The Manchester Massacre and the Immigration Vexation

By ilana mercer

“ISIS” did not attack in Manchester; a second-generation Muslim, son of immigrants, did.

The Islamic State may have inspired 22-year-old Salman Abedi, but ISIS in the Middle East did not murder 22 youngsters and injure dozens at a pop tart performance in Britain.

ISIS, no doubt, is pleased Salman Abedi has killed in Manchester. The outfit is eager to continue providing inspiration, even training, to his kind. But the ephemeral ISIS did not send Abedi and his ilk to kill Britons.

The Abedis, who fly the Libyan flag outside the family home, were invited into England. Policy makers and power brokers in the West have invited Muslim immigrants to live among us in the idiotic belief that, underneath the nosebags (the burqa, the abaya and full-body swaddle), they were just like us.

Almost all these Muslim killers are legitimate immigrants. Before the Manchester murderer came Knifeman Khalid Masood, on Westminster Bridge (March, 2017). There were the immigrants who carved up Drummer Lee Rigby, in Woolwich, and the Muslim who gutted an American woman in central London, both in 2013. It’s hard to keep up.

This is how citizenship in the West has been rubbished. Not by ISIS, but by your representatives: State officials who regard all of us impersonally and imperiously. The same overlords squint at the great unwashed of England or Middle America from behind their parapets in Whitehall and Washington. The same sorts despise us all for wanting neighborhoods that are safe, maybe even a tad monocultural.

While the Muslims who strike at our families live among us, they’re not of us.

Look, language mediates behavior. To properly respond to the vipers that elect to kill Americans, Europeans and Englishmen, we need to closely describe them.

To be vested in linguistic accuracy is to be vested in the truth. The closer language cleaves to reality, the greater the likelihood that correct, and corrective, action will follow.

Certainly the term of choice must reflect not ideology, right or left, but reality. For if we don’t describe exactly who’s killing us; we’ll be unable to eject them from our midst.

The more abstract the expert Idiocracy gets in defining what is murder-by-Muslim immigrant, the more removed will be their solutions—removed from solutions that are at once achievable and the legitimate purview of limited government.

You and I will be forced to pay for elaborate schemes that relate not at all to the problem at hand. Think about George Bush’s dumb dictum of fighting them over there so they don’t come here. “W” failed to consider that thanks to longstanding liberal immigration policies, the snakes were hibernating among us. Besides, bombing Syria or Iraq doesn’t stop a Manchester. To the contrary; it triggers it.

So don’t be fooled.

ISIS and an abstract ideology called “radical Islamic terrorism”—a redundancy, if ever there was one, since Islam unreformed is radical—are not attacking us. Men and women upon whom we’ve conferred the right to live among us are.

Berlin endured a Christmas-market massacre, in 2016. There was slaughter in Stockholm, Nice, Paris, even in an ancient village in Normandy, where an elderly priest was decapitated on the altar by two young jackals. Orlando, San Bernardino, Boston, and Chattanooga Tennessee (where four Marines were executed, in 2015): The carnage, ongoing, is too great to catalog. It emanates not from ISIS in the Levant or in the abstract, but from flesh-and-blood Muslims living right here, in America, England and on the Continent.

Also sorely missed in the discussion is that in the US, Great Britain and Western Europe, state and civil society acculturate immigrants into a militant identity politics. Essentially, newcomers are taught to hate their hosts. Nations whose institutions promote cultural relativism and hate of the dominant culture have no business importing the sort of immigrant who’ll be quick to act on an ideology of hate—be it the self-hate of the host, or the hate in Jihad.

Of course, these dormant murderers—Muslim Americans, Canadians, Europeans or Englishmen—did not act alone.

Behind almost every murder-by-Muslim-immigrant are State central planners:  Policy-makers, immigration authorities, immigration attorneys, local networks of Islamic organizations, activists, media agitating for more Muslim immigration, an FBI erecting protective barriers around bad actors—civil liberties, they call it—and a command-and-control judiciary that has decided the American Bill of Rights belongs to the world, and was written to enrich immigration lawyers and their clientele the world-over.

If the truth is that the threat we face is not in the Middle East, but here at home, and that it’s more often than not an invited and legal threat—the solution presents itself.



  1. Watching the routine ritual of flowers, balloons, teddy bears etc in the street, it occurred to me that this was reminiscent of the Middle Ages. Not the helium balloons and stuffed teddies, of course, but the emotional response, which reminded me of a lament for somebody struck down by the plague or some other supernatural event over which they exercised no control.
    We are constantly reminded how person x or person y was so nice and so bubbly, and their smile would light up a room etc etc, over and over. But when are we going to propose actually DOING something to prevent further tragedies?
    I would like to propose a solution; announce to the Religion of Peace that any of their followers who commit, or conspire to commit, atrocities will be buried (executed first if need be) with a pig for company. No Paradise for them. No 72 virgins either (although I’m told it really translates as 72 raisins).
    In any case, as a friend commented, what use are 72 virgins if you’ve had your dick blown off?
    I am told that a martyr’s death in Jihad is the one guaranteed path to Paradise for a Muslim, and that that is what motivates many of them. Deny them Paradise and they might think again.

  2. You’ll have to spell it out for me: what is this “solution”?

    Since we can’t know who will be a terrorist and who won’t, and who will raise second-generation terrorists and who won’t, wouldn’t the easiest solution be a programme of mass deportations and removals? It’s unpleasant, but I see no other option.

    In my view, the following steps now needed to be undertaken, essentially without delay:

    (i). immediately revoke the citizenship of, and deport, all those Moslems suspected of terrorism who were born outside Britain;
    (ii). intern those terrorist suspects who were born here, releasing them only if they agree to revoke their citizenship and leave the country forever;
    (iii). impose a general ban on immigration from predominantly Moslem countries;
    (iv). offer generous resettlement grants to encourage the approximately 1½ million Moslems not born here to renounce their British citizenship and leave the country; and,
    (v). those who do not accept resettlement within five years should be deported.

    There are people on here who would go much further than this. I’m just trying to be realist, but even this is ambitious and would probably result in civil strife and retaliatory terrorist attacks, however I believe there will have to be some violence if the problem is going to be resolved. The hope would be that, by keeping the proposals within the bounds of plausibility, we would be able to divide the Moslem community and enlist the support of the more moderate ones.

    Assuming those who leave or are deported are also required to take with them their spouses and dependants, that would leave us with around 1½ million Moslems, who will be the ones that were born here and are not suspected of involvement in terrorism. That’s still too high, and many of these will be children and young adults who will go on to have children themselves, but it will put back Moslem influence by at least two generations, which buys us time. It will also create a precedent for further, harsher measures, should the terrorist attacks continue.

    • I don’t know if that is the answer, but I do think that while religious tolerance and freedom of religion are very desirable, they can no longer be held to be sacrosanct.
      I believe we should do whatever is necessary to put an end to this constant climate of fear that we live in. If that means internment or deportations – or even taking away driving licences from Muslims so they can no longer mow us down en masse – then we need to consider it. Nothing should be off the table. It is time to put our interests before that of a hostile religion.

Leave a Reply