Cellphone footage of the recent Clapham mob.

3,019 words

What is terrorism? There have been many attempts to provide a universally accepted definition. So many, in fact, that in the 1980s a Dutch academic named Alex P. Schmid reviewed over 100 such definitions and collated them into one:

Terrorism is the use (or threat) of violence against civilians, intended to create fear, in order to achieve political or ideological objectives.

Although academically respected, Schmid’s definition has never been universally accepted into legislation, and for an obvious reason. No nation wants to commit to a definition of terrorism which might one day describe their own actions. But Schmid’s definition seems perfectly serviceable, the key points being the use of violence, the ideological nature of the objective, and the fact that the victims are civilians, although that is not always the case.

Terrorism depends on perspective, hence the old saw; “One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom-fighter.” The list of those who fought for various controversial causes is a long one, but how history judges them depends on who is writing that history. The British Suffragettes, Nelson Mandela, Mahatma Gandhi, Michael Collins, Menachem Begin, Jomo Kenyatta, Ernesto “Ché” Guevara, Bhagat Singh, Josip Broz (Tito), and Joan of Arc were all seen as heroes and heroines to some, and enemies of the state or authorities by others. These men and women were all denounced by some as terrorists (or whatever the French was at the time for “terrorist” when Joan was alive), yet they were and are still revered by some in their host nations. The recently deceased Ayatollah Khomeini is still seen as a hero by many in Iran, despite Iran regularly being denounced as “the world’s leading terrorist state.”

The 1970s saw something of a high-water mark for European terrorism. Baader-Meinhof (aka The Red Army Faction), the Angry Brigade, Brigate Rosse, and the IRA (Irish Republican Army) grabbed the headlines, but there were many more such groups, and they did not confine themselves to killing random civilians. Baader-Meinhof, self-declared enemies of capitalism, assassinated the head of a major German bank in 1977. The following year, Brigate Rosse (the Red Brigades) captured and killed the Italian Prime Minister, Aldo Moro. The next year, the IRA blew up Lord Louis Mountbatten, a great-grandson of Queen Victoria and mentor to the current British monarch, Charles III. But these were all recognized terrorist groups, defined by and united in their respective causes. Not all terror groups are groups as such, with central command structures and a defined list of members. Al Qaeda, for example, is not some fiendish group of militants huddled somewhere in a cave. The Arabic term “al Qaeda” has a number of nuanced meanings, including “the protocol.” The emphasis is on Islamist ideology rather than a physical collective. Now, however, terror may be becoming something other than the spectacular and targeted attacks familiar to everyone over the decades. In Britain, it may be that the state is using next-generation terrorism, and has formed a proxy terrorist group of its own.

On the last day of March in Clapham, south London, a mob of hundreds of black “youths” descended on the High Street as if from nowhere, taking over stores and fast-food restaurants which they proceeded to disrupt, destroy, and loot. “Flash mobs” are not a new phenomenon, and are not always intent on mayhem. This one was. Fires were set, and passers-by (we might call them civilians) were assaulted. Stores were ruined and gutted. Many have stayed closed since for fear of a repeat performance, which is just what is expected over the Easter weekend. Although the BBC reported that “around 100 police officers were deployed,” footage show very few of them in evidence, and many of those that were seemed to be wandering around, unsure of what to do. They certainly weren’t making any attempt to tackle or arrest the hundreds of blacks acting like an invading army, many wearing masks. It can’t be said that the police made no arrests, however. During the worst carnage London has seen since the riots following the killing of three little girls in Southport in 2024, police made a total of six arrests. These were all black girls aged between 13 and 17, and all were released on bail, unlike the whites arrested after Southport.

The difference in policing between the Clapham violence and the Southport riots is yet another example of so-called “two-tier policing.” Put simply, white rioters are tackled immediately and with prejudice, while blacks are simply allowed to chimp out with no fear of arrest, and of course they know that. The media response was predictable. These “feral youths” (no one dares mention skin-color) were simply bored, as though providing soccer-balls and PlayStations would solve the problem. Why would this marauding army need those when they can just steal them? The London Evening Standard reported the following laughable advice from the Metropolitan Police:

Parents of the several hundred teenagers who gathered in Clapham have been warned to take responsibility by police, and make sure that they know where their children are.

Other sources blamed social media, with the attacks being planned on TikTok and Snapchat. Keir Starmer’s floundering government has been after social media for some time, and this will be used by them for ever-more censorship, but the real reason is hiding in plain sight. No one is prepared to point to the obvious fact that British black “culture” is just as dysfunctional as its counterpart in the US. Similar infestations are taking place in Los Angeles and elsewhere in America as I write, and the invasion seen in Clapham is something many Americans are used to. Is there another reason for these terroristic attacks, apart from the overall failure of blacks to act as though they were a part of human society?

