You aint no realist bruv

Robert Henderson

The latest Muslim atrocities in the West (Paris, USA and London) has been met with the frantic recitation of the liberal internationalist’s favourite mantra to explain away such terrorism, namely, it is not committed by Muslims.

The attack in the Leytonstone tube station in outer London set the ball rolling in Britain when the lone black attacker shouted “This is for Syria” prompting the response “You ain’t no Muslim bruv” from an onlooker, a black Londoner judged by his accent and the fact that he addressed the attacker as “bruv”, a term only common amongst blacks in Britain. The context also suggests that the man is a Muslim.

The hashtag “You ain’t no Muslim bruv” was soon alive on twitter and lavishly lauded by the politically correct as an example of how to respond to someone claiming to be a Muslim who had stabbed someone and tried to behead them. The British PM David Cameron aka NuTory Boy embraced the twitter tag using the cry while in the US Thomas Friedman came up with the all too predictable tag of “You ain’t no American bruv” to describe Donald Trump after Trump had called for a temporary halt (note the temporary) to Muslims visiting the USA.

To see how absurd it is to insist that that any person who commits a violent act in the name of Islam is not a Muslim apply a few cases of X cannot be a Y because X has committed a violent act to non-Muslims:

– Christianity from the time it became the official religion of the Roman Empire was forced on people whether or not they wanted to be Christians. Hence, none of the enforcers or the coerced were Christians.

– The crusaders were not Christians because they engaged in religious war against Muslims.

– The Catholic Church cannot be Christian because (1) for the vast majority of its existence it conducted or supported war against pagans and (2) for the vast majority of its existence it persecuted mon-Catholics , most notably through the Inquisition.

– Protestants of almost all colours (pacifists like the Quakers are an exception) cannot be Christians because they have persecuted and fought against other Christians, both Protestant and Catholic.

Similar judgements could be made against those who behaved in an immoral way in the context of other religions, for example, Buddhists who are wilfully violent, and Confucians who rebel against rightful authority. In fact there is not a religion or secular system of morality whose practitioners have not in huge numbers breached the beliefs of their professed religious or ethical position. This is so because the history of human beings is predominantly a history of aggressive (as opposed to defensive) war, everything from the vendetta to formal warfare.

Then there is the question of the historical behaviour of Muslims. Islam from its beginnings was often , if not invariably, spread by the sword. If Muslims today are not Muslims if they engage in violence other than in self-defence against non-Muslims, or Muslims of a different stamp whom they consider to be non-Muslims, logically it must follow that all those who have called themselves Muslim in the past were not Muslims if they had committed similar offences.

In short, it is literally absurd to claim someone is not a true believer of any creed, whether sacred or profane, because no ideology is without its heresies, schisms or the complications of a range of permitted belief.

There is also the ticklish problem that religions or secular ideologies often have concepts of what is moral which clash with other religions and ideologies. Those societies with the vendetta will view revenge killings as a matter of honour and entirely moral, while those without the vendetta will see such killing as a murder.

The claim that Muslims engaged in terrorist acts are not true Muslims is made doubly absurd by the fact that the Koran gives plenty of support to Muslims to engage in violence against non-Muslims, something which for groups such as ISIS includes huge numbers of Muslims of the “wrong” stamp.

Absurd or not the politically correct politically correct will continue to use the “they are not Muslims” because they desperately wish to avoid acknowledging the frightening truth: that there are now tens of millions of Muslims in the West who are there because of the immigration policies of the politically correct elites over the past 50 or 60 years . There are nearly three million Muslims in the UK , an increase of 45% since the 2001 census. The figure for the EU including Britain is 44 million. The USA has 2.75 million.

It would be no comfort if 99.9% of these people would not dream of engaging in terrorist acts for if even a tiny proportion of such populations is willing to become terrorists that would mean large numbers of terrorists. If one Muslim in a thousand in Europe is willing to become a terrorist that would mean 44,000 Jihadis. That is what the politically correct are hiding from and which increasingly terrifies them.


  1. The simple problem here is that terrorism as a strategy works. But it doesn’t work for everybody. So it’s worth identifying why some works and some doesn’t, and why Islamic terrorism does work very well.

    The important thing is that it is not itself intended to destroy the West. Every Muslim terrorist- or at least the ones with the brains, rather than the bomb fodder they send to blow themselves up- knows this. They know that militarily there is no hope of beating the West in a straight fight. They also know that no amount of disruption will take our societies down. Even massive terrorist strikes are insignificant compared to one night of German bombing in WWII.

    It is not even particularly intended to terrorise us. Yes, it’s quite scary. But Londoners in particular tend to rather brush it off and get on with things; I remember during the IRA bombing campaigns it became more of an irritation, like traffic jams. Nobody even got particularly angry. Just one of those things sent to try us.

    Why Muslim terrorism works is that every action leads Western elites to hug Muslims as a group closer to their bosom. The first worry- under the current ideological system- of leaders in Europe, America etc after an attack is to worry about reprisals against Muslims by natives and to redouble their declared sympathy for and protection of Muslims and Islam. This in turn actually reduces the real threat to Islamist goals, which is the fear that our governments will take some action to prevent the demographic replacement of native populations which Islamists openly see as their main strategy. They know that they only need to keep going for a couple more generations and Europe is theirs.

    Thus, Islamic strategy is cunning; by committing atrocities, they stoke the Elites’ fears of a nativist backlash, leading those elites to suppress ever more thoroughly the possibility of such, demonising dissenters from the Immigrationist position and ensuring that the borders remain open.

    On this basis, we may jokily observe that our own government is enabling and supporting terrorism, and the whole lot of them ought to be arrested.

  2. ” In fact there is not a religion or secular system of morality whose practitioners have not in huge numbers breached the beliefs of their professed religious or ethical position.”

    The key thing about islam is that the bloke is NOT breaching its beliefs. He is doing what it tells believers to do-attack unbelievers. The ones who claim not to be attacking non-believers are the ones breaking the tenants of islam.

    Altho’ overt violence is only one form of jihad. Out breeding their enemies in their own country and pretending to be friendly until the numbers are on their side. That is just as much jihad as violent antics in the streets.

Leave a Reply