Paradoxical Effects and Unintended Consequences

After two uniformed Canadian soldiers were killed this past week in separate jihad attacks in Montreal and Ottawa, Rear Admiral John Newton, the commander of Canada’s Maritime Forces Atlantic, advised soldiers under his command to avoid wearing their uniforms in public. His directive took the form of an urgent recommendation, and not an actual order, but was nonetheless quite disturbing — so appalling, in fact, that I had to resort to satire as a means of dealing with it.

Similar orders/recommendations have been issued by military authorities in other Western countries, including Australia, Britain, and the Netherlands. Uniformed members of these countries’ armed services are now at risk within their own borders, but rather than confront this emergency head-on and recognize it for what it is, they have chosen the cowardly route instead. They have asked soldiers to conceal their identities, as if they were guerilla forces behind enemy lines.

Admiral Newton’s directive will have the paradoxical effect of making all Canadian citizens less safe.

Why do I say this?

Mujahideen within infidel countries who support the Islamic State have been instructed specifically to target soldiers and police, whom they regard as servants of a blasphemous, illegitimate state, and therefore deserving of special murderous attention. If soldiers are no longer identifiable by their uniforms, a jihadi must needs resort to targeting civilians indiscriminately, in hopes of murdering a soldier or two in the process. Pedestrians who happen to be in the vicinity of a military barracks would perhaps be more vulnerable than those elsewhere, but everyone would be at risk.

In any case, since the Islamic State does not recognize the existence of actual civilians among the infidels of Dar al-Harb — all of whom are enemies of Allah — it also recommends targeting pedestrians at random. If a uniform happens to be around, yes, kill him first. But all infidels are fair game.

Making all Canadians marginally less safe is an unintended consequence of policies that purportedly serve to protect citizens from harm. Like so many politically correct responses to the Islamic threat, the Canadian government’s actions serve to bolster the ruling elites’ collective self-image of tolerant, non-racist inclusiveness rather than the actual well-being of Canadian citizens.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

The Harper government’s responses may seem irrational — even insane — but they aren’t, not really. Once you accept the underlying premises of Politically Correct Multiculturalism, that is. After that, the rest follows.

The real “root cause” of terrorist attacks on Canadian soil cannot possibly be addressed, because it would require an acknowledgement that the mass importation of Muslim immigrants into Canada was a horrendous mistake. It would also mean admitting that mosques are not houses of worship, but rather incubators of sedition. As Turkish Prime Minister (now President) Recep Tayyip Erdogan famously said, “The mosques are our barracks, the domes our helmets, the minarets our bayonets and the faithful our soldiers.”

Could anyone say it more clearly?

But the PC/MC regime must at all costs avoid revealing such facts. Admitting the truth would bring the entire multiculti Potemkin edifice crashing down, exposing the tawdry, useless reality behind all the lies.

Instead, Canada will have more restrictions on internet speech, more spying, and more monitoring of citizens for “extremist tendencies”. We can expect that each new violent incident involving culture-enrichers will be handled with kid gloves, of course. But the hammer of the law will strike with full force against anyone who dares to point out all the things I have mentioned here. As we have seen in Britain and many other places, laws against “hate speech” will be disproportionately invoked and enforced against those who discuss the awful truth that the Multicult is attempting to paper over.

That’s the whole point of the exercise — to protect the stability of the existing political structure at all costs.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Once the flimsy Multicultural scrim is pushed aside, revealing the dingy essence behind it, other pieces of the puzzle begin to fall into place. The actions of our political leaders have all those unintended consequences because their ostensible purpose is a sham.

For example:

There is a concerted attempt to reassure the public that all of these murders were committed by “lone wolves” who have no “connection with terrorism”, and above all, have “nothing to do with Islam”. Justin Trudeau’s response to last Wednesday’s events characterized the attacks as “criminal” rather than religious. The purpose of such reassurances is not to protect the public, but to shield Islam from any official scrutiny. The goal is to preserve the Multicultural Order rather than the lives of Canadian citizens.

Thus “self-radicalized” becomes the key phrase used to describe each new convert who takes to jihad. Like Zale Thompson, the hatchet-wielding jihadi from Queens, the freshman mujahid discovers Islam on the internet or in his neighborhood. He adopts an Islamic name, supports the Islamic State, admires the Islamic State, and is inspired by the Islamic State. He sees all those ISIS fighters beheading people and conducting mass executions, and he wants to be just like them.

Pointing out that he does all these things entirely on his own, rather than by joining Al Qaeda, is supposed to reassure you. But it doesn’t, does it?

Paradoxically, it makes you afraid of all Muslims. You’ve just learned that any self-professed Muslim may at any moment without warning become a murderer. It makes you apprehensive about any caftan- or chador-wearing person you encounter on the street. It makes you wonder whether a dangerous psychopath may suddenly emerge from the door of a mosque as you walk past it.