Since COVID, the British uniparty has been desperate to replicate the success of its lockdown policy. This was never applied to blacks, naturally, despite the potential “superspreader” events during the BLM rioting in 2020. But white people, particularly, were bullied and cajoled into staying at home. There has been talk of possible “energy lockdowns,” with an oil crisis looming, but these are both national-level acts of oppression, as Britain ramps up its totalitarian two-step. At a local level, it is far easier to allow blacks to frighten people off the streets simply by failing to police them. Blacks were not afraid of the police before Clapham. They will be a lot bolder now, and therefore more violent. It may not be long before they make their first kills, just like a real terrorist cell. They may not be making bombs yet, but fireworks are increasingly being fired at both the police and the public. The British authorities and media routinely follow the same line the Biden administration took in the US: despite all evidence to the contrary, those more likely to commit both terrorism and more regular, everyday violence are white men. But the current British government may have found a terrorist group it can control, precisely by allowing them to get out of control. Violence and rhetoric aimed at whites is intensifying by the month, and there is nothing many young blacks like more than beating or stabbing whitey, although just terrorizing them is still big fun.

It might be assumed that any act which produces terror in anyone is an act of terrorism, but we have long since entered a time in which language and definition have become untethered from one another. The British police, after yet another stabbing or car-ramming, will eventually tell the public whether or not the incident is “terror-related.” This is code for whether or not a Muslim did it, as though that would somehow settle everyone’s nerves. But the ever-increasing numbers of attacks on the streets of Europe and Britain are beginning to look very much as though Schmid’s definition is applicable. And blacks, in sufficient number and acting with their trademark ferocity, may be used to take Europe back to the terroristic days of the 1970s, just in a different form. They might not have bomb-making factories or ideological or political obsessions, but that won’t matter once the serious beat-downs begin. It will still be terror. Besides, the people controlling them by not controlling them certainly have such obsessions.

You can order Greg Johnson’s Loving Our Own here

Although the members of Baader-Meinhof died in jail, and the other groups faded away, terrorist attacks by the IRA continued long into the 1980s. I should know. I don’t need an academic to tell me what terrorism is or is not because I have experienced it first-hand. In 1983, I was at university on the south coast of England, but at the weekends I would head back to London to see friends. To subsidize this, I took a Saturday job at Harrod’s, the world-famous department-store in London’s Kensington. I worked in a department called European Daywear, which sold chic suits to women with a lot of money. I once served Diana Spencer, who would later marry Prince Charles before going on to be killed in a high-speed car-chase in Paris, pursued by the paparazzi. She was a charming, shy girl with lovely eyes. If you look at the famous engagement photo, featuring Diana in a two-piece blue twin-set with a blouse decorated with swallows, it was me who sold her that. I also served Sebastian Coe, the famous English middle-distance runner. He was an arrogant little shit I very much wanted to punch, but I needed the job.

On one particular and fateful day, December 17, I was about to go on my lunch-break at 12:30pm when a message came over the Tannoy system; “All department managers report to their section manager.” I was neither, and there wasn’t even such a post as a “section manager.” It was a coded message meaning that the store had received a credible terrorist threat. Understandable, as they could barely say “Harrod’s has received a bomb threat” to a store full of shoppers without starting a fatal stampede. To this day, I still find it hard to believe what my department manager told us to do next. The IRA had been using what were termed “cassette bombs,” small explosive devices packed into music-cassette cases and intended to start fires, although perfectly capable of maiming a person. The staff were instructed to check the pockets of the various suits on display, discretely, for such devices. Can you believe that? “How was work today?” “Oh, fine, except for losing my hand. Still, I got to meet Lady Di and Seb Coe!”. My lunch-hour had begun, so I stopped looking for bombs and went up to the staff canteen. I never got there. There was a bomb, but it wasn’t in a cassette-case.

The 30-pound IRA bomb was in a van parked in Hans Crescent, adjacent to Harrod’s, and it detonated as I was on the escalator near the top of the building. Six people were killed, including three police officers, and many more injured. It was an old IRA trick; set the bomb and call the police. When they arrive, blow them up. They almost blew me up, but I got lucky. What I remember most vividly is that I could see people around me screaming, but I couldn’t hear them. In fact, I couldn’t hear much for two days. Apparently, this is a natural bodily response to sudden, high-impact volume such as a bomb-blast. The same thing happened after I saw Led Zeppelin. But, after the Harrod’s bomb, people closer to the explosion must have suffered perforated ear-drums or worse. I was facing the beautiful old glass windows, and remember seeing a ball of white flame ascending like a huge elevator. I saw terrorism that day, in its rawest form, and I saw terror in the faces of those around me.

