©2013 By ILANA MERCER
A “frenzied machete attack.” “The most appalling crime.” “Sickening.” “Barbaric.” “A deluded, deranged act of violence.” “Gruesome and shocking.” These were press-cited descriptions of the butchering of a British soldier by a black man with a meat-cleaver, on a south-east London street.
By the sound of the killer’s common vernacular and accent, he, too, was British. The slaying occurred in Woolwich, just yards from the Royal Artillery Barracks.
Not content with carving up his countryman on the pavement, the savage also managed to carve out for himself a Speakers’ Corner, away from the famous, and once so civilized, corner in Hyde Park. Slick with the blood of his victim—and befitting the YouTube era—the killer then asked a passerby to film his splenetic screed. The result was a mini-manifesto, delivered to the world, as the still-warm body of the grunt loomed in the background.
The butchered soldier, Drummer Lee Rigby, was reported to have been wearing a “Help for Heroes” T-Shirt, the equivalent of America’s “Wounded Warrior” project. Same wars, waged by the same politicians, to the detriment of the same people at home and abroad.
Before finishing him off on foot, his assailants had run Drummer Rigby over by car. Since this occurred in barbaric Britannia, where a man’s right to life is purely nominal or theoretical, the victim was defenseless.
At the risk of repeating what ought to be obvious, a right that can’t be defended is a right in name only. Inherent in the idea of an inalienable right is the right to mount a vigorous defense of the same right. If you cannot by law defend your life, you have no right to life.
By logical extension, Britons are bereft of the right to life. Not only are the traditional “Rights of Englishmen”—the inspiration for the American founders—no longer cool in Cool Britannia; but they’ve been eroded in law. The great system of law that the English people once held dear, including the 1689 English Bill of Rights—subsumed within which was the right to possess arms—is no longer. British legislators have disarmed their law-abiding subjects, who now defend themselves against a pampered, protected and armed criminal class at their own peril. Naturally, most of the (unnatural) elites enjoy taxpayer-funded security details.
Thus could Prime Minister David Cameron, full of bravado, declare that “Britain will ‘never buckle,'” in the face of such craven attacks. Unlike his subjects, who must wait on unarmed police to ride to the rescue, Cameroon is, indubitably, protected by beefed-up bodyguards.
And thus are the barbarians within Britain able to carry-on as this last specimen did. With brio did the homeboy strut his stuff for the cameras. The Nameless Savage knew full well that nobody was gunning for him. Police—in whom Piers Morgan wants Americans to misplace their trust—took around 20 minutes to arrive. Hardly unusual. (Morgan, a CNN redcoat turncoat, is currently suborning treason against his American hosts by campaigning against their Second-Amendment natural right of self-defense.)
There are excellent arguments to be made for an armed citizenry and an unarmed police force. In the United Kingdom, however, both the people and the police have been disarmed. No wonder “bobbies” carrying wooden truncheons are often late to the crime scene; it’s a miracle that they pitch up at all.
When Authorized Firearms Officers (AFO) eventually arrived in Woolwich, it was too late. In sight, the AFO had two confirmed killers. Yet, as the latter anticipated, the police did not aim to kill them. They only injured the criminals. Nevertheless, the officers were promptly placed under the investigation of the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC), despite a belated and inadequate response.
As my lead-in would suggest, the British surpass Americans in adjectival creativity. This time, however, the Queen’s English fell flat. Or, rather, the English language was perfectly up-to-the-task. It is the English-speaking people who are incapable of distilling in words the significance of the scene.
Jihadi chasers complicate the task; they are part of the problem, because they mask the salient issue here. Shouting about abstractions from the rooftops—”Jihad, Jihad”—serves only to conceal a concrete reality, and that is that Islam is but a catalyst.
Islam is muscular and murderous all right. It feeds those with compatible cravings. That these murderers mouth Muhammadan mantras is, however, incidental to the fact that they know they can act on their fantasies with impunity. After all, they live among an emasculated, enfeebled people, lacking in core beliefs. (Invading Muslim countries does not constitute a respectable creed.)
The Boston bombers were made in America. Ditto the butcher from Woolwich; he is a British issue. These out-of-wack yobbos—in this case, likely of Nigerian descent—have been raised in progressive, libertine societies, distinguished primarily by their tolerance for the intolerable.
The affinity for Islam these made-in-the-West murderers exhibit is secondary to their contempt for our helplessness. They are killers first, who prey on the kind of people who look to Big Brother to rescue them, dupe them; and tell them what’s what, i.e., manage the message.
Indeed, Jihadi chasers here are helping the state manage the message. And the state’s message is that being stuck like a pig on the streets of our great cities is a function not of our blind faith in government and our dependence on it—but of being free and righteous.