Sadiq Khan

Source: Bigstock

Last week saw the twentieth anniversary of the 7/7 bombings in London, when 52 people were killed and more than 700 injured by explosives placed on buses and Tube trains by…oh…someone or other, it was all so long ago now. Evidently the authorities had forgotten themselves too, to judge by all the strangely nonspecific official speeches on the memorial day, none of which explicitly mentioned who the perpetrators were. According to King Charles, they were just “senseless acts of evil,” implying they were completely random and motiveless, the work of thugs and neo-anarchists who like to kill and maim just for the sake of it.

Or maybe there was more to it than this? Probably perched in the main pulpit of St. Paul’s Vibrant Shared Community Center, the King assured his subjects that the twentieth anniversary actually stood as a fantastic chance “to reaffirm our commitment to building a society where people of all faiths and backgrounds can live together with mutual respect and understanding, always standing firm against those who would seek to divide us.”

But why was the monarch talking about the pressing need for “people of all faiths and backgrounds” to “live together with mutual respect and understanding” if the “tragic events” of 7/7/05 had just been committed by some random, motiveless droogs straight from the pages of Anthony Burgess?

“The article in The Guardian that morning was patiently explaining how Muslims were by far the greatest victims of 7/7, not the perpetrators.”

I Khan’t Remember!
I was growing increasingly confused by the messaging being put out here—but then I saw a disturbing commemorative story in The Guardian, headlined “We are in a dangerous place: British Muslims on the fallout from 7/7 attack 20 years on,” by a reporter named Geneva Abdul. It was full of weepy talk about something called “Islamophobia,” and quotes from frightened imams saying things like “The emotional and social toll of 7/7 on Muslim communities [in Britain] was profound and is felt by many to this day.”

Apparently, in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, whatever they may have been, an amazing two-thirds of Muslims considered leaving the U.K. Considering that, in the three days following 7/7 alone, U.K. police recorded no less than 180 race-hate incidents against Mahometan-looking people, and several mosques were set aflame, I could only conclude the bombs had actually been planted not by motiveless anarchists at all, but by far-right white racists as part of some unprovoked nationwide pogrom against the Islamic faith that I had somehow managed to memory-hole. This must have been it: Poor Muslims, persecuted for absolutely no good reason in their own rightful homeland, and I didn’t even know about the fact! What a horrible, racist Islamophobe I must be.

Then, however, mayor of London Sadiq Khan released his own statement, and something clicked in my wicked white mind. The ringleader of the London bombers…didn’t he have a rather similar name? It wasn’t Sadiq Khan himself, was it? No, it can’t have been, the terrorist was a suicide bomber; he died during the attack, naturally. Mohammad…Mohammad Sidique Khan, that was it! I remember now.

But hang on, though, a name like that doesn’t sound terribly like it would belong to a white terrorist. In fact, unless I’m very much mistaken, it sounds almost as if it might belong to…a Muslim? But surely that can’t be. The article in The Guardian that morning was patiently explaining how Muslims were by far the greatest victims of 7/7, not the perpetrators.

Looking it up, though, I find that this counterintuitive theory is actually correct: Unexpectedly, it turns out the bombers were radical Islamists after all! All of them. Every last one. And they did it specifically in the name of Islam, to kill and punish kuffar. Still, you can see how such an obscure fact might accidentally have slipped my mind. Sadiq Khan himself basically has the same name as the main terrorist, and even he has clearly forgotten the man was a Muslim!

In his statement, Khan (the mayor, not the terrorist) simply called the 7/7 bombings “cowardly acts of hatred” perpetrated by generic persons “who seek to spread division and spread hatred.” And, what’s more, the mayor had a very clear message of warning for the highly generic human hate-bombers themselves:

You will never win. London’s determination to stand together is stronger than ever. We will always choose hope over fear, and unity over division, as we continue building a safer London for everyone.

But what’s the point in sending such a stern message out to dead terrorists at all? They’re dead. The men responsible all blew themselves up on public transport, twenty years ago, remember, Sadiq?

Explosive Truths
The more I thought about it, though, the more I began to realize that in fact the state-sanctioned words of condolence and condemnation were not actually primarily aimed at the victims or perpetrators of 7/7 at all, but at someone else: the general white British public. And, when examined properly, they were actually words of disguised warning.

“Those who tried to divide us failed,” Prime Minister Keir Starmer declared, perhaps forgetting about all those who had been very successfully divided indeed from their limbs by the force of the blasts and shrapnel. “We stood together then, and we stand together now—against hate and for the values that define us of freedom, democracy, and the rule of law.”

If this is really true, and Britain is not in fact profoundly divided by the wide-scale presence of Islam in its midst, then how does Sir Keir explain all the massive anti-Islam riots that swept the country last year? When he says, “Those who tried to divide us failed,” listeners may initially presume Keir is talking about the suicide bombers. In fact, he is tacitly talking about disenchanted white people who can see what a total disaster Islam is for the country, and dare to voice their opinion about the fact. What the PM actually means is something more like “Those who try to point out our obvious and ever-widening social divisions will be electorally ignored. Then, if they persist in doing so and riot in response, they will be imprisoned.”