When ordinary citizens keep hearing the phrase “recent convert to Islam” used to describe a cold-blooded murderer, they begin to wonder what it is about converting to Islam. They hear the TV tell them that the incident had “nothing to do with Islam”, but on the other hand, they never hear any news stories about “a recent convert to Catholicism” who guns down soldiers on the street.

So they become more afraid of Islam and Muslims.

This paradoxical effect occurs because the words of politicians are not primarily intended to reassure the public. If that were their primary goal, they would shut down all the mosques and deport any Muslim immigrant who gets so much as a parking ticket. They would designate Islam a seditious political system, rather than a religion, and treat all its public manifestations as they might those of Nazism.

Implementing such measures would go a long way towards reassuring the average Canadian or American that he was being made safer. But laying out these actions in black and white here makes it obvious why they can never happen: they would violate Multicultural Orthodoxy, which the state is incapable of doing. Its reassurances are instead designed to maintain the PC status quo. It is unable to do anything else.

*   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *   *

Another prominent trope is the idea that these jihad murderers are mentally ill. They are deranged loners who attach themselves to Islam, but really, it could be anything; they’re just looking for an excuse to go out and kill people.

They may come from broken homes, like Michael Zehaf-Bibeau. They may have had difficulties in school, or have recently been spurned by a girlfriend.

But the same is true of thousands of unhappy young men who don’t go out and murder people on the street. Why are these guys different?

And why do they turn to Islam?

Why is Islam flypaper for lunatics?

The Parliament Hill shooter was a marginal misfit and a drug addict. For the last two weeks of his life he lived in a homeless shelter. But the reporters at the CBC aren’t the only people who want to know where Mr. Zehaf-Bibeau got his rifle. Anyone with even a soupçon of common sense must wonder: how did a mentally ill homeless man with no possessions suddenly acquire a .30-30 rifle before going on an insane, spontaneous, spur-of-the-moment shooting spree?

An experienced Counterjihadist has no difficulty answering the question, of course: “Obviously, he popped into the mosque on his way to Parliament Hill.”

But such thoughts are unthinkable for anyone who is still in thrall to the Multicult. The Hatchet Jihadi, the Hit-and-Run Jihadi, and the Cenotaph Jihadi must remain deranged self-radicalized lone wolves, who, in their deep mental illness, inexplicably attach themselves to Islam before they start killing people.

Who knows why? Who can penetrate the mind of a madman?

As Maclean’s opined,

“If anything, Couture-Rouleau’s ability to mow down two soldiers with his car, and then die in a confrontation with police, speaks to an unfortunate aspect of intelligence gathering: it is next to impossible to predict who will turn murderous, and when.”

But this is not entirely true. It would be fairly easy to shorten the list of such potential murderers by limiting it to:

  • Those whose names are of Arab, Iranian, Somali, or Pakistani origin;
  • Those who have prayed in a mosque within the past two weeks;
  • Those who have ever said the words “la illaha ila Allah, wa Muhammadun rasul Allah” in the presence of an imam; and
  • Those who have heard the words “Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Apostle, nor acknowledge the religion of truth, even if they are of the people of the Book, until they pay the jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” spoken out loud in a house of “worship”.

That would cut down the pool of potential suspects considerably.

However, if our political leaders were somehow able to do that, they would be forced to admit that importing millions of immigrants that share those characteristics was a serious error, possibly the greatest mistake since the Polish Hussars threw back the army of the Sultan at the Gates of Vienna.

It would mean acknowledging that Muslims should never have been allowed en masse into Canada, or the United States, or Great Britain, or Australia, or Denmark, or the Netherlands, or any other peaceful civilized country in the Western world.

And we can’t have that, can we?

No, we’ll have to make do with lone wolves, and lunatics, and misfits, and self-radicalization, and all those other isolated, inexplicable factors that have nothing — nothing, I tell you! — to do with Islam.

And paradox be damned!

Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself, I am large, I contain multitudes…*

…of Muslims.

* Walt Whitman, from “Leaves of Grass”

19 thoughts on “Paradoxical Effects and Unintended Consequences

  1. The Wall Street Journal is two papers. A news section that is left wing 95% of the time and an editorial page (the best there is) that is right wing. I agree with their editorials about 90% of the time. This group, however, is very pro immigration regardless of whether it is illegal or legal. They represent business which needs labor, cheap labor.

    A few days ago after the Ottawa murder, they wrote and I paraphrase that “no motive could be found on the part of the soldier’s killer”. These people are clueless, ignorant or stupid. When the right’s best editorial page in the US can’t see what’s going on, we are in a world of hurt.

