Lessons from Manchester--and earlier

For the last 50 years Western societies--run by liberals--have been using social conditioning to produce citizens who are group oriented and will obey authority.  The only form of aggressive behavior enccouraged by liberals is to savage anyone who deviates from their policies.  It follows that the only approved response to an attack is to run away and bleat for help from the authorities.

Animals having such characteristics are known as "prey."  No amount of soul-searching by the zebras to determine why the lions hate them--or how they can make the lions stop killing them--will change the nature of either beast.

How can anyone be surprised that such societies draw murderous attacks?

Focusing on who is killing our children would undermine the precepts and doctrines that many of those in power have built their careers championing.  Instead, all official efforts are intended to obscure the truth about who is attacking us.

To many politicians and leftists, "diversity" and multiculturalism are far more important than protecting the lives of their citizens.  How else can one explain politicians opening the borders and inviting into the country those whose religion demands that they kill everyone who will not adopt the invaders' religion?

These pols are so slavishly devoted to "diversity" that they even order the government to pay the invaders to immigrate.  They see that as virtuous, and who cares if a few people die?  As long as it's not their own children, why get excited?

Islam can't defeat us through force of arms, but our culture is so far gone in the irrationality of Islamophilia that our politicians seem likely to surrender to Islam anyway.  Need evidence of the irrationality of western societies?  Consider that many young women in Europe who were raped by Muslim men initially told authorities their assailants were white Europeans, because they feared telling the truth might stir resentment against Muslims.

Western "elites" need to stop claiming Islam is no different from other religions, and should start discussing Islam's obvious and profound dysfunction--and that this dysfunction lies at the core of Islam.  The crucial question is: How long will political correctness by the "elites" prevent western nations from recognizing the obvious?

It seems clear that Islam cannot be reformed enough to stop being a lethal threat to non-Muslims.  The reason is that for Muslims to stop trying to take over the world would require them to renounce their prophet's decree that infidels convert or be killed.  Muhammad repeatedly claimed that every word in what would become the Koran/Qur'an came directly from Allah.  To reject a word of it would challenge Muhammad's veracity.  Do that and Islam's entire theological foundation collapses.  It all falls apart

Virtually all American "elites"--including every talking head in the lying mainstream media--seem to consider belief in God or Christ as a sign of gullibility.  Stupidity.  They constantly make sneering  comments about religious Americans--though never about Islam. 

The contempt for those who believe in God lead them to reject notions of good and evil.  This leads pretty directly to their idea that Islam is no worse than any other religion.  Which is what they constantly tell us.

In the 1930's, as Germany was re-arming under Hitler, many people believed war was inevitable.  But with the huge death toll of what was then called "the Great War" (later changed to WW1) barely 15 years past, the offspring of British "elites" at the nation's top universities decided the best way to avoid a second war was simply (!) to pledge not to fight.

Simple, eh?

Thus on February 9th, 1933, students at Oxford (for students here that's their equivalent of Hahvahd) held a debate on the proposition "that this House will in no circumstances fight for King and country."  The students of Oxford Union voted 275 to 153 for the motion."

That vote was noticed--by everyone.  If the offspring of "the elites" voted not to fight, it sent a clear signal to anyone that the U.K. was unlikely to fight, regardless of provocation. 

Six and a half years later, Germany attacked Poland, marking the start of the second world war.

Today leftists, Democrats and the Lying Media in the west are making a huge push to ensure their nations take a neutral position on Islam.  I suspect most believe--foolishly--that if western nations adopt sharia law, little will change for the elites.  After all, to them all religions are equal.  And in any case our Constitution says our government must be neutral on religion.  It must follow--for the "elites" at least--that it doesn't matter whether the U.S. adopts sharia law.

Democrats and liberals have joined the U.K., Germany, France and the rest of the EU in effectively adopted a policy of refusing to protect their citizens from foreign invaders.  The reasons are unclear.  I suspect at least some national leaders honestly don't think there's a threat.  After all, all their elite peers believe in open borders and unlimited immigration.  It's the cool thing to do.

I suspect the main reason Trump was elected is that voters were looking for someone who would make our American government change course and start defending American citizens instead of paying to import invaders.  If the power of the State is only to be used to attack its own people, then that power is no longer legitimate.  If there is no rule of law or Constitutional supremacy, the elites can no longer presume to have the consent of the people.

 

A key idea of the American republic was that the common man was king--free to do as he wished as long as it didn't infringe on the rights of other.   Now the elites have decided that the course of the nation is to be decided by the editors of the New York Times and the Washington Post.

Hopefully a few tens of thousands of Americans will tell the elites--in unquivocal terms--that we strongly disagree.