The general aim of the state and media’s combined messaging here is to groom the public into thinking there is only one acceptable (and legal) political, emotional, and societal response to 7/7—forgiveness and tolerance toward the oddly unnamed individuals who perpetrated it.

To this end, puff pieces appeared in the U.K. media highlighting how the families of several bomb victims used their compensation cash to establish various charities in their dead kin’s name to teach children how to swim, dish out bursaries to poor students, or fund a hospice unit for dying toddlers (maybe those with severe nail-bomb wounds).

The twisted subliminal implication seems to be that by killing and disfiguring all those innocent people, the 7/7 bombers somehow really did the wider country a massive favor! No bombs, no baby hospice. Maybe one day their martyred corpses will be given posthumous OBEs (or OBOEs—Order of the British Ottoman Empire) from Caliph Charles?

Broken Hyman
The scheme most being pushed was one from the Miriam Hyman Memorial Trust (MHMT), Miriam having been a commuter vaporized on a bus on 7/7, her family using their compensation to fund an eye hospital in India. That’s a good use of money, but unfortunately the Hymans have also since set up an educational scheme aimed at inculcating “tolerance” among Britain’s increasingly non-British schoolchildren under the bizarre assumption that giving them simplistic PowerPoint presentations about the Human Rights Act 1998 will somehow prevent future Islamic extremists from continually trying to kill people.

To mark 7/7’s twentieth anniversary, the MHMT is currently lobbying the government to ensure “the explicit inclusion of social cohesion” in the new national curriculum—any genuinely socially cohesive nation wouldn’t need to, would it?

Kids are to be taught that “Negative events [even major bombing incidents] can have both negative and positive results,” and that “We may not always be able to control what happens, but we can control our responses” to what happens; that’s certainly what the government is hoping. Don’t riot! Just keep quiet and meekly accept it!

Children are meant to learn to “respond rationally” to events like 7/7—by which is meant forgoing revenge in favor of clemency. One PowerPoint slide depicts a cartoon bridge from the negative emotions of “Bitterness” and “Hatred” toward more acceptably submissive ones like “Acceptance” and “Forgiveness”—in other words, training infants up to become dhimmified Eloi at the perpetual mercy of the imported Muslim Morlocks. Put The Time Machine back on the curriculum instead, give the kids a real education for once.

It’s like only one response to seeing your countrymen slaughtered around you is now considered acceptable. You can certainly see why the government might be happy to be very publicly lobbied by the MHMT to teach this stuff through the complicit media. By linking such propagandistic reaction-management techniques directly back to the bereaved family of a tragic terror victim, they make it emotionally near-impossible for most dissenting people to push back against the education system being abused in this way, for fear of looking like a total heartless bastard. Except me, evidently. Oh, and possibly Morrissey from the Smiths, of course.

Panic on the Streets of Westminster
I think the Hyman family is Jewish. If so, they can’t take very closely after Shylock: “If you wrong us, shall we not revenge?” Maybe sometimes you should, actually, yes. If someone tries to blow you and your children up in the name of Allah, for example.

One man very eager to get his pound of flesh (ironically, given he’s a vegan) is the admirable Mancunian rock genius Steven Morrissey, whose album Bonfire of Teenagers, finished in 2021, still remains sadly unreleased, as it features a song about another British terror attack carried out by mysteriously generic “extremists” (“An extreme what? An extreme rabbit?” Morrissey has asked).

This was the Manchester Arena bombing of 2017, when 22 people were killed and 1,000 injured by a worthless piece of Libyan shit whom, had he somehow managed to survive his own explosion, Britain would still not have been able to deport thanks to the influence of the MHMT’s beloved Human Rights Act 1998. Morrissey’s attitudes toward the bombing would certainly get him an “F” for “FAIL” in the charity’s proposed new curriculum.

Noting how, in the aftermath of the attack, the sheeple of Manchester were encouraged (in a managed government psyop, by the way—see my piece here) to sing Oasis’ 1996 hit “Don’t Look Back in Anger” and thereby forgive those state-imported Morlocks who had literally just slaughtered their own children, Morrissey contrived the following contrarian verse:

And the silly people sing: “Don’t Look Back in Anger”
And the morons swing and say: “Don’t Look Back in Anger”
I can assure you I will look back in anger till the day I die.

In footage of him singing this song live, you can hear normal, non-suicidal members of the public openly cheering these sentiments; and that’s why you can’t buy Morrissey’s latest CD at your local supermarket. Unlike the idea of forgiving rabbits (or whatever they are) who try to murder your offspring, the sentiments of actually punishing and getting rid of them is just far too “controversial,” apparently; but then, as Morrissey says, “Controversial just means intelligent” these days, doesn’t it? For Morrissey:

“The Manchester Arena bombing was our 9/11. But, in this sad country of ours, to understand the full meaning of the attack is to be guilty, and this is why the ‘don’t look back in anger’ command always struck me as derisive and not at all words of social harmony.”

That’s because there isn’t any social harmony here anymore. It’s all a giant lie, covered up by mawkishly reappropriated Oasis songs, revamped Eloi-creation curriculums whose exams you will fail for telling the truth in, and pathetic, contentless public non-speeches commemorating terror attacks in which nobody dares even mention who it was that actually perpetrated them, not even the King or prime minister.

“Don’t Look Back in Anger”? “Don’t Look Back in Amnesia” would be better.