Saturday, June 10, 2017

Mad Rant: Terror Attacks in Britain

I have been hesitant to say anything about the Islamic terrorist attacks in Britain, mostly because I am at a loss as to what more I can say on this subject. I was puzzling over whether to address the Manchester bombing when the London bridge attack happened. For me, it rather reminded me of the recent NATO leaders meeting in that I have often felt like asking why I should care about any given country if the people of that country themselves no longer care. You have little girls being blown to bits in Manchester, young girls being systematically raped in Rotherham, a young man beheaded on the street in broad daylight, people mowed down on Westminster bridge, people mowed down and stabbed with hunting knives on London bridge and on and on. Yet, instead of any mass public uprising, instead of any mass protests against the people responsible for these atrocities, we see nothing. There has been more public opposition to President Trump visiting Britain than there is about little children being butchered in the streets. What can you say to such cognitive dissonance that will embrace the murderers of your own people in the name of tolerance but become hysterical over someone who used crude language?

Earlier this year, some people in a small Syrian village were gassed (how or by whom is another matter as I have serious doubts, to say the least of it, about the version put out by the media) and this prompted an immediate military response with U.S. warships raining down more than 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles on a nearby Syrian airbase. Yet, innocent people being butchered in London or Paris causes no acts of retaliation at all, though it did not take long of course before the usual suspects started to again make the idiotic argument that somehow dropping more bombs on the Middle East or overthrowing the leader of Syria would make people in western Europe safer. Yes, there were police raids, the mayor of London, peace be upon him, said security would be more visible on the streets of London for a time but we have been through this before and we know nothing is really going to change. We know because there was immediately more concern about what Katie Hopkins said on Twitter than there was about the murders who went on a stabbing spree. It happens every time.

There are the usual protestations from the status quo about why nothing can or should be done to change things. We heard the usual warning against blaming all Muslims for the actions of the terrorists who just happen to all be Muslims (as if it is as purely coincidental as so many terrorists in the 60’s and 70’s being Irish republicans) and how the vast majority of Muslims in Britain are wonderful people. I would say, if that is so, and I am sure it is, they would be just as wonderful in their country of origin. The terrorists who attacked in London were, not surprisingly, on the “terror watch list” and yet they do not seem to have been watched very closely obviously. When asked why this is, the answer is that there are too many people on the watch list for the government to actually watch. That should be all anyone needs to know. Obviously then, this is not just an isolated few and the fact that there are so many people “of concern” should tell everyone that this is a widespread problem. If the authorities know there is something off about this group of people, it is safe to assume that their friends and neighbors know it too and yet nothing was said to the police to warn of these impending attacks.

Personally, I am at my limit on this subject and I have completely rejected the premise of the current argument. More immigration or less? Is assimilation the answer? What policies would help people assimilate better? No! I reject all of that. It all takes for granted that countries like Europe need, I say *need*, any other people besides their own. To put it mildly, I take exception to that idea. There were no Muslims in Great Britain for many, many centuries and everyone seemed to get along just fine. All the way back in the Middle Ages, King Edward I expelled the Jews from England and England still managed to roll on well enough through the Plantagenet period, the Tudor period and the Stuart period before Oliver Cromwell killed the king and invited the Jews back in. There were bad times in all those centuries of course, the Wars of the Roses were certainly unpleasant, but I doubt the presence of a few thousand Jews would have prevented them. Depending on where they landed, the Jews themselves may well have been better off. Thanks to intolerant King Edward I, after all, they were not around to be blamed for the Black Death hitting English shores as they were in other countries.

Differences cause problems, everyone knows this, and the bigger the differences, the bigger the problems. Trying to pretend that everyone is the same will not make everyone the same. I laughed out loud when one of the terrorists in the latest attack was identified as, “an Italian of Moroccan descent”. No, I’m sorry, being Italian rather requires one to be of *Italian* descent. There were, in the colonial period, French people who lived in Vietnam. There were French families who lived and died in Vietnam for several generations. No one ever called them, “Vietnamese of French descent”. Everyone, the Vietnamese in particular, would have thought the very idea absolutely insane and positively insulting. Similarly, this is why I have no qualms about saying that there is nothing wrong with mass deportations in response to the current situation. As I wrote about earlier this year in “The Double Standard on Deportations” no one thought it was racist or unspeakably wicked when the Dutch were expelled from Indonesia, the French were expelled from Indochina or the British were expelled from India. Everyone simply accepted that Dutch people didn’t belong in Indonesia, that French people had no business being in Vietnam or Algeria and that it was only natural for Indians to want India for themselves and so British, Portuguese or Anglo-Indians had to go.

