Fitzgerald: The half-wit, his nail bomb, and his Islam

Fitzgerald adds two and two together and things fall into place:

Devon and Cornwall Deputy Chief Constable Tony Melville said Reilly appeared to be a “vulnerable” individual who had been “preyed upon” and “radicalised”.

He said: “Our investigations so far indicate that Reilly, who has a history of mental illness, had adopted the Islamic faith.

We believe that he was preyed upon, radicalised and taken advantage of.”

Reilly was arrested by police at the scene of the explosion. He suffered lacerations to his eye and some facial burning after one device exploded. — fromthis story

Fortuyn killed ‘to protect Muslims’

A Left-wing activist confessed in court yesterday to Holland’s first political assassination in 400 years, claiming that he shot Pim Fortuyn to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution. Telegraph UK

Mohammed Rasheed, aka Nicky Reilly, is said to be a half-wit — not a half-wit in the Garaudy or Galloway or Chomsky sense, each quite capable of low cunning, but a half-wit in the literal sense. And it is a quite plausible claim. For Muslim “activists” (fine word, activists — its awfulness reflecting the awfulness of all “activists”) are good at identifying, for the purposes of Da’wa, target populations of the economically and psychically marginal.

The explosive Mr. Reilly of Exeter turns out, unsurprisingly, to be a man with a history of mental illness, who was “preyed upon and radicalised” by Muslims.

This description fits perfectly the Dutchman Volkert van der Graaf, a demented man and “animal-rights activist” whose “concern for the most vulnerable members of society” led him to murder Pim Fortuyn — via Muslims who probably carefully explained to him that next to of course animals it was they, Muslims, who best fit that definition, they who were most vulnerable. And they most likely told him that it was bad old Pim Fortuyn who was out to get them and wouldn’t it be nice, wouldn’t it be right, if some brave protector of the “most vulnerable” were to come to their aid by shooting Pim Fortuyn dead so he wouldn’t any longer be able to threaten those “most vulnerable” and helpless Muslims?

And that is exactly what Volkert van der Graaf did.

There are those who continue to believe that because Volkert van der Graaf was not a declared convert to Islam, and was known as an animal-rights activist, his murder of Pim Fortuyn had nothing to do with Islam. They never seem, these people, to ask themselves two questions. First, what did the murder of Pim Fortuyn have to do with animal rights? Was Pim Fortuyn known for having taken any position on the treatment or mistreatment of animals? No, he was not.

The second question is: why did Volkert van der Graaf, then, murder Pim Fortuyn? What was it about Pim Fortuyn that he, Volkert van der Graaf, told the court was the reason for his murdering him? It is no secret. He made it clear before his trial, and at his trial, and after his trial.

From the Daily Telegraph of March 28, 2003:

A Left-wing activist confessed in court yesterday to Holland’s first political assassination in 400 years, claiming that he shot Pim Fortuyn to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution. Volkert van der Graaf, 33, a vegan animal rights campaigner, said he alone was responsible for killing the maverick protest leader last May, days before a general election in which the Fortuyn List party vaulted into second place and shattered Holland’s consensus.Facing a raucous court on the first day of his murder trial, he said his goal was to stop Mr Fortuyn exploiting Muslims as ‘scapegoats’ and targeting ‘the weak parts of society to score points” to try to gain political power. He said: “I confess to the shooting. He was an ever growing danger who would affect many people in society. I saw it as a danger. I hoped that I could solve it myself.”

Possibly van der Graaf arrived at this conclusion on his own. More likely, I think, is that Muslims used him as a weapon, a human guided missile that they could exploit and direct through the power of mental suggestion.

But it doesn’t matter. It was a killing for Muslims, on behalf of Muslims, for a Muslim cause, by a non-Muslim sympathizer, of a man known for his anti-Muslim views.

Surely that is enough to connect it to the case of Mr. Reilly, in Exeter, a half-wit whom more cunning Muslims, demented in a different way, were willing to exploit by putting thoughts into his head — which thoughts led to his little bomb, and little explosion. That explosion hurt, in this case, only him. But there are other half-wits, for Islam preys in the West not only on the economically marginal but on the psychically marginal as well. They are given a Total System that justifies them in their resentments. It organizes that resentment, often taken out in criminal activity, so that it all makes sense within the framework of Islam, as justified hatred of Infidels. Criminal behavior is reinterpreted, so that stealing from Infidels becomes justified as proleptic Jizyah, and rape of Infidel women — see those imams in Norway, explaining this so solemnly — is deserved, because of the way they dress, which means, of course, that they are, civilizationally, asking for it.

No, in this case there was what the Israelis dryly call a “work accident.” But what about next time, with the next half-wit?

One thought on “Fitzgerald: The half-wit, his nail bomb, and his Islam”

Comments are closed.