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.
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…*
* Walt Whitman, from “Leaves of Grass”