Today, of course, while any other people could do it, such a thing is considered reprehensible for Europeans to do. It is “racist” for European people to want to keep their own countries for their own people, though it is not considered “racist” for seemingly anyone else. However, race should not even have to come into this issue specifically because this is about dealing with a religion rather than a race. Islam is not uniformly one color but includes Somalis, Bosnians, Afghans, Malays, Circassians, Turks, Arabs, Persians, Sudanese and so on. Still, I will be told that such discrimination cannot be allowed, that it violates the fundamental principle of freedom of religion. This is why President Trump has had so much trouble even putting into effect a minor 90-day pause in travel from a small group of countries, because America’s enrobed high priests of “justice” have determined that this amounts to religious discrimination and what seems to be an inherent human right for everyone in the world to come to the United States as well as, be careful, the fact that America’s laws apply to everyone in every country on the planet. That could get complicated.

None of the protestations of outrage ultimately affect me all that much because I do not accept the original premise these people are coming from. So, saying, “you can’t take action specifically against Muslims because that’s a violation of freedom of religion” prompts my simple reply of, yes I can because I don’t believe in freedom of religion and I don’t think any of our modern, liberal, governments really do either. What about democracy? I don’t believe in that either. News flash: neither do the liberals who prattle about it so ceaselessly. If they did, the SNP would not be talking about a second or third referendum on Scottish independence. If they did, the EU would not be set up the way it is. If they did, issues like abortion or gay “marriage” in the United States would not have been decided by a panel of unelected judges. The whole modern, post-revolutionary liberal-democratic model is simply a system of manipulation to gain public acceptance of the course our ruling class wishes for us to take.

The United Kingdom is, after all, supposed to be an officially Christian monarchy. Certainly England is supposed to be, so, I am merely arguing that the British start to act like it. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is an officially Islamic monarchy, their laws are Islamic laws and they do not allow Christianity in their country. Fine, fair enough, I have no problem with that. Likewise, then, I see nothing wrong with an (allegedly) Christian monarchy like Great Britain saying that they will not allow Islam in their country. Easy enough for me as I look back longingly on the days when all of this was taken for granted. In the Middle Ages, there were no Muslims in the Kingdom of England and England somehow managed to survive in spite of their absence. There was also no direct democracy, no idea that “all men are created equal”, no government run health service, no massive political bureaucracy, no political parties and no government welfare state. All of these were positive elements in my book.

Now, is the British government going to ban Islam in Britain? No. Are they going to deport everyone on the terrorist watch list? No. Are they going to do anything terribly different from what they have been doing in recent decades? No. As such, I have no doubt that terrorist attacks will continue, the usual routine of hash tag sympathy, political speeches and accusations of “Islamophobia” will go on as well. Particularly in light of the recent election, the British seem to prefer it that way and that is their choice to make. It does, however, as I said at the outset, make it increasingly difficult for me to have as much sympathy as I used to. The same applies to the continent. The French had a choice, they could have picked Le Pen or Macron and they chose Macron. They will have to live with the consequences of that. Le Pen could not have solved everything of course but I think that election was much more significant than most people think. Ultimately, it will take a spiritual revival to solve this problem. It will take a spiritual revival to make people care more about their own children and their own people than being called names, to then make them wake up to how they are being manipulated and then, finally, reject this liberal-democratic post-revolutionary mentality and bring about a true counter-revolution that will put government back in alignment with reality, with human nature and with the Heavens. That is my firm belief, but, then, I am … The Mad Monarchist.

15 comments:

  1. This rant was needed! I am surprised you where able to make a rant seeing as this just keeps happening and this is beyond tiresome!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, yeah. Sadly most people still are stuck in the republican mindset of the 3 so-called values of republicanism which are their "bible", liberty, equality, fraternity, which all don't work, but apparently saying otherwise means you're a Neo-nazi and it's "mean" to deport terrorists to their own homeland. Apparently. Hopefully some day people realize that no Britain should not be for everyone, it should be for British. France should just be for French of French descent and also stop the that you pass a citizen ship you're automatically that nationality

      Delete
  2. England is a Christian monarchy because the English monarch (or, as a practical matter, Parliament) is the head of the Church of England. KSA is an Islamic monarchy, but not because the Saudi monarch is the head of Islam in Saudi Arabia.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Another excellent post, sir. I have to ask myself how long can I have sympathy for a suicidal culture.

    Key points that I take from this one:
    ✔ The whole modern, post-revolutionary liberal-democratic model is simply a system of manipulation to gain public acceptance of the course our ruling class wishes for us to take.
    ✔ Ultimately, it will take a spiritual revival to solve this problem.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Excellent post! I remain in sympathy for the peoples of Britain, if only because no one deserves to die at the hands of terrorists, and romantically I still have a picture of old, grand Britannica in my mind.

