On the social utility of mob violence


Another day, another jihad attack. another chorus of journalists and politicians telling us it had nothing to do with Islam. “It was mental illness, bigot. And even if it wasn’t, it’s nothing to do with ordinary, decent, hard-working Muslims.”

In the moral perversion that has come to define our ruling class response to jihad violence, Muslims become the victims of their own attacks. There may well be mental illness at play here. But not in the Muslims: in the journalists, politicians and public officials who shill for them.  This is Stockholm syndrome writ large on a civilisational scale.

Kidnap victims unconsciously internalise the mindset of their aggressors. They begin to see things from their point of view. The psychological impulse behind it seems to be a desperate desire to believe that the kidnappers are decent people and therefore less likely to commit an atrocity; this reduces anxiety in the potential victim. Mimicking the ideology of the aggressors may also make potential victims appear more sympathetic to them, and therefore less likely to be targeted.

The most sinister aspect of this process is that, for the most part, it is not a choice made deliberately by the kidnapped person. It is, rather, a subconscious psychological impulse, a survival instinct that must have proved its evolutionary utility in times past, otherwise it would not be so widespread now. Muslims have effectively hijacked our countries and a Stockholm Syndrome-afflicted ruling class is taking us on the path to destruction.

An alternative approach is suggested by a recently published paper about jihad violence in India. Basically, there isn’t much of it, given that India has the world’s second largest Muslim population. Why is it so low? The author surmises that Muslims fear mob violence in retaliation for any jihad attacks they carry out and therefore police their own behaviour. Muslims inform on other Muslims when they find out they’re up to something.

…this paper proposes a novel argument to explain why minority
Indian Muslims want to prevent militancy within their community: They fear retaliatory indiscriminate mob violence because they lack confidence in the government to protect them from the mob. Due to considerable grievances and appeals by militant groups (e.g., al-Qaeda), substantial militant sentiments could exist within the Indian Muslim population. However, this perceived threat of retaliatory indiscriminate mob violence incentivizes Indian Muslims to inform on individuals that are planning to engage in militant violence. Due to this high rate of informing, potential militants are deterred from following through on their actions. Therefore, under these circumstances, we would observe few Indian Muslims participating in militancy. Indiscriminate mob violence is not the same as indiscriminate state-led violence. The latter can either backfire on the state (Kalyvas and Kocher, 2007; Kocher et al., 2011; Condra and Shapiro, 2012; Benmelech et al., 2014) or damage militant support (Lyall, 2009). I reason that indiscriminate mob violence exhibits a unique deterrent threat that is distinct in both nature and effect from collective punishment enacted by the state. Using this reasoning, I argue that the credible threat of indiscriminate mob violence would almost always suppress militancy within a marginalized minority.


After every attack in the West, the ruling class goes through the same routine: expresses sympathy for Muslims, insists it has nothing to do with Islam, deploys resources to shield Muslims from any retaliation. This paper suggests that approach may be counterproductive. Instilling fear in Muslims may instead induce a favourable change in their behaviour.

If we assume that no western government is likely to sanction mob violence against Muslims any time soon, other forms of collective punishment could be contemplated that might have the same effect.

For example, every time a jihad attack occurs, the number of perpetrators involved could be counted. Multiply by 100 and demolish that number of mosques, selected at random. Also demolish every mosque the terrorists ever attended. Multiply by another 1000 and expel that number of Muslims from the country, selected at random.

In this way, a jihad attack with 2 perpetrators would result in the demolition of at least 200 mosques and the expulsion of 200,000 Muslims. This kind of collective punishment approach might produce the same self-policing behaviour we see in India. And, if not, jihad becomes a self-solving problem anyway, since the Muslim population of the country would be rapidly depleted as attacks continued.


2 thoughts on “On the social utility of mob violence

  1. thats why the niggers in south africa under apatite behaved for the most part, fear of white mans retaliation if they chimp out. i hear they arrested another muslim filming the attack that had a bag full of knifes but have just let him go without charges, its a crime to carry 1 knife let alone a bag full. mean while we have gangs of 300+ somali nigger teens running rampage every week with the police just sitting back watching, more worried about their personal safety that the public they are suppose to protect. self defense in australia is a crime these days and the mass migration of non whites to our once great country will be the lid on our coffin unless we re instate the white australia policy and deport all the non whites and put the abbos on reservations, but that will never happen while the jew owns our money and leadership.


  2. Non-Whites are overwhelmingly more genetically predisposed to criminal behavior than Whites or far east Asians. It could very well be and most likely is the fact that such an individual was of perfectly sound mind when he committed such criminal acts. He’s not crazy; he’s just acting under his genetic proclivities. Having said that, it seems this increasing push to classify more and more of these events as a “mental health issue” is laying the groundwork for everyone and anyone who exists outside the accepted political narrative to be deemed “mentally ill” and involuntarily confined (jailed), just like they did in the old days. How convenient, especially since there is no way to provide empirical evidence in a medical sense that a mental “illness” even exists.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s