Darren Osborne and the Finsbury Mosque Incident: A Rebellion against the Idea that Revenge Couldn’t Even Be Contemplated
At time of this writing, the Left and the British state are busily engaged in portraying a solitary, frustrated, drunken son of Albion as that great figure of myth — the ‘right wing extremist.’ By most accounts Darren Osborne is an everyman figure, a married father of four who enjoys his beer and the quiet life of the suburban lower middle class. In images displayed by the media, green weeds split the ground just outside his otherwise tidy home, while a police officer stands at the gate of a small, neat, garden fence. It’s the kind of home you’d walk past and not look at twice; a home like your own. Like a lot of men his age, Osborne appears to have grumbled occasionally at ‘the Muslims,’ and bristled at the growing number of Islamic terrorist attacks occurring in his nation. But there was nothing to suggest he might be a ‘man of action.’ He was not a member of any nationalist organization. He had no blog, no history of activism. The leader of the South Wales National Front, Adam Lloyd, told the press that Osborne “is not known to any of us here in South Wales National Front, and to our knowledge is not and never has been a member.” Darren Osborne surprised ‘the movement’ with his actions in Finsbury, though I suspect he surprised himself even more.
Modern ‘society’ is expert at controlling the behavior of men — in particular, the expectations, responsibilities, and burdens of the consumer society, propped up by mortgage and credit card usury. Shackled from cradle to grave. For many people, leaving education is merely the start of a succession of races to pay the bills each month. No grander purpose or vision lies beyond this bottom line. A wife may come and go, homes are bought and debts incurred, children are born in order that they too might one day begin the same race.
Some might say that this has always been the case, and in some respects they are correct. However, the last five decades have witnessed the steady politicization of the working environment, and this is unique. Being socially and politically compliant became a more important part of life than at any time in history. In the past, there always existed ‘the frontier’ or beyond. There was thus always a place to go for ‘the man with a cause,’ the noble outlaw. The Icelandic Sagas, which in many respects exalt this type of man, are replete with individuals and individualism — tales of people who wanted more from life than existing social systems offered, and so set forth into new lands or waged war on the status quo in old ones.
The globalized world of the 21st century offers no frontier. Nowhere is free of the airport, the convenience store, the security camera, the detective, or the State. The world, as they say, is getting smaller, not bigger. Only the born slave could see this as a good thing. Today, there is no place for rebellion to be displaced to, and the State maintains a greater monopoly on the use of force than at any time in history. In this context, conformity has become endemic. Rebellion of even the most mediocre kind now results in ejection from employment and disaster in the race to pay those all-important bills. Loss of job can result in loss of home, and in many cases family. At some point in recent times, a man’s ability to conform and remain silent became the fulcrum upon which his entire personal fate would rest. And because of this, the vast majority of men remain silent and still when it comes to anything meaningful. Robinson Jeffers, the great ‘inhumanist’ poet of the early 20th century wrote of this malaise in ‘Decaying Lambskins’:
Because we are not proud but wearily ashamed of this peak of
time. What is noble in us, to kindle
The imagination of a future age? We shall seem a race of cheap
Fausts, vulgar magicians.
What men have we to show them? but inventions and appliances.
Not men but populations, mass-men; not life
But amusements; not health but medicines.
Never in history has European man been more compliant to the wishes of his overseers, or even his peers. Life expectancy has increased, but is life being truly lived? Years slip by with no truly special achievement. The hair becomes more gray, and the waistline expands. Despondency sets in. Some join the ranks of the silent epidemic of White middle aged males taking their own lives. Mass immigration, Islamic terror, and the rape of White children occurs amidst this bewildering, infuriating inertia. All of this occurred to me as I watched phone-recorded images of Darren Osborne prior to being bundled into the back of a police van. In one clip he shouts ‘Kill Me’ to the Muslims surrounding him. Semi-drunk, he appears possessed of both physical and mental pain. I believe that Osborne’s actions were indeed an act of revenge, but they were perhaps foremost an act of rebellion — a rebellion against the idea that revenge couldn’t even be contemplated; a rebellion against inertia and the silent suffering of inaction.
