If I were in Security, I would prefer to have such individuals alive and interrogable. Corpses are so often taciturn, even if water-boarded.

I've known a lot of chaps called Adrian, all of them ... as far as I can recall ... distinctly nice.  I wonder what our Mr Farago thinks of Adrians in particular and of immigrants from Kent in general.

My ancestors on my Mother's side migrated from Kent to Essex.

And I have, several times, visited friends along the Hagley Road in Birmingham. I may well be on CCTV.

And my wife has just revealed to me that we have knives in our kitchen.

Should I give myself up?


22 comments:

Liam Ronan said...

I once read, Father, that a number of terrorists ate bread when they were children. This fellow, per the Telegraph, was quite the fan of football as a youth. Bread and circuses. One never knows.

Amateur Brain Surgeon said...

It was easily predictable that P.M. May would declaim that the Jihadi was not actualising the commands of the Koran or imitating the putative "perfect man" Mahomet.

Liberals will respond to this Death by Diversity by insisting that the Mahometan who killed the Brits is not representative of real Mahometanism and claim that only more Mahometan immigration into England can solve the problem because diversity is their strength.

P.M. T. May is wrong about Britain not giving in to terror (it already has) because it will not stop Mahometan aggression (immigration) and she can no more defeat evil than Duyba could.

She could stop Mahometan immigration ( aggression) but she won't because doing that would be against Brit values or some such other idiocy.

Imagine this was in the 1930s and Germans were immigrating into England and killing the locals, would the response of the authorities to those killings have been to insist that those Germans were not representative of all Germans and that the immigration into England by Germans made the country stronger?

Enoch Powell spoke about the duty of statesmen to provide against preventable evils but the leaders in the West are fey, feckless, and foolish and so Death by Diversity is our forseeable future.

The Council of the Malignant is domed to repeating these inane claims as they continue to invite the enemy inside the gate and the inevitable civil wars (predicted in Catholic Prophecy to occur in Italy, France, and England) will be blamed on the patriots of those countries who, finally, will take up arms to repel the unassimilable enemy as the Council of the Malignant will tsk tsk at the courageous as they slink about their lairs, safely protected by walls surrounding their private properties.

One blogger, rightly, created this little mathematical formula that depicts the reality daily denied by demented democratic leaders

Diversity + Proximity = War.

America too hungers to expose its neck to the enemy as, inexplicably, the fifteen years after 911 saw more Mahometan immigration into this crummy country than the fifteen years prior to 911 as America labors to recreate Yugoslavia in North America because Diversity.

In America, one large problem is the demented routinely cite Freedom of Religion as a reason not to exclude Mahometans from immigrating as though the Fathers of America (Brits) would have been so benighted as to accept as immigrants those sworn to destroy the very country they were establishing.

Fred W. said...

Possibly your wife has also been radicalized into a version of a religion from the desert East? Has traveled the road you describe ? Knows your schedule and whereabouts ? May have purchased the "kitchen" knives herself, surreptitiously, one by one, although occasionally in small sets....
Flowers might be in order....

Michael Gormally said...

This is hardly a fit subject for misplaced attempts at jocularity.

DrAndroSF said...

I have no idea what your point was, Father. As for Islam in Britain or any other Western, or indeed any other currently non Islamic state, two of its inherent features make it incompatible with any of them. They are, I think, undeniable and essential.

First, Islam is a theocracy, that is, a complete God-delivered legal and social system designed for the administration of territory and regulating the behavior of everyone in it, both Muslim and non-Muslim. Second, Islam is missionary (or imperialist, if you will) and its horizon is global, aiming at ruling the entire planet.

These two things are always true of it, regardless of anything else about it or what your nice Muslim neighbor says.

Fr John Hunwicke said...

I thought my point would be fairly obvious to the sort of people who read my blog. There are people in my country who have been persuaded that our terrorist problem is a product of immigrant aliens. I think that is a gross and dangerous misunderstanding.

Furthermore, I think that the root of many of our problems is the elimination by secularism of our genuine cultural and religious identity. It is part of human nature to want an identity, and if a genuine identity is declared politically incorrect, the foolish and the vulnerable will discover and adopt a perverted identity. Nature abhors a vacuum.

