John Derbyshire’s Terror Channel Report: Moral Equivalence Is A Crock
Print Friendly and PDF

[Adapted from the latest Radio Derb, now available exclusively on]

There's something to report almost daily now in the war between Muslims and infidels being played out on the streets of Western cities. It's getting to be so that any news outlet needs to just include a regular slot for these events, like the weather report. If things get any worse, some entrepreneur might start an entire cable TV channel—you know, like the Weather Channel. He could call it the Terror Channel.

Well, here's this week's Terror Report.

I logged four incidents this week: Two on Monday, one on Tuesday, one on Wednesday.

There was terrorism elsewhere, too, of course. Muslim fanatics attacked a tourist resort in Mali last Sunday, killing four or five people, it's not clear [Mali: Death Toll Rises in Mali Attack,, June 19, 2017] But hey, Mali. If you care about Mali, go read about it. I care about the civilized world.

London, Monday, shortly after midnight local time.  Darren Osborne, no known religious affiliation, a middle-aged Welshman, drove a van into a crowd of Muslims outside a mosque in north London. One Muslim died in the attack and nine were hospitalized. Witnesses quoted Osborne on the scene saying he wanted to "kill all Muslims." [London terror attack near mosque: New info on suspect, CBS, June 20, 2017]

Paris, Monday afternoon.  A few hours after the London attack, on Monday afternoon, Adam Djaziri, Muslim, of Tunisian origin, deliberately crashed his car into the lead car of a police convoy on the Champs Elysées boulevard. The car was full of guns and explosives. It did in fact explode after the impact, killing Mr. Djaziri but no-one else. [Prosecutor: Champs-Elysees attacker pledged allegiance to IS, By Elaine Ganley, Associated Press,June 22, 2017]

Brussels, Tuesday evening.  Oussama Zariouh, Muslim, a Moroccan national resident in Belgium, tried to blow himself and many other people up at the main railroad station. The attempt failed; his bomb only caught fire. Distraught at his failure, Zariouh ran back and forth on the station platform until he encountered a soldier. He shouted "Allahu akbar!" at the soldier, who thereupon shot him dead. Zariouh's bomb did later explode, but no-one was hurt. [Brussels explosion: Prosecutors say major terror attack at station averted after bomb packed with nails fails, by Lizzie Dearden, Independent, June  21, 2017.]

Flint, Michigan, Wednesday morning.  Amor Ftouhi, Muslim, a Canadian citizen born in Tunisia, stabbed a member of the Flint airport police force while shouting "Allahu akbar!" Ftouhi gave his motive as hatred of the U.S.A. He is in custody; the cop is recovering in hospital.

That's the butcher's bill for this week. I don't have anything new to say about the attacks themselves, nor about the weather. The reactions to the attacks have been interesting, though.

That first attack, the one in London where a non-Muslim drove his van into a crowd of Muslims, drew some crowing from out here on the Alt Right. "It's started!" people were saying. Occidental Dissent ran the story under the headline When the Saxon Began to Hate. [By Marcus Cicero, June 19, 2017]

That's a misquote from Kipling, who in reference to World War I wrote a poem with the refrain, "When the English began to hate."

Kipling did not write, "When the Saxons began to hate." It would have been odd if he did, since Saxons are Germans, natives of Saxony. In World War I, Saxons were the enemy, along of course with Bavarians, Swabians, Prussians, Silesians, and other Germans.

And while I'm picking nits, I note that the guy who drove the van was Welsh. A Welshman will not thank you for calling him English, and he'll be plain baffled if you call him a Saxon.

All that aside, this talk about the Cold Civil War turning hot is unconvincing. Real civil wars turn on sectionalism—big geographical territories at loggerheads with each other. That's not the case, either in Britain or the U.S.A. Sure, we have red states and blue states; but the red states are 52 percent red and the blue states are 53 percent blue. We don't have sections.

If you cut down to the county level you can get sectionalism: Professor Michael Hart has written a book about that. Much as I admire Prof Hart and his work, I think this is a stretch. [ Editor Peter Brimelow does not agree].

Looking at the toll from our last Civil War, I hope to God we don't have another one. For sure we don't need one. What we need is sane immigration policies, that's all.

Comment from the CultMarx multiculturalists in the Main Stream Media gravitated towards moral equivalence on the London van attack. Sample from the New York Times, June 20th:

Brendan Cox, whose wife, Jo Cox, a member of Parliament, was shot and killed [last year] by a right-wing extremist, urged the country to fight hateful ideology against Muslims, just as much as it was fighting Islamist militancy.

"When islamist terrorists attack we rightly seek out hate preachers who spur them on," Mr. Cox wrote on Twitter. "We must do the same to those who peddle Islamophobia" …

Said Shiraz Kothia of the London Muslim Community Forum, "We've got the right-wing extremists and we've got the Muslim extremists."

An Attack on Muslims Shakes Cosmopolitan London, By Katrin Bennhold,  June 19, 2017

For the full moral-equivalence shtick, I recommend the opinion column published at MailOnline June 19th. The writer is Piers Morgan, who is some kind of Bigfoot mainstream opinion journalist over there. The headline of the piece says it all, quote: Finsbury Park [that's where the mosque was] is just what ISIS wants. It's what the Far Right Islamophobes want. And it's up to the rest of us to fight the hate and lies from both.

The problem with this moral equivalence is that the morals aren't equivalent.

Suppose, for example, that this violence between Muslims and natives got so bad, life in Britain became intolerable for Muslims. What could they do?

Why, they could go back to the Muslim countries that they or their parents came from. I seriously doubt the Brits would try to stop them.

Now suppose that things got so bad, life in Britain became intolerable for the natives. What could they do? Where could they go?

There isn't any English-speaking country not afflicted with mass Third World immigration. There are hardly any white countries, though there are a few—Poland is trying hard to remain Polish.

Moral equivalence is a crock. On the one side, here you have people whose ancestors have lived for centuries in the same country, who resent foreigners coming in by the hundreds of thousands, taking over their towns and demanding that the natives accommodate their customs and religion. On the other side, you have those foreigners.

The two things are not equivalent. With no respect at all to Piers Morgan, the problem here is not some generalized "hate," equally immoral among both people who are having their country taken away and the people who are taking it. The problem is insane levels of mass Muslim settlement.

Britain never needed Muslims and it was criminally foolish of the Brits to allow Muslim settlement in such numbers.

As we say out here on the Alt Right: That's what separate countries are for.

John Derbyshire [email him] writes an incredible amount on all sorts of subjects for all kinds of outlets. (This no longer includes National Review, whose editors had some kind of tantrum and fired him. ) He is the author of We Are Doomed: Reclaiming Conservative Pessimism and several other books. He’s had two books published by FROM THE DISSIDENT RIGHT (also available in Kindle) and From the Dissident Right II: Essays 2013. His writings are archived at


Print Friendly and PDF