    • The WSJ has long been a voice of Open Borders and the glories of globalization. Why anyone (who wishes to preserve his culture and civilization) continues to read it is a mystery to me. I’m reminded here of Esau who sold his birthright for stew. The WSJ — and its editors and their legion of followers — sells its birthright for temporary financial gain, apparently oblivious that such selling corrodes the very foundation upon which it depends for its continued prosperity.

    • It is indeed appalling, disturbingly so, when an editorial of the WSJ – one of the Anglosphere’s very few half way decent newspapers – struggles to ascribe, and is befuddled in searching for, a motive for the Ottawa murderer.

      We have an expression in Australia: “It is as plain as dogs’ [male generative organs]”; which derives from the inescapably obvious visibility of a dog’s scrotum. It is inescapably obvious what the motive of the Ottawa murderer was for anybody with an iota of understanding of the world, but as the
      Baron’s piece succinctly points out, official, ie government and MSM, public policy would then have to acknowledge that it was a grievous error for Western countries to have imported Muslims en masse. And they, like many a young child who has done wrong, simply cannot confront and acknowledge their error.

  2. So true Baron.

    Government and their public administration agencies are highly risk adverse, the peril being the risk of getting it wrong. After 40 years of large scale muslim immigration it is crystal clear that they got it massively wrong (although that was obvious at the beginning to those who knew a bit about Islam).

    Rather than stop digging the hole these policies have gotten us into, which would be an admission of a dreadful mistake Government proves there has been no mistake by keeping on digging and increasing the rate at which it does so.

    • Thereby preferring a bloody clash to a present-day uncomfortable and humiliating reckoning.

  3. The more sane response would be to issue sidearms to all soldiers who wear their uniforms off base.

    Screw the Sudden Jihad Syndrome psychos.

    And shoot back.

    • Ursula —

      Hoho! It most certainly was a Freudian slip — One that I can be quietly proud of…

      He is quite the “pretty boy”, isn’t he?

      However, in the interests of journalistic accuracy, I’ve corrected the spelling. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

  4. One cannot help but notice something overlooked by most reports describing these recent perpetrators of “SJS” (sudden-jihad-syndrome) as lone wolves, self-radicalized, recent converts, with prior arrest records etc.
    All three are also black. Obviously none of these three took the time to study their own history as victims of the Muslim slave trade which continues to some extent today…Fitzgerald: Black Africa and the Arab Muslim slave trade. These three incredibly gullible, disenfranchised individuals served as collateral carnage to advance this evil doctrine.

    What are the chances that each of these dead men were issued their death sentence in prison through complicit government sanctioned and taxpayer funded prison dawa system justified under some insane human rights interpretation?

    Here is but a paragraph discussing this suicidal anomaly written in 2009 by Hugh Fitzgerald at

    FBI Director Robert Mueller was recently quoted saying that American prisons were “fertile ground for extremists.” And a 2006 study, “Out of the Shadows,” said that “tight-knit communities of Muslims in prison are ripe for radicalization, and could easily become terrorist cells.”
    That study is three years old. Mueller’s warning is not brand-new either. It is not only that already existing “tight-knit communities of Muslims in prison” are “ripe for radicalization, and could easily become terrorist cells.” It is also that there are numbers of people who, already alienated from society and already dangerous to it, find their solace not in a turn to Christianity, where the outcome is likely to be far different, but in an acceptance of Islam. For Muslim missionary activity goes on unmonitored and unchecked all because the Bureau of Prisons, and the FBI and the CIA and others whose duty it is to recognize and thwart dangers to this country, dangers to its legal and political institutions and physical dangers to its citizens, are afraid to recognize that what Islam inculcates in these prisoners gives them an ideological framework, a justification, for their hostility to the circumambient “Infidel” society. Islam offers them a view of the universe in which the central theme is Us and Them — Muslims against all non-Muslims, with the duty of every Muslim to promote and protect only Islam, to be loyal only to fellow Muslims, to do whatever it takes to engage in the “Jihad” or “struggle” to remove all obstacles to the spread, and then the dominance, of Islam. And that “struggle” can, but need not where it is ineffective, include violence.

    These three incidents represents the American and Canadian (provincial) Federal and State government’s Chickens coming home to roost’.

    It’s beyond high time this taxpayer funded terrorist entitlement breeding program known as ‘prison dawa’ come to an abrupt end.

  5. In my opinion, the ultimate capitulation to terror is to have your armed
    forces not wear their uniforms in public. Canada should be ashamed.
    A country’s armed forces is the backbone of the country’s security and
    telling its members not to be seen in public in uniform is a sign of

    American military personnel have been killed by Islamists here in the
    United States. When will we tell our military that they can fight and
    die in Iraq and Afghanistan but they can’t wear their uniforms in public
    here in the states because we can’t adequately protect them from Islamists?

