It was clear centuries ago that Islam is a malevolent force in this world. Just as obviously, Muslims today use our laws against us to obtain a protection for their subversion and terror, and thus to achieve their time-honored goals from within our countries. However, our laws were intended for white, Christian Europeans and Americans not for barely civilized Muslims (and Africans).
This thought -- lawfare -- is perplexing to Western morons who never met a foreigner they didn't want to worship or a white Western country they didn't want to destroy. Sensible, patriotic people resent being played for chumps by people who hate our guts.
The great Islamic religion points the way to a solution -- second-class status for infidels, otherwise known as People of the Book when we're talking about Christians and Jews. Dhimmi status for infidels any Muslims don't care to exterminate is just bedrock doctrine for adherents of the great Prophet. Thus, there's no Muslim objection to creating an identical status for Muslims that is just as uncomfortable, unpleasant, and humiliating for them. Too, we know how justice is one of the concepts dearest to the heart of all Muslims, so they can appreciate the principle of do unto others as they actually do unto you.
Similarly, Muslims who offend the honor of any infidel need to be dealt with according to the tried and true Muslim device of the "honor killing." A healthy Western country would not tolerate casual, extra-legal murder on the part of savages. While our countries are unhealthy we need stern justice to regain our health.
Of course, the chorus of saps who wet their pants over foreigners will howl in dismay at my workable suggestions, interim as they may be while the overall problem of Muslims and Africans in our societies is dealt with.
In the meantime, after each new terror event, we'll have more of the hours and hours of cable news images of police milling around, ambulances carting away the dead and wounded, deadly earnest chalk line drawing, resolute yellow tape stringing, and spiffy police supers talking about after-the-fact reactive measures and the impermissibility of even daring to think that Muslims and lunatic immigration policies are the ONLY reason why such tragedies take place.
Theresa May is even now ordering in a twenty-five pound bouquet to place on some London street, preferably without any icky blood from any of the victims to get on her shoes. This is what will pass for a draconian crack down on the part of the Conservative Party. The Catholic Church will be asked to dip into emergency stocks of votive candles to tide the government over until replacements can be shipped in from Hong Kong on a priority basis. Muslims will know that the government is deadly serious then. Look out now, you swine!
7 comments:
And again, the threat level will be raised from "candlelight vigil" to
"Double Teddy Bears". That'll show them.
How many times must the West play out the same charade? Candle light vigils, overlaying their Facebook page profile with the flag colors of the most recently attacked nation, singing the insipid song Imagine all the while warning against the dreaded backlash against Musloids which never occurs. Tell me again, what's the definition of insanity?
Until the UK literally starts herding these jihadis in their midst out of the country and closes their borders, it's all just more happy talk from their psychopathic ruling class.
They have become the Eloi. Why is no mosque burning? Why are there no riots, no lynchings? Is there an unbroken window in a moslem neighborhood? Why?
But JWM! That's... Mob rule! Anarchy! That kind of stuff is not who we are! Good heavens we can't- you know- hit back. It would be uncivilized. Bring us down to their level! Can't have that...
can we?
JW(too pissed to keep going)M
Every nation in the pre-industrial age lived in isolation from all other nations but for traders, travelers, and the odd invading army. For better or worse, their laws and customs were their laws and customs. Britain didn't make its laws with an eye to making them apply equally to Jamaicans and Fiji Islanders. It literally didn't occur to Icelanders that Zulus would one day walk the streets competing for wombs and jobs with native Icelanders. Now, with cheap modern travel and funding from George "el Diablo" Soros it's piece of cake for millions to wash up on the shores of lands with different cultures and laws. "Here we arrrreee!!"
Yet, even in 1759 there was a brilliant Englishman who grasped the danger of uncontrolled movement of savages.
On related note, Mark Styen was on FoxNews while it was covering the terror attack last night and remarked brilliantly how the British authorities, I assume, are ineffectual and play around with different threat levels. Day before yesterday - high alert. Yesterday - really angry. Today - mildly perturbed.
The last was his witticism and just choice.
I can't add much to what you've all contributed. Once you admit of absolute equality/everyone's a child of God thinking it appears you're pretty much disarmed where it comes to dealing with reality. There's a vestige of understanding that criminals deserve disparate treatment but short of that the Western gooneybird class can't even recognize hostility and pathology when foreigners use their public swimming pools as latrines. Sam Johnson has the story.
The West has thrown out religion and God, and now is trying to plug the resulting hole with some jerry-rigged contraption of rights and equality that has been elevated to divine status. I don't even bother trying to figure out how leftists' minds work anymore, but there's more than enough evidence on the respectable Right of this attitude.
Americans have the advantage of a Constitution and Bill of Rights to focus the attitude. When those were written, by religious men for religious people, they were understood to be blueprints for action. A well-working system for running a community. Those underpinnings are gone now, and the result on the Right is the elevation of the blueprint to an infallible dogma. A phrase like "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" (if it's even understood anymore) is now regarded as an eternal precept, true at all times and in all places. A solution to the malignancy of Islam is to ban Islam. This suggestion is not greeted by "Well, the Constitution would prevent that, so we'd have to change the Constitution first," but by "The Constitution forbids it! It can't be done! Never never never never!" It's the same reaction a Christian would have to the declaration that God was helpless to prevent an earthquake or a massacre - a shocking impiety. Even to suggest it is an insult.
Equality gets the same treatment, via the "All men are created equal" slogan. This is now dogma, not to be questioned. It's religion that makes universal claims, not government.
Well, drat. I drafted a long response but then Firefox crashed and it is no more.
The injunction that Congress shall make no law is the law of the land. I don't agree it's eternal. It's just the law unless changed by amendment. I don't see any problem with banning Islam as the Constitution was not drafted with the idea that the First Amendment was meant to apply to every cannibal, jihadi, or Hindu who washes up on our shore. It was meant to apply to the Christian religion though there will be a chorus that it was also meant to apply to the tiny Jewish presence. I'll defer to more learned people on that point.
I think you're incorrect to say that the right takes the position that things now unconstitutional can never be done. Rightists simply don't take the position that the Constitution is unchangeable. Clearly there are provisions for amendment.
The "all men are created equal" idea is a minor star in the constitutional firmament if you axe me. It appears in a doctrine that created nothing but aired a laundry list of grievances, notwithstanding Lincoln's bizarre interpretation. It was drafted by one guy and edited by a small group of other guys. Marching orders or positive law for the ensuing centuries? I don't think so.
You're quite right that it is unquestionable dogma QED. More's the pity as the Constitution is about limited government and protection of natural rights. Airy fairy ideas are nice but as far as I'm concerned it's absurd on its face, people aren't equal. Howevvvver, that we are equal before the laws is a tip top idea.
I'm not much of a student of scripture so I don't have a view on Christian universal claims. Rather Christianity seems to say that any and all can ensure salvation by having faith. Even if you acquire that it's render to Caesar and all that.
I don't know where you get the idea that government is not a source of universal claims. Multiculturalism, diversity worship, and worship of any and all manner of perversion are pushed as just natural parts of the natural order here, there and everywhere. Woe betide the citizen who decides to take on the government on any of that.
Post a Comment