The murder of Jo Cox (MP) comprised several very telling elements: 1) it was public, 2) while pre-planned, it was (aesthetically) ‘random’, 3) it was very bloody, and 4) it was accompanied by a public declaration of loyalty, or ‘fealty pledge’. Indeed it could be argued that the act involved two such loyalty pledges- one, during the attack, when the killer, Thomas Mair, yelled something about “Britain” or “Britain First”, and later, in his first court appearance, when he gave his name as “Death to Traitors, Freedom for Britain”.
These details are significant in their striking similarity to other acts of violence/acts of terror committed in Palestine in the various “Intifadas”. Some of the Intifadas have been full blown strategic assaults upon Israel, but others have been defined by a series of ongoing, “every day”, “random” attacks which are very similar to the one that Thomas Mair carried out. In such circumstances, these attacks become ritualized, almost sacred vessels by which individuals carrying them out gain a share of the sacrality commonly understood by their fellow countrymen and co-religionists as residing within the conflict. Particularly in the case of Palestine, the Palestinians view their war with Israel as a holy war, a defensive jihad in which they are expelling a foreign occupier.
I, of course, as a White European, do not particularly sympathize with the Palestinians or the Israelis, but for the Palestinians themselves, such powerful rhetoric and belief allows for extremely effective modeling, recruitment, and scalability. John Roth- who I am very pleased a reader just introduced me to- explains this same phenomenon through the lens of ISIS:
The ISIS Caliphate is using online fealty as a way to recruit jihadis around the world. It’s a powerful recasting of an ancient concept that goes well beyond modern expressions of loyalty.
The way ISIS has constructed its brand of online fealty makes it globally scalable. The only barriers to entry are: conduct an attack and publicly pledge fealty. The most common platforms for a public pledge? Social media, 911, etc.
For example, when Omar Mateen pledged fealty to ISIS during his deadly attack, it provided him with the following:
• It instantly gave him permission to conduct an attack in the name of ISIS.
• It instantly accepted him into the ranks of ISIS as a proven holy warrior.
• It cleansed his previous sins (particularly his conflict over his sexual orientation).
This recasting of fealty is interesting within the context of open source insurgency because it might provide ISIS with a way to construct a globally scalable, segmented network of terror.
Orlando Police Dispatcher (OD): Emergency 911, this is being recorded.
Shooter (OM): In the name of God the Merciful, the beneficial [in Arabic]
OM: Praise be to God, and prayers as well as peace be upon the prophet of God [in Arabic]. I let you know, I’m in Orlando and I did the shootings.
OD: What’s your name?
OM: My name is I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of the Islamic State.
OD: Ok, What’s your name?
OM: I pledge allegiance to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi may God protect him [Arabic], on behalf of the Islamic State.
OD: Alright, where are you at?
OM: In Orlando.
OD: Where in Orlando?
Notice the parallel with the murder of Jo Cox. When Thomas Mair was first taken into court, he gave his name as “Death to traitors, freedom for Britain”. This is exactly the same thing Omar Mateen did when prompted by the 911 operator to give his name, responding only with a fealty pledge to the Islamic State Caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
A similar parallel can be found between the motivation behind Thomas Mair’s attack, and those of the Palestinians in the various Intifada attacks. Just as the Palestinians are attempting- in their view- to punish and expel foreign occupiers in order to gain freedom, Thomas Mair is doing the same, attempting to gain “freedom for Britain” by attacking a symbol and a member of that which is at least in practice a “foreign occupation”.
Jo Cox, as a member of a Labour Party which has so far halfway succeeded in turning Britain into an Islamic Country, and which is in large part responsible for the sexual slavery of over 100,000 white British children over the last 25 years, is, for all intents and purposes, a foreign occupier. Whether through their alliance with the Muslim invaders taking over the UK, or by way of their membership in the global religion of anti-European Progressivism, the Labour Party fits the bill. By publicly killing one of the members of this ‘occupation’, Thomas Mair pledged fealty to both an older, historical Britain, as well as a new vision of Britain, in which all foreign occupiers are to be expelled.
Many have said that Thomas Mair may have been a kind of ‘Manchurian Candidate’. We obviously have no way of knowing this. Others (even on the far-right) have said that he is a mentally ill man who committed an evil act, and one which has had nothing but negative repercussions for our side.
I would come down more in the middle. Surely Thomas Mair looks to have struggled with mental illness for most of his life. Surely he also might have helped the ‘Remainers’ eek out a last second victory. But at the end of the day, I think the most likely scenario is that he is just a moderately mentally ill man, who was rightfully alarmed at the changes happening in his country, who attempted to ‘pledge fealty’ to a noble cause, in order to draw some of that nobility into himself. In doing so he killed a female Labour MP.
While the fact that Jo Cox was a woman made the act wrong in my mind morally (which wouldn’t be the case if she was male), I do not believe it lessens the significance of her murder at all.
For I feel that the murder of Jo Cox may end up having created a template, or ‘model’ which more native Europeans will follow in the days ahead. For as native Europeans get increasingly enraged at the government-sponsored Muslim invasion, the wanton terrorism, and the rape of their children, they will begin to fight back. This will take many forms, including the growth of militias and paramilitary organizations, but there will also be lone actors who, ‘radicalized’ by the anti-European actions of the foreign occupation, lash out with individualized, ‘random’ violence. In so doing they will- in their minds at least, and in their pronouncements- be pledging fealty to an idea of Europe that still lingers in the popular imagination, and to a vision of a future Europe in which a Reconquest has taken place.
For that reason, just as the various Intifadas in Palestine have been given names corresponding to their year, it is quite possible people will one day look back upon the killing of Jo Cox as the beginning of “Reconquista 2016’.