SHARE
Par­liament in London | Pixabay

At least seven people died in a series of attacks in London coor­di­nated by Islamist ter­rorists on Sat­urday. More than 40 were injured. For hours, fear gripped the country.

After the recent tragedies at West­minster and Man­chester, the incident in London marks the third time in 10 weeks ter­rorists attacked the United Kingdom.

Sadiq Khan, the Labourite mayor of London, took to Facebook to “condemn [Saturday’s attacks] in the strongest pos­sible terms.” But last year, Khan said in an interview that terror attacks are “part and parcel of living in a great global city.”

Khan is wrong. The West should not get used to terror attacks; it should seek an end to this war through victory over Islamism.

Britons inherit a great tra­dition of resis­tance to tyrants. Whether com­batting French rev­o­lu­tion­aries, standing alone against the Nazis’ seem­ingly inex­orable march across Europe, or allied with the United States against com­munist total­i­tar­i­anism, the British people fought valiantly in defense of ordered liberty.

In this time of turmoil they — and the whole world with them — ought to turn to that tra­dition and leaders like Edmund Burke, Winston Churchill, and Mar­garet Thatcher who espoused it.

The first step in the path to that victory is moral clarity.

In the 1790s, French rev­o­lu­tion­aries swarmed Europe, spreading the Jacobins’ reign of terror across the con­tinent, with designs on remaking the whole world in their image. England entered a coalition with other monar­chies to fight this threat to their tra­di­tional way of life, but by 1796, William Pitt, the prime min­ister at the time, was con­sid­ering nego­ti­ating peace terms with the Jacobins.

Pitt’s plan hor­rified Edmund Burke, one of Britain’s greatest statesmen.

In his final book, “Letters on a Regicide Peace,” Burke said: “We are in a war of a peculiar nature… not with a State which makes war through wan­tonness, and abandons it through las­situde. We are at war with a system, which, by its essence, is inimical to all other Governments…It is with an armed doc­trine that we are at war.”

Burke knew peace with the Jacobins simply was not pos­sible. Unlike Pitt, they did not want peace in Europe; they wanted to impose their ide­ology globally.

Islamism, espe­cially the type pro­lif­erated by ISIS, pursues an escha­to­logical vision. Like the Jacobins, Islamists want to remake the entire world. Their jihad will not stop, because their aim is to usher in the end times. If Britain and the West follow Khan’s advice and grow accus­tomed to these despi­cable acts of ter­rorism, the death toll only will rise.

Former Prime Min­ister Mar­garet Thatcher had a similar moment of moral clarity, in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. In an op-ed titled “Islamism is the new bol­shevism,” she said Islamism “is an aggressive ide­ology pro­moted by fanatical, well-armed devotees.”

She went on to warn the West that “we have har­boured those who hated us, tol­erated those who threatened us, and indulged those who weakened us.”

Mul­ti­cul­tur­alism and lax immi­gration laws con­tribute directly to the threat of ter­rorism about which Thatcher.

In the last year, the Henry Jackson Society, a foreign-policy think tank, pub­lished a report iden­ti­fying home-grown Islamist ter­rorism as the greatest threat to the United Kingdom’s national security. Their report argued the British gov­ernment failed to implement policies that help assim­ilate Muslim immi­grants into British society. Instead, vir­tually every public insti­tution in Britain adopted a toxic mul­ti­cul­tur­alism that permits back­wards ide­ology to fester in minority reli­gious com­mu­nities — an envi­ronment that encourages young Muslims to turn to rad­i­calism.

National Review’s Andrew McCarthy, a former New York state pros­e­cutor who dealt with ter­rorism cases, said it best in the aftermath of the West­minster attack in March: “It starts with assim­i­lation-resistant enclaves that nurture Sharia supremacism today and thereby breed the jihadists of tomorrow.”

In the 1930s, Neville Cham­berlain — like William Pitt and Sadiq Khan — looked des­per­ately for a way to coexist with an “armed doc­trine”: Nazism. He led the West down a path of appeasing Adolf Hitler and his despotic hordes as they con­quered Austria and Czecho­slo­vakia.

“If the Allies had resisted Hitler strongly in his early stages,” Churchill said in a 1945 speech, “even up to his seizure of the Rhineland in 1936, he would have been forced to recoil.”

For that reason, Churchill called World War II the “unnec­essary war.” If the gov­ernment of Great Britain, along with what later became the United Nations, had better under­stood the threat posed by the Nazi regime, they could have imple­mented policies to stop it rather than appease it.

There are Neville Cham­ber­lains in the Western world today. They dress up their appeasement policy in terms of mul­ti­cul­tur­alism and accep­tance. Despite what they say, coex­is­tence with radical groups like ISIS is impos­sible. Victory over “armed doc­trines,” and the policy shifts that goal entails, is the only path to peace.