On Saturday (in London) a Muslim waved a sword and shouted “Allahu Akbar” at the police. This was outside Buckingham Palace; which is the Queen's “official residence”. The man was arrested on suspicion of terrorism.

Hours after the attack, the Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, predictably said:

“London stands more united than ever.”

This is yet another rendition of the formula and cliché which is often proclaimed after an Islamic terror attack:

X is united.

And then Khan said the following.

“My thoughts are with the police.”

This too is a use of the following formula and cliché:

My/our thoughts are with X.

What does it mean to say that “London stands more united than ever”?

Not much.

For a start, London is a geographical place. It certainly doesn't speak as a whole. That's because it doesn't speak at all.

When politicians come out with such clichés, either of the following may be suspected:

i) Such politicians believe that there's no solution to the problem (or event) they're talking about

ii) Such politicians aren't really that concerned with the problem (or event) they're talking about.

Sadiq Khan, after all, did say that terrorism is “part and parcel of living in a big city.”

The Mayor of London said that “London stands more united than ever” only a few hours after the attack. Thus even if the whole of London could talk to him, how did Sadiq Khan find this out so quickly?

How many Londoners did Khan speak to? Which Londoner didn't he speak to? Did he speak only to those Londoners who're bound to say “London stands more united as ever”? On the other hand, did he speak to Trotskyists, communists, members of Momentum, Islamists, Deobandis, Salafists, the leaders of Corbyn's Stop the War Coalition, “radical lawyers”, “human rights activists”, "civil liberties groups", etc? All the former would never have said that “London is more united as ever” because they neither believe nor want that.

Again, to say that “London is more united than ever” is to say almost nothing.

Moreover, how can London be “united” if this attack occurred in London? That's a contradiction in terms. Sure, the attacker is from Luton; though he most certainly could have been from London.

London isn't united anyway.

There's a large minority of Muslims who want to destroy London and Britain and then make it fully Islamic. There's also a large minority of left-wingers who want to destroy London and Britain and then make it fully socialist. These two groups tie into each other in that many middle-class left-wing lawyers, politicians, academics, activists, anti-racists, etc. defend Muslims - and even Islamic terrorists -- no matter what they say or do. Moderate left-wingers or Labourites, on the other hand, simply come out with clichés instead.

The upshot is that nothing radical is ever done about Islamic terror because left-wing professionals make it almost impossible to do anything at all. Such socialists/progressives effectively succeed in bringing about non-action against Islamic terror. They do this with the help of legal action, EU law (at least until March 2019), accusations of "racism"/"Islamophobia", political activism, demonstrations, council policy, etc. As for moderate leftwingers and Labourites, as I said, they come out with mind-numbing clichés instead.

The result of all this is that the situation with Islamic terror will almost definitely get worse and worse (i.e., exponentially worse) in the coming years. The use of political clichés is going have zero effect on that fact.

It's possible that the arrested Muslim was planning some kind of attack on Buckingham Palace. For a start, he was stopped because his car was in a restricted area. That, in itself, wouldn't be that suspicious. However, the fact that he had a large sword in his car and immediately cried “Allahu Akbar” means that there might have been good reason to stop him.

(The Arabic words “Allahu Akbar” mean God is greater, not God is great. That means that it's a direct challenge to other gods and the God of Christianity.)

Professional left-wingers will challenge all this, including the reasons the police gave for stopping this Muslim in the first place. They may even talk about “Islamophobia” and “racism.” Who knows, perhaps Jeremy Corbyn will mention our role in Afghanistan and Iraq or what the British Empire did in 1947, 1917, or even in 1583. What Corbyn won't mention is Islam and its 1,400 years of jihad and violence in which literally dozens of millions have died.

If there had been an attack on Buckingham Palace and people had died, then today there would be “peace vigils” and many pious and empty words (like Sadiq Khan's). Then life would carry on as before... until the next attack! The next attack could very well be next week or even tomorrow.

As Sadiq Khan famously implied: Londoners have to live with Islamic terror.

Paul Austin Murphy is a writer on politics and philosophy. He's had articles published in The Conservative Online, Intellectual Conservative, Human Events, Faith Freedom, Think-Israel, Brenner Brief (Broadside News), New English Review, etc. His philosophy blog can be found here. His blog on politics can be found here.