It is becoming clear that the top-down promotion of a hollow ‘togetherness’ in response to terrorism is about cultivating passivity. It is about suppressing strong public feeling. It’s about reducing us to a line of mourners whose only job is to weep for our fellow citizens, not ask why they died, or rage against their dying. The great fear of both officialdom and the media class in the wake of terror attacks is that the volatile masses will turn wild and hateful. This is why every attack is followed by warnings of an ‘Islamophobic backlash’ and heightened policing of speech on Twitter and gatherings in public: because what they fundamentally fear is public passion, our passion. They want us passive, empathetic, upset, not angry, active, questioning. They prefer us as a lonely crowd of dutiful, disconnected mourners rather than a real collective of citizens demanding to know why our fellow citizens died and how we might prevent others from dying. We should stop playing the role they’ve allotted us.
The fact is there are people in our society willing to attack us, others who will think those attacks are justified, and others still who will apologise for those attacks by saying they’re a product of ‘Islamophobia’ or Western intervention overseas. We are so far from united. We are deeply divided. But you cannot say that. ‘Weep, don’t think.’
Stop and think about how strange it is, how perverse it is, that more than 20 of our citizens have been butchered and we are basically saying: ‘Everyone calm down. Love is the answer.’ Where’s the rage? If the massacre of children and their parents on a fun night out doesn’t make you feel rage, nothing will. The terrorist has defeated you. You are dead already.
Liek aizdomāties, ka feministisku uzskatu sievietes ir aktīvākās islama aizstāves Rietumos. Varbūt taisnība tam pa pusei jokam, ka feministes feminizētos Rietumu vīriešus zemapzinā tā kā nicina par viņu slābanumu, tā pat kā vienkāršāku dzīvnieku mātītēs, kas 'mating' periodā cenšas izvēlēties starp veselīgāko, spēcīgāko un dominējošāko tēviņu, zaudētājiem pagriežot muguru. Liekas jo ticamāk, jo kā teica heda, cilvēki, kas visaktīvāk runāt par cilvēka vajadzību pārvarēt ''primitīvās dziņas'' bieži paši, sev neapzinoties, atbalsta tieši 'bioloģisko' cilvēka uzvedība, sakot, ka nedrīkst sevi apsiest. Monoteisms ar savu monogāmiju un ģimenes vērtībām, puritānismu salīdzinājumā ir samēra nedabisks un iekšējo dzivnieku transcendējošs institūts, kas paģēr striktu dziņu apspiešanu par labu pārlieku strukturētam sabiedrības modelim.