I’ve written previously that the figure of the ‘right wing extremist’ is largely mythical. Not only is this true in terms of the vulgar exaggeration of the threat of violence from the Right, but also because ’extremism’ is itself merely an invention of the late 20th-century Liberal state, which hubristically lays claim to define what is normal and natural. The Liberal state sees itself as devoid of ideology, and the ultimate in benevolent neutrality. Just as the Liberal state is founded on this lie, so the concept of ‘extremism’ is a lie. There isn’t even anything ‘extreme’ about Islamism — it simply is, and is true to its own primitive nature. It would be more honest for us to simply call Islamists ‘Muslims’ than to call them ‘extremists.’
I could probably argue that the Liberal state is itself ‘extremist’ because it locks people in jail for years for leaving sandwiches outside mosques, but that would be playing their game. A more Social Darwinist view of modern politics and the devices of violence and coercion would be to suggest that the field is wide open and all players will play to their strengths. The only oddity about it all is that Liberalism has forgotten that it rests on ‘the shoulders of giants’ who jailed, were jailed, killed, or were killed to in order to pave its way into government and statehood. Without ‘extremists’ Liberalism wouldn’t exist today.
Peace and tolerance are the trump cards of the status quo. The man with pockets full of poker chips is the man most likely to want to call an end to the evening’s game. Liberalism has what it wants, and it has a population too terrified and distracted by the banalities of modern life to ‘look back in anger.’ When you hear a politician or public figure utter the refrain that this or that attack was “an attack on all of us,” what they mean is that someone has dared to suggest that the poker game isn’t over yet; that the chips are still in play. Liberalism is facilitating multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is facilitating the demographic decline of our people. We cannot long endure the status quo. As things worsen, we will very probably see more examples of the frustration of the everyman boiling over.
However, Liberalism cannot accept that it is pushing ordinary people to the edge. Thus, Osborne the frustrated everyman is being reconstructed as Osborne the right-wing terrorist. It’s a narrative resting on very poor foundations, but the status quo is milking the incident in Finsbury for every drop of ideological value. Owen Jones, a repugnant homosexual journalist at The Guardian has written: “Britain’s far right is desperate, angry, cornered, and dangerous, as the Finsbury Park atrocity may well show. In just a year, the number of far-right extremists referred to the government has jumped by nearly a third. Social media abounds with frothing far-right fanatics, screaming about betrayal and vengeance. Both Muslims and the left are firmly in their sights — and we urgently need a strategy to deal with it.”
Jones, like many pathological liars on the Left, is being disingenuous to say the least. The ‘government referrals’ Jones refers to are in relation to the UK’s ‘Prevent’ program, which is supposed to catch and ‘re-educate’ youngsters at risk of developing ‘extremist’ attitudes. In a move intended to make the program look less ‘racist,’ vast efforts were expended to declare the non-violent nationalist group ‘National Action’ a terrorist group, and therefore pave the way to sweep up its young members in an effort to massage Prevent’s ethnicity figures. In truth, so-called ‘right wing extremists’ comprised just 8% of terror arrests last year, and were almost non-existent at the charging and conviction stages — suggesting that the legal system is deliberately targeting innocent Whites for arrest on very weak suspicions in an effort to massage its figures and make Muslims look slightly better.
Jones may truly believe the lies he tells, though he has a history of bending narratives in accordance with his own ideological preferences. In one of the funniest incidents ever recorded on a live news broadcast, Jones once got into an argument with another journalist who uttered the familiar refrain that “it was an attack on us all.” Jones is normally full of such banalities, but in this particular case the incident in question was the Orlando massacre. Because, in this instance, Jones felt that there was a more personal sense of victimhood to be gained from claiming Orlando as a specifically ‘homophobic’ attack, he began arguing against the ‘attack on us all’ narrative on the grounds that it was clearly an attack on gays — only to be rebutted by the increasingly zealous virtue-signaling of the host. Jones eventually lost his composure completely, walking off set because of the host’s insistence that the attack in Orlando was an “attack on us all” and not just an attack on homosexuals. It really has to be seen to be believed, but this is Left-Liberalism in a nutshell. It constantly shapes its own narratives according to its own perceived needs or preferences.
