Oh, that cultural suicide. Oh, that return of the primitive.
Most of the extremists who have repeatedly expressed their hatred of British soldiers are themselves supported by the British state. A prominent hate-preacher—Anjem Choudary, a leader of the disbanded al Muhajiroun—was even caught on video earlier this year extolling Britain’s “jihad-seekers’ allowance.” As he explained to his followers, “The normal situation, really, is to take money from the kafir”—a slur for non-Muslims. “Allahu akbar. We take the money.”
After the video showed up online, a BBC reporter asked Mr. Choudary to clarify how much he’s taking—the press has long reported a sum of £25,000 ($37,770) per year. “It’s irrelevant,” Mr. Choudary replied.
This would not be the first time a country has paid both sides in a conflict. But if the reported figure is anywhere near accurate, it would surely be the first time in human history that a society has paid its opponents better than it pays its own. A British soldier can expect to start in the army on a salary of around £16,000 ($24,172).
The events in south London must cause a re-evaluation by British society of the insanity we have been permitting. The question is not how sad we feel. The only question should be what we do about it.
That’s not the sort of financial arbitrage you expect to hear about in the Wall Street Journal; all the more reason to read the whole thing.™
And on the flip side, “Where the jihadists caper unmolested: Two men arrested over ‘offensive Twitter comments about British soldier’s death.'” As the Professor writes, “It’s not like they were just sawing off heads or something. These were offensive tweets. Probably racist or anti-Islamic or something. That’s serious.”
And it’s much easier to track down, the “perpetrators” aren’t likely to fight back, and they’re not protected by the blanket of political correctness. Or to put it another way: 1984: a warning for the rest of us, a how-to guide for the left. Orwell didn’t call it IngSoc for nothing.
Update: Yesterday, Mickey Kaus particularly foreshadowed Murray’s article, when he asked, “Does welfare cause terrorism, Part XVIII…”