When Cassius Clay became Mohammed Ali, quite a long time ago, he said it all.

Barry Hudd said...

Your point is irrelevant. You are using humour in a situation where innocent people were killed and wounded. It is thoroughly bad taste to put it mildly. As a survivor of a London terrorist bomb attack l obviously feel more for the victims than you do. It is not a laughing matter. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Liam Ronan said...

@ Barry Hudd,

There was a spot of humour to be found in the streets, pubs, and dance halls of London during the most intense bombings of WWII. A few people died there at the time. Glenn Miller's Band actually performed during a buzz-bomb attack.

Michał Patycki said...

@Barry Hudd

Is La vita è bella by Benigni also "bad taste to put it mildly".

Though I must admit that the form of our Host's post seemed awkward to me and the point not very obvious.

I did not dislike as much as you did though. Maybe it's the distance I have - both geographical and in terms of experiences.

Victor said...

Considering that the majority of Muslims in the UK as well as France came a long time ago from the colonies, I would say that this is the late revenge of the 19th century. Don't blame the poor Syrians who flee Islamism (and, btw, are in a deep crisis of identity as well as faith)!
And to all those who take issue with this blog entry, there is a quite simple and elegant solution to their problem: stop reading this blog!

Patrick Sheridan said...

I thought the point was well made. Why do we tolerate right wing idiots who dishonour the victims of terror by inveighing against immigrants? At the same time I think that we can peacably dissent from the spurious "values" forced upon us by the government and not be a danger to people.

Sadie Vacantist said...

Peter Hitchens usually makes the point that these lone wolf terrorists are often drug fuelled. It was no surprise to learn that the attacker was obsessed with the gym and bodybuilding. Gymnasiums are notorious for the distribution of steroids and unregulated "supplements".

I do agree that the jocular tone of this blog item is inappropriate.

Gaius said...

The fact that the terrorist was born in the UK isn't really surprising, since it's quite well-established by now that second- and third-generation immigrants are more likely to be radicalised than first-generation.

This usually gets used as an argument for immigration, which strikes me as completely backward, as it implies that, even if we're successful in screening current immigrants for radicalism, we're still likely to suffer terrorist attacks one generation down the line.

Kathleen1031 said...

I hardly find our hosts comments offensive in the way some here do. I wonder at it. Rather than peck at Father, we should be a great deal more prickly about the people who continue to insist that to stop the immigration flow is somehow "bigoted" or "mean-spirited". Save your annoyance for those who are literally bringing in the means of your own destruction in the temporal realm. I mean, they are already here, but, more?
There is no limit to the obsession citizens of the West have with being politically correct. It has become THE virtue above all other virtues. Indoctrination has done it's job. It can rest when everyone is dead.
There is no other explanation for refusing to identify the problem, which is Islam, than cowardice. As long as these attacks happen to someone else's child, or mother, or spouse, it is all theory and we don't have to say the HARD thing. I live between two areas very hard hit by Islamic attacks. The reality is not theory, it is blood and mayhem and heartbreaking realities.

Banshee said...

When things are really bad, black humor among friends is a survival response to relieve horrendous stress, sadness, and terror. That is why surgeons joke in the operating room, paramedics joke as they race death, and soldiers joke in the trenches. It is an appropriate response to the wrongness of our fallen world - to laugh at it and thus calm ourselves to face it.

I have always been told that the English are particularly good at black humor, so the responses against it, on an English blog, are puzzling.

Thomas said...

Islam is a religion not a race. That is Fr. Hunwicke's point, it seems to me. It is ideas and beliefs that matter, not what country someone was born in. There are an increasing number of 'native' converts to Islam from the post-Christian masses Europe. It promises doctrinal certainty and a strong moral framework to those who are lost in the spiritual vacuum of secularism. Of course, it is contains false doctrines and a skewed moral sensibility, but that is up to us to challenge and correct with clarity and charity as St. Peter instructed us. While not all Muslims espouse the Saudi/Salafist/Wahabbist version of Islam, that does seem to attract the converts, especially if they come from troubled and socially dysfunctional backgrounds which are an increasing (home-grown) feature of our fractured and graceless society. But all of this can only be countered by preaching, explaining and witnessing to the authentic Way, Truth and Life who is Jesus Christ, not by racist scaremongering.

