The death of 66 people following a plane crash has been hailed by Stuart Varney as a “plus” for Donald Trump and his proposed immigration plans for Muslims. Trump’s proposals follow the long-cherished tradition of prohibiting things that might kill us, though past experience tells us people will just end up brewing terrorists in their bathtubs instead. Of course, it’s this kind of ostracisation that breeds homegrown terrorists in the first place, but it’s not all bad – the inevitable backlash will one day be hailed as a plus for comedy hacks who need to make edgy jokes about conservatives “losing their heads.”
Outside of right-wing discourse, however, this tragedy isn’t all about the Donald and I’m a little embarassed to have framed it like it was. In the Trump era it’s difficult to talk about any topic without mentioning the next führer of the United States, but in this case it’s because he represents post-9/11 hysterics so well. The thinking goes like this: any Islamic terrorist attack vindicates the view that Muslims are dangerous. Any day that passes without an Islamic terrorist attack is a fluke. If you’re wondering where White terror attacks fit into this, the explanation is simple: people like Elliot Rodger and Anders Breivik are heroes standing up against politically correct tyrannies like feminism and multiculturalism, and are nothing at all like the Muslims threatening our way of life. With this in mind, allowing more Muslims into the country is like letting locusts into your house, which is why David Cameron likes to refer to groups of asylum seekers as “swarms.”
I often feel more threatened by our politicians than I do by the omnipresent Islamic Menace, though. Radical Muslims don’t want me having the right to get married to a man, for example, but then nor does my old MP, John Redwood. The average radical Muslim is more likely to radicalise a couple more people, in a sort of strange satire on pyramid schemes, than they are to actually kill someone. Redwood, meanwhile, helps make up a government whose benefit sanctions have killed at least 40 people since 2012 without a single cry of ‘Allahu Akbar.’ Statistically I’m more likely to be killed by secondhand smoke than by a disaffected Muslim, so most of the time I struggle to see what all the fuss is about. A lot of people just don’t want to be told that most Muslims are peaceful and that we have a moral duty to help refugees, showing how easy it is to be aloof about a humanitarian crisis when you’re a) not drowning, b) not developing malaria in a refugee camp, or c) not being incinerated by £100,000 worth of explosives.
At any rate, some ISIS chargé d’affaires will come forward to claim responsibility for MS804’s crash soon and, despite the fact that the majority of our terrorists and budding jihadis are homegrown, this tragedy will inevitably be used to justify further calls to block any more refugees from entering Europe. I look forward to seeing how the government responds to more pressure to toughen up its stance towards asylum seekers. After all, in the UK it’s already politically conventional to view children as a security threat; who knows what further scaremongering will do? But I can’t blame all our shortcomings on the xenophobic press and weak-willed politicians. Our current approach to asylum seekers also has roots in old English tradition. The witch hunters of the dark ages would have been proud to see us channel their mentality: if you float, you’re a witch, but if you drown – which you will – we’re sorry, but we couldn’t take any chances.
Follow and/or hurl abuse at me on Twitter @camerondechi