The Times, ‘MP’s dying words: ‘I can’t get up, my pain is too much’’, 18 Jun 2016:

Jo Cox’s last words as she lay dying were to tell her assistant that she could not get up because “my pain is too much”.

In a dramatic account of the MP’s final moments, Gulham Maniyar described how his daughter Fazila Aswat, who worked as Mrs Cox’s assistant, cradled her in her arms as she lay covered in blood.

That was the scene of the attack, an attack not just on one MP, but on the institution of parliamentary democracy itself. I open with that quote for context, to remind everyone of the gravity of what we are actually talking about here.

The Occidental Observer has an article called ‘The selective compassion of Jo Cox’, by Francis Carr Begbie, in which he, and I assume the editors at Occidental Observer share his view since they didn’t dissent from it, comes out and trashes the reputation of Jo Cox and tries to style as almost the worst thing that ever happened to the United Kingdom.

It’s truly astonishing to see the amount of hatred being directed toward an MP who was tragically assassinated by a crazed gunman, a woman who most of these writers were unaware of the existence of before she was killed, and who stood on the right wing of the Labour Party. She had also only held her seat in Batley and Spen for one year.

Mind reading and time travelling

The range of criticisms directed against the deceased is pretty wide. For example, Begbie accuses Cox of not caring about the white members of her constituency, because she didn’t comment on the Muslim rape epidemic when it had reached her town. Begbie writes, “of all the subjects she enjoyed sounding off on, this world-famous crisis affecting the poorest Whites on her doorstep was not one of them”. What was she supposed to say? How do they know what she was or wasn’t thinking about?

Jo Cox became the MP for Batley and Spen in May 2015, everything that preceded her taking that seat could not possibly be attributed to her, yet somehow ethno-nationalist sites across the internet have transformed her into the symbol of everything that is ‘wrong’ with Batley and Spen. That district became more demographically South Asian in 1950 because British businesses decided that they wanted South Asian workers from Gujarat, Punjab, and Kashmir to migrate to West Yorkshire to desperately protect the already-in-fact doomed textile industry which Britain had been maintaining with the use of protectionist policies since the 1880s.

Jo Cox showing up in 2015, cannot possibly be blamed for making the best of the constituency that the bourgeoisie themselves had given her. This makes no sense. It makes no sense at all.

She only just got there

No article is complete at the Occidental Observer without some kind anti-feminist insinuation, and so Begbie strangely includes this line, “Her constituency seat had been represented by local White men for decades so an all-female shortlist had to be imposed on the local party to ensure an acceptable candidate could be given this plum.” What complete nonsense! No mention at all is made of the fact that the constituency was redrawn multiple times and only came into existence in its present form in 1997. Neither is any mention made of the fact that the ‘local white man’ who held that seat was none other than Mike Wood who held that seat from 1997 to 2015. Mike Wood literally presided over every single development that the Occidental Observer complains about, including the gerrymandering and creation of the constituency called ‘Batley and Spen’, yet no mention is made of this man’s existence! He is merely glossed over as a ‘local white man’, as though that somehow makes everything okay.

Mike Wood presides over Batley and Spen for 18 years, is blamed for nothing. Jo Cox runs it for 13 months, gets shot by some idiot, and suddenly the Occidental Observer has magically discovered that everything is the fault of Jo Cox. Truly breathtaking. Fucking incredible. Maybe Jo Cox is a time traveller, she time travelled to 1997, and to 1950, perhaps?

Middle-Eastern migrant strategy

Begbie also writes of Jo Cox, that “she was also calculating enough to help more dubious causes, as when she lent her name to a government minister who was lobbying for Britain to begin bombing in Syria”.

What is dubious about this? Nothing. Begbie is referring to the letter which Cox wrote in a Guardian article on 11 Oct 2015, co-written with Conservative MP Andrew Mitchell, in which she places the rescuing of civilians at the centre of the parliamentary debate, and advocates for the creation of safe zones inside Syria so that the migrant influx can be stemmed.

Yes, you read that correctly. I will quote her directly. Here:

The Guardian / Jo Cox MP, ‘British forces could help achieve an ethical solution in Syria’, 11 Oct 2015 (emphasis added):

[...]

Some may think that a military component has no place in an ethical response to Syria. We completely disagree. It is not ethical to wish away the barrel bombs from the Syrian government when you have the capacity to stop them. The deaths and fear generated by these indiscriminate air attacks are the main drivers of the refugee crisis in Europe. Nor is it ethical to watch when villages are overrun by Isis fighters who make sex slaves of children and slaughter their fellow Muslims, when we have the capability to hold them back.

What is critical in advancing any military component is that the protection of civilians must be at the centre of the mission. This objective becomes ever more imperative in the light of Russia’s bombing in recent days. We need a military component that protects civilians as a necessary prerequisite to any future UN or internationally provided safe havens. The creation of safe havens inside Syria would eventually offer sanctuary from both the actions of Assad and Isis, as we cannot focus on Isis without an equal focus on Assad. They would save lives, reduce radicalisation and help to slow down the refugee exodus.

The approach of focusing on civilian protection will also make a political solution more likely. Preventing the regime from killing civilians, and signalling intent to Russia, is far more likely to compel the regime to the negotiating table than anything currently being done or mooted. Of course, a military approach by itself won’t work, nor will any of the other components. Only through an integrated strategy with the protection of civilians at its core can we rescue something from this crisis.

[...]

I invite anyone to tell me what precisely is wrong with that. No one can tell me what is wrong with that, because there’s nothing wrong with it. Some may ask, “But isn’t her mention of Assad a problem?” In actual practice, no. Only actions against ISIL could have had efficiacy since we know Russia’s presence in the theatre had already made it impossible for the west to directly attack the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) in the first place. The way I’ve highlighted bold text in that quotation is entirely deliberate.