A thousand years ago the ancestors of many of us came to this island as pagan immigrants too, some of them behaved very aggressively. The then natives were later chastised by St. Augustine of Canterbury for failing to evangelise their new neighbours and by Gildas before that, who saw the loss of Britain to the pagans as divine punishment for heresy and immorality among the British Christians.

We should not care what 'race' someone comes from, we should care about the eternal salvation of everyone we meet, whatever their facial features or language of origin. We should be converting the new immigrants to our countries by our word and example. If that creates a new racial mix and a new kind of Britain that belongs to Christ the King in heart and mind and spirit, then God be praised. We are Catholics, not little English/British nationalists.

Deacon Augustine said...

Of course you are correct to identify that it is not immigration per se which leads to such terror, Fr. However, neither can the cause be simply laid at the door of secularism. The Christians of Iraq and Syria have lived in safety until recently precisely because of the rule of a secular power.

The real root cause of this particular brand of terrorism can be squarely lain at the door of that "religion" whose "Holy Book" promises its adherents heavenly rewards if they kill, maim, slaughter and decapitate non-believers and apostates. Is there any other "religion" on this planet (apart from perhaps Satanism) which promises its adherents heavenly rewards for killing people?

I know all the bleeding-hearts will object: "Bbbbut, the great majority of muslims don't interpret their Koran that way..." However, the problem is that when the Koran so clearly commends acts of violence, there will always be significant numbers who do interpret it that way. So-called "moderate muslims" have no control over what their children read on the internet any more than I can control my children's online viewing habits. Any of them can be turned into a Jihadi terrorists so long as people are allowed to preach this vile cult in their mosques and proselytize it in the media.

Therefore, we will have to live with this terrorism now until Kingdom come unless this death cult is made a proscribed organization by civilized societies and its "Holy Book" be banned. Ferdinand and Isabella knew exactly how to solve our current problems...but I can't imagine any politician with the guts to grasp the nettle these days.

Michael Leahy said...

I second the howl of the Banshee.

vetusta ecclesia said...

Sadie Vacantist: cf. the origin of the word "assassin".

Little Black Sambo said...

"... the majority of Muslims in the UK ... came a long time ago from the colonies..."
Not true; look it up.
In opposition to some grumpy contributions above, I thought the article very funny and apt.

Liam Ronan said...

@Deacon Augustine,

I agree with your take on the matters.

@Thomas,

You say: "Islam is a religion not a race." I agree in part.

'Islam' is not a race. It is however, and to my mind, not a 'religion' primarily. It is a 'political' system underpinned by a veneer of hedonistic theology and which advocates mindless violence and force to proselytize the non-believer and keep the back-sliders in line.

There are any number of political parties of similar ideology and bent which are banned for the common good. I suppose if these would fashion a 'god' for themselves they would be pillars of society overnight.

Hans Georg Lundahl said...

"I'm not sure I agree with my correspondent who is glad that Adrian ended up dead. If I were in Security, I would prefer to have such individuals alive and interrogable. Corpses are so often taciturn, even if water-boarded."

Not quite wrong.

I think I said the same after death of Mohammed Merah.

You see, his radical animosity against certain people was blamed on the fact that he was a Fundamentalist, i e took every word in every Ayah of every Soorah of all his Quran as literal truth (or whatever Fundamentalist means when it comes to Muslims).

Since he could not be interrogated, except for the dialogue between the RAID trying to persuade him to give up, if and to whom that is accessible, we have little to go on.

I have suggested that like Breivik, a now known non-Fundie (excluded from Masonic lodge day after his murder spree - which gave a Croatian immigrant girl some occasion to shine - does sound as if he had been at least pro forma a member of it, he also expressed disgust for creationism in school or personal God), Mohammed Merah could have been rather than Fundie, identitarian. Which is not quite the same thing.