It has happened again: on Monday, June 8, 2026, at approximately 10:30 p.m, an immigrant from Africa (the authorities do not even know whether he is Sudanese or Somali) attacked a white man in broad daylight and attempted to gouge out the white man’s eyes and chop off his head with a machete. That understandably sparked violence across Belfast, with cars being set ablaze, shop windows smashed and the usual stuff. Now the BBC was – as usual – quick to present its understanding of what had happened.
Well, the BBC admits in a sentence or two – often quoting the local or national authorities or the emergency services representatives – that the crime was heinous and horrific, but the most part of a lengthy text targets the (white) protestors and how heinous and horrific their reaction to the attempted murder was. That’s also the usual response on the part of the mainstream mass media. The BBC is not concerned so much about the repetitiveness of the event (immigrants have been known for such acts of violence for decades now, not merely in the United Kingdom but across the West, where they have been invited, taken care of and granted asylum) or about the frustration, anger, and fear of the indigenous population. No, the BBC is concerned about – yes! yes! – racism. What stands out in the text is that protests that broke out in Belfast were racially-motivated. We can read the usual yada yada yada about unwarranted pogroms carried out by masked thugs, which is not tolerable and so on, and so forth.
Right at the beginning of the quoted article it is the family of the victim (the man who lost one eye, and has multiple injuries, and whose condition is serious) that is quoted to have said that they do not want this terrible tragedy to be used to divide people or fuel hostility. Have the family of the victim been coerced to say such words right after the attempted murder? One just cannot believe a member of the victim’s family to be quick to say something like – and we quote after the BBC – We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country, including in our healthcare system and hospitality sector and we depend on them to make our country work. That’s the hackneyed statement the likes of which we’ve heard hundreds of times, always after incidents like this one. How is it possible for a member of the victim’s family to say such a mantra immediately after experiencing such a heinous crime? Unbelievable.
The lengthy text (with very little valuable content) goes on to say that the police and the authorities have called on the people not to share video footage of the event because that will cause further trauma to the injured man’s loved ones. Are they, the injured man’s loved one, watching it? Judging by the quote mentioned above, they are above such things, they are only thinking about how to immediately remind their compatriots of the valuable contribution of the immigrants which makes their country work! How could such paragons of virtue be traumatized? One can be almost certain the victim’s family (again: coerced? intimidated? bribed?) will issue another statement forgiving the perpetrator his act, calling for leniency of the court verdict, and even justifying it, putting all the blame on present and past racism! They are also likely to protest deportation if such were to be decided by the court!
Then much is said in the adduced text about unsubstantiated pogroms of black people in Belfast, who are of course innocent and have absolutely nothing to do with the feeling of insecurity on the part of the white Irish. Even words of a local pastor defending the local blacks are quoted: They’re good Christian people and they’re getting put out [of their homes by masked protestors] just because they’re black.
Well, the authorities – the ruling class – men and women who have graduated from high-standard schools and universities should know better. History shows again and again that a bad act done by a few members of a community will inevitably be chalked up to the whole community. That’s how human psyche works, that’s the human defensive mechanism. You may be bitten by one dog only, and that makes you be wary of all dogs; you may be scratched by one cat only, and that makes you be wary of all cats. When America was under the so-called terrorist attack in 2001, with the World Trade Center, the Pentagon being hit while the White House narrowly escaped that fate, when there was no knowing what else might be attacked, the national flight controller ordered all planes to land at the nearest airport. That’s precisely how we act feeling threatened: we do not analyse individually who is guilty; rather, we view the whole group or class or cohort that is somehow associated with the perpetrator as if the group, the class, the cohort, were made up of such perpetrators. The survival imperative does not allow for thoughtful analysis; the survival imperative impels us to act quickly and, in a sense, blindly. You cannot fight this survival imperative because it is hard wired biologically.
That’s also why soldiers of whatever army shoot indiscriminately at civilians the moment one civilian opens fire at them: the soldiers are fighting for mere survival. There is no time to discriminate among the civilians who carry arms and who do not; there is no time to assess the situation. When a fraction of a second decides whether you will stay alive or die, instinct kicks in. That’s all there is to it.
The BBC article says that the crowds should not take their frustration at the murder out on innocent people. But the BBC does not ask the question why the crowds take their frustration out on the innocent people. Why, the answer is plain: such heinous crimes have been repeated across the Western world and always committed by Third World immigrants. More to it, on each and every occasion the authorities have been ineffective, indolent, powerless, helpless – you name it. They only keep talking about peace and tolerance, about understanding and values, while the crimes have continued to multiply and the perpetrators have been treated mildly. The common people have witnessed it time and time again, and so the common people have decided to act on their own. Is this so hard to understand? If the authorities – the police, the courts of law – are inefficient, then an alternative “authorities, police and courts” will emerge as sure as death and taxes. Let us reiterate it: weak, ineffective authorities set the stage for the emergence of alternative authorities. To use again a military comparison: a sergeant will command a unit for all practical purposes if a lieutenant, a nominal commander, turns out to be incompetent. That’s the way things are, have always been, will always be. How is it possible that those who wield the reins of power do not understand it?
How is it possible that they do not understand that making the victim’s family say, just in the aftermath of the attempted murder, that, We have many migrants who make a deeply valuable contribution to our country, including in our healthcare system and hospitality sector and we depend on them to make our country work is equivalent to rubbing salt in the wound? People see – either as eyewitnesses or watching the video footage – a black immigrant dissecting their compatriot in the street in broad daylight (and this is by far not the only act of public decapitation in the last decades!), and almost simultaneously they are told that the immigrants – the likes of the perpetrator – deeply contribute to the British healthcare system! How can one be so tactless? so thoughtless? so impolitic?