Allowing all of the refugees to be contained within safe zones inside Syria and Iraq, would prevent migrants of all kinds—whether they are fleeing from the SAA or from ISIL—from actually feeling the need to cross to Europe, seriuosly reducing the scale of the crisis and accomplishing an objective that people concerned about migration ought to have been able to agree with.

Obviously the conflict should not even be happening. But it is happening and so selecting a solution that does not involve trying to house all the Arabs inside Europe, made her stance significantly better than the ridiculous mainstream stance of ‘just open the borders and absorb all migrants forever’.

This general pattern is similar to the idea that Anthony Zinni suggested.

I’ll quote Anthony Zinni:

TIME, ‘U.S. Military Plan For Looming ISIS Offensive Takes Shape’, 26 Feb 2015 (emphasis added):

There’s only one way to take land, and that’s with well-trained ground forces. That’s why retired Marine general Anthony Zinni thinks the time is right for Obama to acknowledge reality and tell the nation he is sending 10,000 American troops into the fight. Zinni ran the U.S. military in the Middle East and Persian Gulf regions as chief of U.S. Central Command from 1997 to 2000, and still has business dealings in the region. He’s just back from a trip to Cairo, and he says he’s hearing a growing willingness among regional powers to put troops on the ground to fight ISIS—so long as the U.S. is alongside them.

Rumbles from Egypt, Jordan and the United Arab Emirates all suggest those nations are willing to fight on the ground. “I think this is all designed to try to push the United States to put something on the ground,” Zinni said Feb. 23. “If we put a couple of brigades in, I think you’d get five or six regional countries. And I think you could twist the arms of the French, the Belgians and maybe even the Brits.”

Two U.S. brigades, with their supporting personnel, would total about 10,000 troops. Zinni says the nations in the region are not coordinating their efforts in an effort to lure the U.S. into the fight on the ground. “But they’re getting scared, and have gotten angry at ISIS’s atrocious behavior and they’re willing to step up,” he says. “It would have to be a whole set of bilateral relationships, and we would have to pull it together.

The U.S. would have to act as the catalyst to make this happen, says Zinni, who was an early advocate of sending U.S. ground troops into the fight. “There’s an opportunity now to put a small piece in terms of ground forces in there, and get a lot more from these countries, and be the glue that puts it together,” he says. “There is no unifying structure and no single entity out there that can bring this all together—it has to be the United States,” Zinni insists.

But what about Obama’s pledge to keep U.S. combat boots out of the fight? “They have a moment here and it’ll blow by if they’re not careful,” he says. Obama “could always say that the situation on the ground has changed, and the willingness of the Arabs to stand up to this gives us this moment,” says Zinni, showing why he’s a better general than a politician.

What Zinni was describing there, is very close to ‘Seek, Destroy, Clear, Hold’, a strategy currently being employed in Operation Zarb-e-Azb by the Pakistani Army with relative success.

It stems the flow of migrants because by holding the zones that have been cleared and rebuilding infrastructure on the fly, it prevents migrants from making dangerous trips to flee the violence, since obviously they could just stay in the location that they are in and receive assistance and protection around the clock.

The political problem is that selling ‘SDCH’ to whiny white western liberal populations is next to impossible, and that’s where MPs like Jo Cox are incredibly useful. She could provide the political and ‘humanitarian’ argument which constituents needed to hear, that the defence sector was unable to convincingly enunciate. I shouldn’t have to be explaining this, but what Jo Cox’s feelings about entirely hypothetical refugees in the United Kingdom were, didn’t frankly matter, given that the part of her plan that takes precedence in terms of the order of battle is that she supported the creation of safe zones in Syria.

No one would have to worry about whether she is or is not going to cuddle and appease Syrian and Iraqi refugees in the United Kingdom, if those migrants had never arrived due to the creation of safe zones in Syria. This is basic logic.

When you’ve been around white liberals and experienced them for long enough, you learn to accept that there are some aspects of their psyche which are biased toward indiscriminate kindness, and this is a bias that is not going to be changed by anyone’s words, but if they are willing to help find common sense solutions to problems then it is fine to link up with them in order to scrape out some limited gains in a bad situation.

What is treason anyway?

Jo Cox was among the best that you could expect from the Labour Party. It would be unreasonable to expect anything greater than what she had offered.

This is why I never had a big problem with Jo Cox, beyond the obvious fact that she’s a liberal. I was deeply saddened the day that she died.

Jo Cox is not ‘a traitor’.

Tom Mair is the real traitor here, and if the death penalty were not unfortunately abolished in the United Kingdom, I would hope that Mair would end up being hung from the gallows until dead. Mair has probably done more to assist our enemies than anyone else in recent years. Perhaps Mair will end up being inexplicably and mysteriously hung from the side of his bedpost using his own clothes knotted into a noose, but I can only hope. Hey, it happens sometimes, at times the CCTV in prisons just suddenly stops working for no apparent reason.

In overview, ethno-nationalists need to get more politically savvy, and stop running to defend every mentally ill white male who makes grief-stricken faces after committing some absurd, stupid, and horrific crime. Tom Mair was not a victim of anything, if he didn’t like the fact that all the South Asian Muslims had been concentrated into one area of that West Yorkshire constituency, he should have exercised some patience and self-control, thanked the stars that self-segregation had occurred and moved to one of the white areas of the constituency instead. He was not being forced to integrate with them, and Jo Cox had only just arrived in the constituency in May 2015 and had literally done nothing to him.

Tom Mair is stupid. This is not even 57-dimensional chess. It’s simple 2-dimensional chess. But he was a fucking idiot consumed by his own sense of entitlement and lack of strategic thinking. He is stupid, he is subhuman trash. And he is condemned.