  6. I took a tour of USMA, West Point, a few years back. The tour guide claimed that during the height of the Viet Nam war the Cadets were told not to leave the grounds in their uniforms because they were getting beaten up. She also claimed that many of them wore wigs as well because their military haircuts gave them away even when in street clothes.

  7. Armed Forces personnel not wearing their uniforms in public unless on duty, is nothing new here in the U.K. It has been this way since the IRA began to attack them and their families, when they returned home from tours in Northern Ireland.

  8. “Why is Islam flypaper for lunatics?”

    Interestingly my 16 year old son posed and answered this very question only last Thursday. I will paraphrase. Young men, inclined, through a combination of personal inadequacy and testosterone-driven aggression, seeking an outlet for their compulsion to act out their psycho-pathology and inflict physical damage on other humans, find the perfect home in Islam. Participation in Jihad provides them with a sanctioned, indeed encouraged, ideological framework to indulge their violent propensities. Behaviour which would land them in jail in Western countries is, on the contrary, lauded when they travel to the ISIS territory, which should be better described as “Headhackistan”, and do the thing that floats their boat.

    Appropros the Baron’s observation that logically we should all be afraid of all Muslims, this is just common sense. All of my children have been taught as a matter of prudent self-preservation to be wary of all Muslims in all circumstances. From the example I have explicitly set them over many years they do not shop at Muslim-run shops or dine at Muslim-owned restaurants. And have learned from me how to establish whether an establishment is Muslim run or not, eg if the proprietor of a Lebanese restaurant has a crucifix on a chain around his neck or the female staff are dressed in clothes that reveal some cleavage then all is well: they are Christian Lebanese. When catching a taxi (cab for Americans) they will only hail the taxi when they can
    see that the driver is Chinese or Black (all the Black taxi drivers in my city are Ghanaian or Nigerian Christians). If a taxi driver is of Middle Eastern or South Asian appearance (unless wearing a Sikh turban, therefore safe) they will wave him on and wait for another taxi.

    I managed to achieve this adherence to the “taxi rule” partly by once riding with one of my then young-teenaged sons in a taxi driven by a man whose ethnicity I elicited from him, as part of the exercise as he was obviously an Arab, to be “Palestinian”. I first managed to establish from him how he obtained entry into Australia: he had duped a gullible female Aussie travelling in Israel into, cutting a longer story short, marrying him. Then promptly divorced her when he had obtained his citizenship here and imported a woman from his village in “Palestine” – whom he admitted upon careful questioning he had been betrothed to as a teenager. I then proceeded to express mildly anti-Israeli sentiments in relation to current affairs in the Middle East (which my son knew were the antithesis of my sentiments).

    The “Palestinian” taxi driver delivered in spades: espousing absurdly mendacious opinions about the Arab-Israeli conflict, worse than the usual propaganda, and making preposterous claims about the proportion of American tax dollars that go to Israel (I think he stated that the US government gives Israel $180 billion a year or a figure like that) and the usual guff about the USA being controlled by Jews. He then moved on, with my gentle encouragement, to expressing outright Jew-hatred. It was kinda fun, but more importantly a salutary lesson for a child.

  9. JO thank you. I follow your simple guidelines as the only sane way to go knowing what we now know about Muslims. I can only hope that parents and people in general will all eventually come to play by the same simple very sane rules – derived from simple but careful observation. A best selling “How To” pocket book if ever there was one. What you don’t know about muslims can really really hurt you and yours.

  10. The Wal Street Urinal is just your avrage leftists news rag no diffrent then the New York Slimes,Washington Compost and Atlanta Urinal/Constipation

  11. This “Radicalization” nonsense is nothing but an attempt to pretend

    See, everyone knows that:

    NOT ALL Germans were NAZIS;
    NOT ALL Italians are MAFIOSIS;
    NOT ALL Whites are HELL’S ANGELS;
    NOT ALL Arabs are MUSLIMS.

    …but… BUT:


    …and … AND:


    People try to conflate the two categories used above: nationality/ethnicity/”RACE,” with CRIME-CREED MEMBERSHIP. That’s so they can call everyone who won’t “Go Along” (with these criminal lies) “To Get Along” (with these lying criminals) hatefully bigotted “RACISTS!”

    The pretense du jour seems to be to try to find some fake sub-categories of “muslms” (i.e: “Radical” versus “Moderate” ones) to “prove” that



    But of course the only “real difference” between “Radical” and “Moderate” muslims, is:

    “Radical” muslims want to murder us (simply for not being muslims)!
    “Moderate” muslims want “radical” muslims to murder us (ditto)!

    Bottom line:

    There are no “moderate” muslims, simply because there is no “moderate” islam!

Comments are closed.