The Muslim holy month of Ramadan has closed with a series of bangs, brutally felt across the Dar al-Islam, but supposedly ignored in the West. Islamists killed 41 people at an airport in Istanbul, 22 at a cafe in the Bangladeshi capital, at least 250 in Baghdad, and several in three bombings in Saudi Arabia over the last few weeks. While the international community broadly came together to signal how upset they were about attacks in Paris, Belgium, and Orlando by putting flag filters on their Facebook profiles, holding vigils and rallies, and projecting colors onto landmarks and buildings, Muslims on social media are complaining that Turkey, Bangladesh, and Iraq are not receiving the same kind of treatment or level of attention. As their own people mow them down in their homelands over theological disputes, they call us hypocrites for failing to signal the same level of sympathy that we did for victims of attacks by their co-religionists on our soil. We are guilty of chauvinistic eurocentrism because we don’t care more about foreigners than relatives.
This is a fun narrative, it really is. It affirms a number of things that Muslim activists unintentionally believe. First, it implies that the West is the arbiter of moral authority and international significance. Is there a greater affirmation of White supremacy than Muslims absolutely begging for senpai to notice them and shower them with attention? I think not. Second, this narrative implies that Westerners need to take a cosmopolitan attitude towards signaling about tragedies and expressing political views, though the people pushing this narrative are doing so for entirely tribalistic, sectarian, and ethnocentric reasons. Muslims are essentially telling dhimmis that they need to care about Muslims equally, even though their own Muslim religion instructs them to treat us as inferiors. And thirdly, the calls for the so-called international community—in this case obviously Western countries—to do more to resolve the violence in places like Iraq and Syria are an implicit form of imperialism and minimize the agency of people of color in world affairs. There are essentially two ways to permanently resolve the problem of Muslim terrorism in the region: 1.) submission by countries battling terrorism to the demands of Islamic puritans, or 2.) establishing Western political control over Muslim countries with the long-term goals of settler colonialism (i.e. actual nation-building) and the destruction of indigenous access to means of mass violence. Western- and/or social media-based Muslim activists do not want Western rule of Muslim nations, so they will continue to spout nonsense third-worldist solutions which harm us and help them morally, materially and politically, like mentally disarming ourselves as to the disproportionate danger poised by Islamic vibrancy.
Now, to be fair, I do not want solution number two either; I think that would be too much work and a huge distraction from our own dire domestic demographic problems in Europe and the Anglo states. We cannot reasonably try to end Muslim terror in the Muslim world any more than we can eliminate relative poverty, though there are certainly ways to end Muslim terror in the West (which would of course be unpopular, shall we say, with the Muslims occupying our lands). The exhortations for us to “care” equally about third-world violence in third-world countries as much as we care about third-world violence in our own countries—which is ironically, not enough to solve the problem—ring hollow.
Such bleating amounts to nothing more than foreigners demanding we signal on their behalf and for their benefit, while at the same time guilt-tripping us for not having done enough signaling sooner. This is not the same as standing against Muslim terrorism and taking measures to prevent it, because the signals Muslim activists want from Westerners are those that further their own narrative—terrorism has no religion and Muslims are the primary victims of terrorism. They want that message broadcast from Westerners to other Westerners—and it already is every time a terror attack happens—because coming from one’s own kind legitimizes it.
The actual “standing against terrorism” they want us to do is expressing solidarity with our Islamic colonizers against the “racism”—or White opposition to Islam—that follows every attack domestic or overseas. So instead of going after the elephant in the room, Muslim apologists recommend we remodel the entire house at our own expense so the elephant has more space to destroy. Truly, the last thing we need is yet another desert tribe in our midst trying to morally hijack us so we turn against our own self-interest and preservation. So no, I am not going to mourn for Muslims doing Muslim things in Muslim countries, or to be more precise, non-Whites doing non-White things in non-White countries, e.g. Turkey, Bangladesh, and Iraq. That is how they are, and if they cannot scrape together enough agency to have a civil society, that is their problem. What we should be concerned about are non-Whites doing non-White things in White countries. On a wholly superficial level it seems we still are, if social media is anything to go by. The lying press can’t or won’t explain why we feel closeness with France, but it is an archaic impulse that stems from our shared bio-cultural heritage. French and Belgian flag filters are a banal expression of this solidarity.
When the news first broke last year about over a hundred people dead in Paris because of third world colonists, I felt physiologically and emotionally ill. This was an attack on my own people, in the fullest tribal sense, by a hostile other, and with the tacit consent of our elites. That is what I care about. It required no mental gymnastics, no self-hate, and no false consciousness for the benefit of those who resent me. When I heard about the 35 people killed in Brussels I felt anger and disappointment at the European governments continuing to heap upon their own racial funeral pyre. By the time Orlando flashed across my screen(s), I could recite what the official narrative would be before it was promulgated. In each case, we were told there was essentially nothing we could do about this, and that we would just have to deal with it as part of the package of having a diverse multiracial society. In fact, the right thing to do would have been to reaffirm our commitment to such a society, according to our (((cosmopolitan elites))).
If people of color want to behave like savages and massacre one another in their decolonized safe spaces that they demanded from us decades ago, that is their business. The tragedy I am committed to stopping is the destruction of our homelands by non-White colonizers, not them destroying one another in their nurseries. Enough is enough. We owe you nothing.