Amber Rudd, the British Home Secretary, is another shaper of narratives and a quintessential member of the hostile elite. Although it appears to be open season on native Britons, Rudd has repeatedly made strenuous efforts to grant special privileges and protections to both Jews and Muslims. In March, Rudd pledged £13.4 million in taxpayer’s money to fund security measures at Jewish schools and community establishments, promising to protect the Jewish community against anti-Semitism. Rudd apparently said to a meeting of Jews: “We are doing what we can to confine anti-Semitism to the history books. If you feel threatened we will listen to you, and if you are victimized we will defend you,”
In the aftermath of Darren Osborne’s act of desperation, Rudd wrote an op-ed in The Guardian in which she declared: British Muslims Deserve Full Protection, and They Will Get It. Rudd stated: “Muslims must feel safe and we are working together to tackle hate crime as well as all forms of extremism. … Sadly, indicative figures suggest that over half of those who experience hate because of their religion are Muslim.” As well as promising at least £2.4 million for the protection of mosques, Rudd boasted that she had proscribed National Action, “the first extreme rightwing group to be banned as a terrorist organization.”
Of course, the offering of special protections to Jews by elites and the State has long historical precedent. The yellow badge identifying the Jew originated in medieval times as a way of making it easier for the King’s men to spot and protect Jews — the King’s usurers and tax collectors. Along with disarming the populace, special protection is one of the main reasons why Jews are strongly attracted to, and supportive of, the idea of strong central government. The offering of similar privileges and protections to Muslims is relatively new, but should be seen as indicating the increasing alienation of native government/State elites from their own populations. Our elites (government, media, business) have sold their souls to the Devil of globalization, and Whites are now regarded as mere interchangeable chattel, or worse. To be sure, you will be tolerated and allowed to go slowly extinct if you carry on the kind of dull, soulless existence described at the outset of this article. But the problem with Whites, as many globalists know, is that they still have, on occasion, the tendency to behave as they did in the Icelandic Sagas — to seek freedom and a new path; to reject tyranny and injustice; to seek their own piece of land and refuse to be bought off with anything less. Strong central government is anathema to the European, especially when there is no frontier, or ‘New World,’ that he might escape to if he is unsatisfied.
At time of writing, Darren Osborne has been charged with terrorism offenses, a move that has been justified on the dubious reasoning that his actions were in aid of a political cause. This is tenuous indeed. Based on the evidence that has emerged thus far, Osborne does not appear to have adhered to any kind of systematic ideology, let alone advocated any coherent social or political program. The only charge that could conceivably match his crime is that of religiously aggravated attempted murder — a serious charge, but not the terrorism charge that would in all probability ensure he never sees another day beyond prison walls. The real, deeper, reason why Osborne has been charged with a political offense is because his actions were a political affront to the multicultural agenda and the Left-Liberal, globalist state, and must necessarily be reconstructed as systematically ‘racist,’ ‘neo-Nazi’ or ‘far right.’ As time progresses and things worsen, we should expect more and more relatively ordinary, unaffiliated, and frustrated people to act against this system, and to undergo similar reconstructions. There were will more arrests of innocent Whites. More figures will be massaged. More lies will be told, and more money will be spent on protecting everyone but the rightful heirs to these lands.
But things are beginning to change. Across the West storm clouds are gathering. I believe that the time will soon be at hand when we can prove the poet Jeffers wrong — that we are more than cheap Fausts and vulgar magicians; that we are men and not just populations; that we desire life and not just amusements.
Comments are closed.