"Official" Britain denies it has a Muslim terrorism problem. It demands that we call it "extremism" that has nothing to do with Islam. That Salman Abedi was a native born Manchestrian who was considered "normal" by his neighbors until he blew himself - and killed 22 children, and injured hundreds others.
Salman Abedi did not become a terrorist, a murderer, an "extremist", until the final moments of his life. But it's the 22 years leading up to that last definitive act that foretell the future for Britain and for its social tranquility. All the sophisticates assure us that this isn't an immigration problem because young Mr Abedi was "British". But he lived in no England recognizable to those who came before. He was raised in a world that has already seceded from England - an England after the neutron bomb, where the unlovely sprawl of urban Manchester still stands, but where the troubled girls run off to become brides of Isis, and the good girls work at the mosque and congratulate their brothers on self-detonating their way to Paradise.What's in it for the existing populace of the United Kingdom in either of those models? Regardless of where Salman Abedi was born, the problem he exemplifies was imported. And the very least the British should demand of their politicians is that they cease importing any more of it.There is no plateau, no equilibrium, no stablilization, no "acceptable level of violence" here - not in a time of transformative demographic change. The longer free citizens postpone making that very modest demand, the grimmer and more "divisive" the options will get.
No comments:
Post a Comment