Christchurch, Birmingham, and the Power of Islamic Victimhood
It’s the massacre heard ‘round the world! Leaders react across the globe! Religious bigotry and hate must be rooted out!
Oh wait, not this one. This is just another Muslim massacre of Christian villagers in Nigeria. Ho-hum, nothing to see here folks. Just move along now…
Ah, here’s the right one! In the initial hours following the fatal shooting of several dozen Muslims at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, the verdict was already in: this was a manifestation of white nationalism, which is a kind of “white ISIS.”
One thing we will not see is any effort to avoid a “backlash” from Christchurch. Remember in 2015, “After Charlie Hebdo attack in France, backlash against Muslims feared”? Well, as one Twitter user notes, you won’t see any headlines like “After Christchurch attack in New Zealand, backlash against white males feared.”
Quite to the contrary, backlash against the perceived ideology behind the mosque attack and its presumed toxic racist purveyors will be front and center worldwide. (How soon before it’s Putin’s fault?) Nor will we see the killings breezily dismissed as just “part and parcel of living in a big city,” as London’s mayor Sadiq Khan waved away the threat of terror after a bombing in New York.
‘The developing frenzy of compassion with the victims of Christchurch will result in a number of mathematically predictable consequences:
· ‘The ruling elites and their media cohorts all over the Western world will have a field day equating “violent extremism” (which has nothing to do with “true Islam,” of course) with the neo-nazi, right-wing, white, Christian-inspired racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia, and all other traits of the deplorables; and yes, it will be Trump’s fault to boot.
· ‘Various Islamic activist in the West, such as the sharia-promoting CAIR in the US and its fellow-conspirators elsewhere, will clamor for ever more stringent laws criminalizing “Islamophobia,” effectively defined as any form of meaningful debate of Islam, its scriptural message, historical practice, and current ambitions.
· ‘Such demands will be promptly translated into legislative proposals by the jihadophile liberal class which will proclaim zero tolerance of “Islamophobia” as defined by CAIR et al. And, of course, they will demand additional Soviet/Nazi style gun laws.’ [ … ]
‘There will be no attempt to place today’s killings “in perspective,” as is invariably the case after Muslim terrorists strike Western targets—in Nice, Paris, Berlin etc.—killing hundreds of people. That “perspective” should include the fact that some 30 million Muslims reside in the Western world today (many more on their own reckoning), which makes the probability of any one of them falling victim to a deplorable attack in any given year roughly one in ten million… The odds of a Christian in a majority-Muslim country being murdered by a Muslim—simply for being what he is—approximately one in 70,000. This means a Christian living in a majority Muslim country is 143 times more likely to be killed by a Muslim for being a Christian than a Muslim is likely to be killed by a non-Muslim in a Western country for being what he is.’
Despite what by any metric is a gross imbalance between Islamic violence committed against the innocent and violence committed against innocents by Muslims, the Christchurch attack will be a new milestone in Islam’s empowerment as an aggrieved category, along with “other marginalized groups [that] have become victims of white supremacist ideologies in recent years.” Victimhood is the ultimate form of empowerment, with CAIR already calling for social media to further muzzle criticism of Islamic intolerance and opposition to jihad terror.
Another testament to the power of victimhood was provided recently in Birmingham, England, where angry parental opposition successfully, for now, beat back efforts to institute a program aimed at primary school pupils “to promote LGBT equality and challenge homophobia.” The parents, citing offense to their religious sensibilities, organized, protested strenuously, and threatened to yank their kids from the school in question. The school shelved the program.
Yay! Bravo for the parents! A win for the good guys!
Of course it’s relevant that 98 percent of the families in the school are Muslim. As Rod Dreher comments in The American Conservative:
‘Good for those Muslim parents! They have guts. They have a hell of a lot more courage than many US Christians do. What they are standing up to is not homosexuality, but the state’s sexual indoctrination of little children. Andrew Moffat, the gay teacher who came up with the program, and who has been teaching it to Muslim students in that school, knows perfectly well what he’s doing. The strategy liberals use in cases like this is that they have to make schools “safe” for kids, and to fight bullying. It’s nonsense. What they are doing is trying to sexualize little children, and to destroy the substance of what their religiously and socially conservative parents teach them, and in so doing undermine the authority of the parents.’