The following year, The IRA bombed the Grand Hotel in Brighton. Their targets were Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, and members of her Cabinet, who were not among the casualties. The bomb had been planted some days earlier, and when it exploded at 2:54am on October 12, it woke me up. I was living a couple of hundred yards away from the Grand. Without wishing to appear glib about these horrific events, I wondered whether perhaps the IRA were after me. All very frightening, but now there is a new type of terrorism, and a use has finally been found for blacks.

In London at present there is a knife crime every 22 minutes, and the 13% of London’s population who are black commit over 60% of the violent crime. In what sense is that not terrorism? Schmid’s definition makes no mention of a recognized, named group being a requirement for the term to be used. We know who is largely responsible, although the government and their client media go to extraordinary lengths to hide the statistics. Blacks have been deep-state shock troops for a long time. This latest trend for gangs of blacks to gather in huge numbers and storm shops is spreading, and so is the terror that comes with it. There is plenty of video evidence, much of which has been shown on Right-of-center media. The only thing missing in these news reports is the observation that these feral stormtroopers are black. Occasionally, older people can be seen hurrying away from the scene and in obvious distress. They look, one might say, terrified. They are also civilians in what is becoming the race war that has been so long in the making. London’s Mayor, the Muslim Sadiq Khan, defends Britain’s capital’s increasing reputation for violence. He once casually said that terrorist attacks were “part and parcel of living in a big city,” as though his own people’s terroristic actions were equivalent to putting up with bad buskers and pigeon-shit. But the terrorists are no longer just Islamists with an ingrained grievance. Khan campaigned before his last election on a ticket which explicitly opposed “stop and search” (“stop and frisk” in the US). This would, of course, reduce knife crime, but is seen as racist because of the vast racial disparity in those doing the stabbing. It is an interesting perversion of reason which the West is becoming used to. The reasoning runs as follows: Black men are responsible for a hugely disproportionate of violent attacks in London. Singling out young black men, however, is viewed as racist. Therefore, it cannot become policy to search them in disproportionate numbers. Khan wins on two fronts. His liberal voter base approves of what is presented as an anti-racist measure. At the same time, more black boys are killed on a weekly basis, and this suits a Muslim like Khan, for whom the only good black is a convert to Islam. A few deaths are acceptable collateral. Blacks and Muslims in London despise one another, despite the fact that young Muslim men speak, act, and dress like blacks. It is often said that Muslims in the UK “fail to integrate,” but this is simply not true. They just integrate into the wrong culture. Whites are, of course, fleeing London, the notorious “white flight” naturally framed as a racist response. Eventually, blacks will follow, abandoning the urban playground for their attacks, and moving out to the more rural areas to spread terror to white communities who just want a separate peace.

So, we have come full circle, and returned to terrorism. Terrorism is usually associated with bombings and shootings, 9/11, the IRA, and so on, but I’m suggesting there is a new terrorist group effectively funded and organized by the British state. The government’s ideological motive is to terrify the white British, particularly the elderly. The killings will start soon, and the race war will begin in earnest. The contemporary version has all of Schmid’s definitional elements of terrorism, and now the government have provided the terrorists, along with their own ideology. Young blacks are not known for their studious nature, and are unlikely to be found with their nose in a political book to stoke their grievances. The government and media remind them on a daily basis that whites are the enemy, and all of them are racist.

Racism is, of course, the most serious of crimes to today’s British government, and it is only whites who commit it. But racism is far from being a misdemeanor for those on the ground, it is a self-defense mechanism. If the dead Ukrainian girl in North Carolina, Irina Zarutska, had been a racist, she would never have sat in front the of the black who plunged a knife into her neck and killed her. “I got the white bitch,” the killer said as he walked through a train carriage full of folk who made no move to help the girl bleeding out on the floor. Almost all the passengers were blacks. More terrorism, in its modern garb.

“Actions have consequences,” we are often told, as though the phrase had the rigidity of one of Newton’s laws of thermodynamics. Well, they don’t in London at present. Sadiq Khan, promised “enhanced police presence” after the disorder. The next day, Khan’s adversary in the next London Mayoral elections, Laila Cunningham, reported that no police could be seen. This is by design. It is often said, jokingly, that whites are becoming zoo-keepers to blacks. That joke is less funny when some are intentionally leaving the cage-doors open. In urban Britain, all the elements are being put into place to arm and enable a new model army. White police officers are leaving the force at a steady rate, increasingly unwilling to police blacks with the anti-white system so firmly set against them. Any police officer found guilty on a charge of racism would lose his job, his pension, and likely his house and family. Finding another job would not be easy. In order to recruit more officers, the police are making it easier for blacks, Muslims, and even new immigrants to join the force.

What this means is that whites are increasingly being policed by non-whites, while blacks aren’t being policed by anyone. And that really is terrifying.