Jo Cox, Sacrality, ISIS, And The Possibility Of ‘Reconquista 2016’

Jo Cox, Sacrality, ISIS, And The Possibility Of ‘Reconquista 2016’
June 22, 2016 Admin

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]
OD: What?
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’.

0saves
If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

Comments (6)

  1. Nxx 11 months ago

    Finally a dispassionate analysis of the Jo Cox execution. The only issue that matters is whether this template will deliver a loss or gain in the moral plane of war. The Brexit vote will soon tell us.

    Resisting demographic eradication is the only morality. There is no other morality except resistance to demographic eradication. Everything is legitimate when resisting demographic eradication.

    • Author
      Admin 11 months ago

      Wise words Nxx. I think the Jo Cos situation ultimately ends up being like the ethical-philosophical ‘lifeboat’ questions that get brought up in Philosophy 101 classes or as thought-provoking hypotheticals to stimulate thinking. There are many overlapping questions and considerations with her killing morally/ethically/philosophically. On the tactical side though it is much simpler. Brexit will indeed show us much. Even it though will be ambiguous. I could see us winning the battle (Brexit) only to lose the war (the future of England), or vice versa (we lose Brexit but the emotions such a loss inspires end up fomenting revolution). At the very least it feels good that things are happening. I will take that over stifling normalcy and a societal lack of existential awareness any day!

  2. DaShui 11 months ago

    U misspelled John Robb.

    So Mr. Mair is moderately mentally ill, not like us sane people allowing our countries to be taken away from us?

    If JL can pull together a Mannerbund, I’ll gladly swear fealty to him!

    • Author
      Admin 11 months ago

      Thanks Dashui- that is certainly the eventual goal!

      It will be interesting to hear more of Mr. Mair and his trial. I feel like we haven’t heard a peep about the ‘French Breivik’ since he was arrested, and it makes me wonder if it will be similar with Mr. Mair. I think the media is actually worried that the native populace won’t react with quite the horror at these situations that they ‘should’. Therefore if this situation ends up getting downplayed long term, with the trial I mean, that could be confirmation of my suspicions.

  3. Nxx 11 months ago

    Nice one from CWNY:

    I understand the liberals: they are satanically possessed swine. However, I don’t understand the right-wing nationalists who claim to be against white genocide yet always condemn any violence directed against the liberals who are responsible for white genocide. I bring this subject up once again because of the recent execution of a white-genocide advocate in the Labour Party of Britain. The mental health of the executioner has been called into question, and he has been roundly condemned by white nationalists and the Britain First party. To say I differ with those so-called white nationalists who condemned the white avenger would be putting it too mildly. I vehemently oppose their condemnations. Quite probably the man is mentally unstable, but the act itself was moral and justifiable.(1)
    https://cambriawillnotyield.wordpress.com/2016/06/25/our-fight-for-the-land-of-evening-lingerings/

    My only quibble is with the term “white genocide”, which I used to use myself but now recognize to be counter productive. It’s accurate dialectic but terrible rhetoric. The term we should be using is: “demographic eradication”. It is both good dialectic and good rhetoric.

    When you have a real and valid grievance, such as demographic eradication, there is absolutely no reason to destroy your own case by signalling that you are hysterical and crazy. I am the guy who wrote that long comment on the Genocide Convention of 1948 and how it applies to our situation (http://www.europeancivilwar.com/range-of-responses-against-european-suicide-growing-reader-feedback-desired/#comment-833). Yet even I have to admit that the word genocide simply doesn’t work unless your audience is part of the 0.00000001% of the population that is conversant with genocide law.

    • Author
      Admin 11 months ago

      Yes I certainly agree with him. I haven’t read Cambria Will Not Yield before but will have to start doing so. It is getting difficult to keep up with all the great Alt-Right/Preservationist websites out there.

      Interesting question you bring up too re ‘White Genocide’ vs ‘Demographic Eradication’. I well remember your comment from before. I think White Genocide better describes it surely, but I do agree it can be counter-productive when speaking to average ‘moderns’ or ‘normies’. We have yet to find a superlative for the White Genocide/Eradication class that is as catchy and to the point as the word ‘Cucks’ is for those whom that term describes. If only there was a word for those who voluntarily commit suicide or who gladly hand their daughters over to be raped. Something to think on for sure.

Leave a reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*