How would such a protest have worked out for any Christian parents with “guts”? It’s no mystery. First, we can be sure they’d have lost. Second, they’d be vilified and likely subjected to reprisals.
Birmingham illustrates the rock-paper-scissors nature of intersectionality. On this occasion anti-Islamophobia and the educational establishment’s dread of being called racist outweighed what in other contexts would be the invincible LGBT++ doubleplusgood ideology. The remnants of a disenfranchised Christian England are literally irrelevant spectators watching a fight between two empowered certified victim groups sparring with each other.
As pointed out by “Seoulite” in TAC, in the victim grievance department –
‘Muslims will continue to come out on top, for several reasons.
‘1. They have the numbers and will steadily keep increasing in relation to the LGBT brigade, especially in particular locales.
‘2. They can always play the race card, which will always beat the LGBT card.
‘3. They can always make subtle references to “marginalization” and “radicalization”. These are basically threats of blackmail: let us do what we want or we might start blowing ourselves up at pop concerts.
‘Unless the LGBT brigade start actually murdering Muslim children, bombs will always trump twitter criticism.’
In the intersectional pecking order the trump card is anti-racism (of which “Islamophobia” is a subset, even though Islam isn’t a race). Similarly, anti-racism and migrants’ rights outweighed feminism and #MeToo, resulting in the dropping of charges against two illegal aliens who repeatedly raped and sodomized a 14-year-old middle school girl in Maryland. Ditto European authorities’ inaction against migrant abuse of local women in Germany and Sweden and cover-up of Muslim “grooming gangs” raping girls throughout the United Kingdom. No price in native European women’s flesh is too high to pay to signal virtuous rejection of racism and Islamophobia.
Thus, while LGBT++ and feminism might yet win an occasional skirmish, in the long run these are nothing more than noxious precipitates of the demoralized, decaying homegrown culture. Once that culture is gone, sexual pathologies will have no ability to sustain themselves against the militant, unapologetic newcomer that, ironically, embodies the very anti-homosexual and misogynistic attitudes they deplore.
That’s no reason to celebrate, though. Pick your metaphor: rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic, choosing which sauce you wish to be eaten with, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. It’s all just sound and fury unless and until we see the (very unlikely) resolve of English (and French, German, Dutch, Swedish, – and American, Australian, and New Zealander) parents and the rest of the native population join Poles, Hungarians, Russians, Italians, and other nations still determined to exist on their own historical cultural and moral terms, not the ones allowed them by this or that faction among their gravediggers. As noted by Christine Douglass-Williams of Jihad Watch:
‘At Parkfield Community School in Birmingham, we see a possible collision between two unlikely allies in the West: the socialist Left and Islamic supremacists. Such a collision is inevitable, as neither believes in freedom of belief and thought, or in the freedom of speech. For example, Christians who fully believe in the equality of rights of all people before the law but do not believe in promoting LGBT causes have been mercilessly attacked by LGBT socialist-Left activists for having a difference of faith and opinion, despite supporting the human rights of gays. Yet peculiarly, social justice warriors have given Islamic supremacists a free pass, despite their opposition to gay rights and the equality of rights of all people before the law, and also despite the gay hate-preaching from many mosques and the call for the murder of gays in many Islamic states.’
Whether in Christchurch or Birmingham, or anywhere else in what until recently were indisputably societies that were ethnically European and spiritually, or at least culturally, Christian, the forces of the rising dictatorship of victims, despite their internecine squabbles, understand all too well who their common enemy is. Whichever faction might have the upper hand at any moment just boils down to scavengers scrapping over the rotting, barely living carcass of a legacy society begging to be put out of its misery.
By James George Jatras
Source: Strategic Culture