Manchester Killings - No More "Don't Look Back in Anger"?

Double standards and deceit from a System built on lies

What’s the one phrase you’ve not heard in connection with the disgusting attack in Manchester on Thursday? “Don’t look back in anger”. There’s no sign of tealights and #Together posters either. Instead, the post-attack photos now emphasise banners calling for ‘Action’.

What’s going on here? Have the opinion manipulators at the Home Office Nudge Unit finally given up on their determination to massage away public anger after Islamist atrocities? Or is it just that some victims are more important than others?

Certainly, public anger is fully justified. The revelation that Mr. Jihad of Syria was out on bail for rape is shocking even by the standards of Starmer’s notorious Two-Tier justice system.

No details of that crime have been released, which automatically makes the realists among us tend to the conclusion that his victim was one of ours since, if the poor woman was a Muslim, he would either have been dealt with by her relatives, or we would now be given at least the outline.

The police and spy agencies allowed this man - who had a string of criminal convictions, who committed racially and religiously aggravated rape, who had family links to a Syria to which the whole family could now return, and whose father had repeatedly posted praise for Hamas and now lives in France - to continue to walk the streets.

Did they even take away his passport? Well, they didn’t with the monsters who killed Kriss Donald, or most of the grooming gangs, so why change the habit of half a lifetime of cretinous, two-tier policing?

At the very least, it was foreseeable that Mr. Jihad would flee the country. It was entirely possible that he would commit further vile sexual assaults. So he should have been in prison on remand. Like Lucy Connolly and Peter Lynch and all the other victims of Starmer’s post-Southport anti-British witch-hunt.

I wrote yesterday that, in turning dreary, peaceful, homogeneous Britain into a vibrant multi-racial powder keg, the political elite have automatically imported various foreign quarrels and wars along with the rest of the enrichment.

Why would anyone ever expect anything different? Is there not actually a strange sort of residual racism in the idea that the example of the British, or something uniquely tolerant and reasonable in our British air or British culture, will turn all those unruly foreigners into polite, spiritual Brits?

“Move to Britain, and become one of the people who apologise when someone else stands on their toes.”

Come on! Despite our imported Home Secretary’s insulting attempt at cultural appropriation the other day, non-European immigrants to this country do not magically become English. This is the same absurd and anti-natural fantasy that a man can become a woman just by declaring himself so.

Let us face reality here: Even if he gets his genitals chopped off and the NHS spends a chunk of our taxes on turning the mutilated bits into a fake vagina, he remains just a mutilated man. A eunuch, not a woman.

Likewise, the Mahmoods who come here. They could become ‘British’ in the civic sense, although even that isn’t particularly unlikely with an education system and mass media which fan old anti-colonial grievances, and continually incite hatred of Britain and the indigenous peoples of Britain.

Despite this, some of them do make enough of an effort to qualify as civically British. But if they and their descendants stay here a thousand years, they will still be ethnically South Asian, ethnically African, or whatever. The Boers have been in South Africa for four hundred years now, but not for one moment would any Labour politician – or any other Westminster traitor – try to claim that they have become Africans.

The Palestine/Israel clash is just one of the conflicts imported from abroad along with immigrants who have – or are perceived by the other side to have – ethno-religious skin in the game. Muslims living in Britain are going to be angered by what is happening to other Muslims elsewhere in the world.

Since Israel is a Jewish state, and since most prominent Jews in Britain support it, they are going to blame Jews living here for what other Jews are doing in Gaza.

It may be unfair, but it cannot be unexpected and should not be presented as a mystery. Particularly when the entire political and media elite persist in trying to impose a narrative about it which most Muslims (being rather more switched on about international affairs than most Brits) know to be a pack of lies.

The entire mass media continues to pump out the fiction that the latest attack in Manchester was the result of some sort of ancient and irrational ‘Jew hatred’, rather than a despicable but entirely foreseeable reaction to two years of IDF mass murder and now genocidal starvation in Gaza. If you think that Muslims are angry now, just keep that trick going for a couple more years and see how that ends up!

As it happens, that brings us to a good place to finish this post-Manchester Realism Round-Up:

Half the casualties – the tragic dead and the unfortunate wounded alike - turn out to have been inflicted by the police as they took down Mr. Jihad. I’ve got no problem with the police response. Anyone who rams a car into innocent bystanders and then gets out and start stabbing people, all while wearing a fake suicide vest, must expect to get shot.

Mr. Jihad fully deserved to be shot and the fact that there is already talk of prosecuting the police officers who shot him is another sign of the liberal madness gripping Britain. When police officers or soldiers start shooting armed men who are in the midst of their victims, it is sadly almost inevitable that innocent people will be hit by stray bullets, and become ‘collateral damage’.

But is it not curious that, when this happens in Britain, the media immediately tell us the facts when, for two years, they have systematically covered up the same phenomenon in the case of October 7^th?

Everyone in Israel knows full well that hundreds of the Israeli victims of October 7^th were not killed by Hamas, but by IDF helicopter gunships, tanks and rescue forces. Whether this was the result of the Hannibal Directive, or simply the tragic result of confusion and crossfire in the chaos, is something which remains unclear.

Those we are repeatedly told were dismembered or burned alive by ‘Hamas terrorists’ in truth suffered such ghastly injuries not because blood-crazed Hamas fighters failed to follow orders to capture as many hostages as possible, but because they were struck by high-powered heavy machine-guns and air-to-ground missiles. All of them fired by the well-equipped IDF, not their lightly armed adversaries.

Israelis know this because their country still has something approaching a free press. Parts of it are rabidly in favour of the Likudnik/Betar version of Zionism, but others are liberal Zionists, or socialist Zionists who believe, at least in theory, in reaching an accommodation with the Palestinians. Sections of their media are even anti-Zionist.

How different it is in Britain, when the entire range of the media (and, for that matter, our political class) is either Zionist-owned or so terrified of Zionist power, money and blackmail that they conceal such basic truths from us. And, in doing so, push us towards ever deeper and more disastrous involvement in their artificially imported wars.