Ann Coulter’s Law of Mass Shootings decrees that “The longer it takes the news media to identify a mass shooter in the United States, the less likely it is to be a white male.” While Coulter’s Law is thus specific to the US, it has its own variant in Britain:
The more police and media emphasise that a criminal is ‘British’, the more likely it is that they are a naturalised immigrant, or the child of immigrants.
We have much the same law in Australia: the more the media emphasise ‘teens’, the more you just know they’re Aboriginal or African. The same deception applies to crime statistics. Australian crime statistics do not collect publish data on ethnicity, only country of origin. So, teenage African machete gangsters are merely as ‘Australian’ as Daz from back’o’Bourke.
These deceptions have consequences. What’s the point of police asking the public to help them identify teenage criminals on the run when they refuse to actually supply any identifying information?
No doubt the police think they’re doing wonders for ‘social cohesion’ by lying to us. But, as last year’s riots in Britain following Axel Rudakubana’s murder spree showed, it has the opposite effect. When the public know the police and media are lying, they’re going to fill in the blanks for themselves, rightly or wrongly.
Worse, it stifles necessary public debate. Such as: why are the children of recent immigrants from Africa and the Middle East so violent?
Consider Rudakubana, who murdered three little girls with his knife and would have killed more had brave passers-by not intervened. Government sources rushed to tell us that the killer was from Cardiff. It was true, but it gave an incomplete picture. Rudakubana was born to Rwandan parents and had been obsessed with genocide.
Genocide, or at least lethal ethnic conflict, had been the tragic story of Rwanda long before the massacres of 1994. Should we at least consider the possibility that this backstory might have influenced Rudakubana? That, as the old proverb has it, what’s bred in the bone will out in the flesh?
The central conceits of ‘multiculturalism’ are not only ludicrous, but mutually contradictory. First, we’re finger-wagged that all cultures are equally valuable and cannot be criticised. At the same time, we’re hectored that Ahmed from Syria is ‘100 per cent Aussie’ as soon as he steps off the boat.
This begs the question: where did the Muslims responsible for more than 90 per cent of Australia’s terror attacks learn their murderous hatred? Who taught the Muslim rape gangs that it was OK to pack-rape ‘Aussie sluts’? Why are machete attacks suddenly a near-weekly phenomenon in Melbourne shopping centres?
Are we supposed to be reassured that we bred these monsters ourselves? That our sweet air failed to waft away their violent proclivities? That, despite having grown up in this country, they ended up hating our ways so much that they were prepared to risk their own lives to kill their fellow citizens? Isn’t it alarming to learn that, even if we somehow screwed the immigration tap shut tomorrow, the problem might persist for another generation? […]
What if violence runs in families? What if a British education does not, in itself, erase generations of aggression, vendetta and honour culture?
Because it clearly doesn’t.
Consider some other ‘UK-born’ terrorist murderers. Three of the four radicals who attacked the London transport network on 7 July 2005, killing 52 people, were British-born sons of Pakistani immigrants. The fourth, Abdullah Shaheed Jamal, had been born in Jamaica as Germaine Lindsay but was brought up in this country, changing his name when he converted to Islam.
Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, who hacked Lee Rigby to death in 2013, were also UK-born, also the sons of immigrants, and also, technically, Muslim converts. (I say ‘technically’ because their lifestyles, long before the murder, never suggested the slightest Islamic piety.)
The perpetrator of the Westminster Bridge attack, which killed four people and injured just under 50, was Khalid Masood, born in this country as Adrian Russell Elms, of Afro-Caribbean heritage. The unspeakable horror of the was carried out by Salman Abedi, born in Manchester to Libyan parents. He, too, was of violent stock – his father had been a member of a proscribed jihadi group – and, he, too, hung on to his resentments throughout an English education.
There seem to be a number of factors at play. Firstly is the uniqueness of Islamic culture, which emphasises the supremacy of ‘Allah’s laws’ over man’s, and the first duty to the ummah, the global Islamic community, rather than the country in which Muslims just happen to be born. There are other aspects of the Islam cult, too, such as the proscription (under pain of death) for apostasy, or forbidding Muslim women from marrying non-Muslim men (hence necessitating conversion for the prospective non-Muslim husband), or that any children born to a Muslim father are automatically Muslim (and thereby forbidden from apostasy).
Secondly, the hostility to Western culture from the Western elites, which has infested nearly every level of civil society and institutions. When children are taught endlessly that their nation is ‘institutionally’ racist and responsible for nearly every imaginable ill, then why wouldn’t they put that into violent practice?
Equally, though, we should admit that not all immigrants are equal. Some places are more backward and more violent than others. People who come from these places are statistically more likely to commit violent crimes than the children of immigrants from, say, Switzerland. That fact should guide our immigration policy […]
We need to stop pretending that all cultures are equal. Importing people from places with belligerent cultures is dangerous, and that danger can persist past one generation. Let’s start by turning off the tap.
Better still, start bailing out the ship. ‘Remigration’ policies need to be given serious consideration. Instead of sly wealth-transfer by ‘climate action’, just cut to the chase: offer migrants and their children from backwater nations a stipend to go back. Instead of tearing down the West, let them start building their home countries. They’ll feel much more at home and, if they really are so valuably skilled, the developing world will boom.
Sure, it’ll cost us in the short term, but we’ll all be better off in the long term.