    But ultimately you are correct. The intellectual change from an organic form of religion and government to an inorganic one (in my view, republics, with their "system"-based governments, are rather machine-like. The rise of "programs" - as if people were computers, waiting for their masters to program them, reinforces this), is the fault of good men who did nothing while the power-hungry burned down the garden to put up a mill.

    A spiritual revival will have to take on the spirit of the age and the sad reality of the severe doctrinal splits in Christendom. One can always hope though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That last point is just as large a problem. The "Christian" leadership of today is almost as warped as the political leadership. Revival there must happen as well.

      Delete
    2. The "Christian" leadership of today is almost as warped as the political leadership.

      Or possibly worse. They're motivated not by cynicism but by self-hatred and weakness.

      Delete
  5. There are some contrary examples, like your recent article which mentioned Rhodesia. Rhodesia was better off with Europeans than Zimbabwe is today. Asking if deportation was racist or 'justly racist' in these cases is simply a red herring. When you believe in your culture and have the evidence to support your assertions (as opposed to simple arrogance RE: China at the center of the world) the red herring becomes doubly foolish.

    There are several corners of the world which would benefit from a civilizing influence. Furthermore, there is no denying the role religion has played in the development of Western European culture. I'd like to see some of those who wish to flippantly discard these treasures operate in a foreign culture which has not developed due to these differences.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Unwise a thing may be yet still something one can understand. Something can be understandable and still be wrong. A difference between, for example, Rhodesia and say Vietnam is that the British colonizers created Rhodesia. They built it from nothing, Vietnam contrarily was not created by the French, it had existed for almost countless centuries beforehand. Has Vietnam been better off without the French? I don't think so, it hasn't even been as *Vietnamese* since the French were expelled. Likewise, Rhodesia has not improved since becoming Zimbabwe. The difference is that one was a preexisting country and the other was not.

      Delete
    2. Yeah in my opinion, all decolonization did in the name of so-called equality, was worsen the living standards of colonies. Practically every colony was better of under europeans than the natives, but hey today that's offensive and we need to be careful about saying it was better under colonial rule, because today it's seen as racist and you're apparently a new neo-nazi and hitler if you say it, because of so-called non existent equality, liberty, etc.

      Delete
  6. because I don’t believe in freedom of religion and I don’t think any of our modern, liberal, governments really do either.

    Our modern, liberal, governments believe in freedom from religion, not freedom of religion.

    What about democracy? I don’t believe in that either. News flash: neither do the liberals who prattle about it so ceaselessly.

    We don't have democracy. Representative democracy is not democracy. Representative democracy is a system designed to prevent democracy and to thwart the will of the people. It's a scam.

    Not that actual democracy would work but it would at least be more honest.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I agree with almost everything you said. It's funny you have a picture of King Edward I considering anytime I bring up his name cultural marxists immediately start squealing about how much of an evil anti-semite and islamophobe he was. However, although I am in agreement about deporting all potential terrorists, I think I go even further than you do. Importing ten million christian Somalis or Ugandans may not result in as many terror attacks, but it will still alter the character of the European countries they go to, especially considering that many of those groups breed faster. I'm not saying you need to have a race based state, but immigration in general, regardless of religion, needs to be restricted for the next couple decades. Again as you said, in the demonized medieval times, most of Europe was white and christian, and civilization did not collapse. Most of the monarchs from those times would be utterly horrified buy what they would see in Europe today, as not just Edward I of England, but also Charles VI of France, Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand of Spain and Manuel I of Portugal certainly had no qualms with deporting entire religious groups whom they deemed harmful to their nation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would agree with that too. I fully support the Arab Christians of the Middle East, but I want them to stay in the Middle East. Living in south Texas, I certainly know how a place can be changed by people of a different culture but the same religion as the majority population. I of all people could not possibly demand absolute race-based immigration laws but I do think such a thing should operate on a basis of being the exception rather than the rule, limited enough, as Mexico traditionally did, so that the native population is not affected by it.
      As for past monarchs, you could take the most radical, the most progressive, the most "Enlightened" monarchs possible and even they would be horrified by what their nations today have come to.

      Delete
  8. 100% agree mate. The decline of the Holy Christian faith is causing this spike in terrorism. The only solution is a return to the Cross. Unfortunate, I don't see this happening soon, as current Church leadership seems, well, too ivory-tower to even recognize the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Blue Knight - Well said, sir. The flock has been led astray by false shepherds promising that which they cannot deliver and telling them that they are all good people - God is Love! He loves you no matter what you do! Everyone goes to heaven! - All lies told by The Great Deceiver.

    The One True Shepherd looks back and sees only a few; He weeps for those lost souls.

    We were given everything we need in this life, but people refuse to believe it and prefer listening to charlatans who make them feel guilt-free.

    ReplyDelete

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...