Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Islam is, for now, included under this topic

Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Postby Gavin » 23 May 2017, 09:47

I happened to look at the news just five minutes after reports started coming in last night of "explosions at Manchester Arena". The reports were vague, with people thinking it might have been a speaker "exploding" or something like that, but eventually police confirmed people dead.

I felt rather differently about this attack because it came after so many others. I suppose I have become more cynical. While the attack is despicable, I must confess I found myself wondering how many of the victims (or rather their families) would, prior to this, have called us "racist" for saying there is a problem with Islam or mass immigration. The children themselves are perhaps not so much to blame because they have been thoroughly indoctrinated by our politically correct education system and are not allowed to think - even less state - many truths.

When turkeys vote for Christmas it's quite hard to sustain sympathy for those turkeys, though one cannot help but care about the human suffering this horrible attack has caused - and on the other hand, many people do vote to save the country. UKIP received 4 million votes at the last election (though they will not receive many this time) and millions of French people did vote for Le Pen - just not in the cities, which are barely French anymore now anyway.

Greg Johnson of Counter Currents says we should still care about the plight of "our people" even if they don't care about it themselves. They have after all be subject to relentless conditioning from the mainstream media. He likens the masses to children, saying that we still care about children if they are too foolish to do what is best for them. Maybe he's right. People have differing intellectual capability and resistance to conditioning, after all.

I'm going to work with the assumption that this is another Muslim who has committed this atrocity and, if it is, I would suggest this is either an asylum seeker who was after some time denied asylum, or possibly another apparently integrated individual (like the minor-level schoolteachers etc. of before) who has then decided to go and commit jihad. I am going to suggest there were signs, signs of disgruntlement, comments which were ignored. Probably some family had good reason to suppose this person might do something like this but they did nothing about it. The individual may or may not have been on the security services' watch list.

A failed asylum seeker would commit this attack out of desperation and resentment. I don't think it would be simply because the Qur'an calls for the death of infidels. If those infidels give you room and board, better to just outbreed them. Of course, that the asylum seeker would commit such an attack due to "desperation" does not in any way excuse him, implicate us or provide any argument that he should have been here in the first place. I'd like to live in large beach mansion in Malibu, but if I simply intrude there and start bombing people when they ask me to leave, I would be in the wrong. One alternative to having even genuine refugees in the UK would be to set up safe zones in their own countries (assuming we should do anything) and those who are here should be here strictly temporarily, not forever. But our government is nowhere near arguing for or implementing such policies and not many of the general public seem to think like this either. They still need waking up, but it makes you wonder how many explosions or how many girls raped would be required to do it.

So the other likelihood, it seems to me, is the standard disaffected young man. A Muslim, probably in his twenties. Doesn't fit into the society at large. Considers concerts like this one depraved. On this point I will just divert and say he would be to some degree correct. Our people worship figures who are not in fact very profound, or even very talented, to say the least. This has always been the case for the masses - the only difference today if that the elites endorse the same. Our young women do often dress like prostitutes, young men look and behave like thugs, adults are not often even married, they dress and behave like children. Swearing and vulgarity are commonplace and yet a saccharine sentimentality also abounds, along with vast self-esteem and militant political correctness. Our society is indeed arguably in a state of decay and the Muslims are not at all mistaken to notice this. But needless to say, bombing it is not the answer. And they don't bomb it to correct it, they bomb it to strike out in frustration largely because of their own inferiority.

The Muslims who commit these jihad attacks have usually tried to partake in western culture to some degree. They've been drinkers, maybe drug takers, seen prostitutes and so on. They have suffered from a lack of, or a confused, identity. They have not felt fulfilled. Why?

Well, partly it will be racial. People recognise race as "kin" instantly because they know there are certain commonalities which are not only skin deep. Human beings are very unlikely to have evolved absolutely identically the world over, with the only differences being outwardly obvious. Genetic differences explain cultural differences and explain why, for example, IQ differences continue to persist even after generations of one race have lived among another. The Pakistani or Bangladeshi is not in most cases able to bond as well with English people as he can with his own, simply because he feels a natural affinity with his own at a deep racial level. Thus he will always feel to some degree alienated from them. Since his people are in a minority, then he may feel resentment towards the host. Whether this kin identity is a good or bad thing, and whether it is possible for it to eventually be overcome, is currently a moot point.

But there is more to identity than race. The Pakistani or Bangladeshi has no roots in the UK, really. None of the great architecture was made by his people. He can't look around the National Gallery and marvel at the past, his people's past, the talented artists and statesmen and scientists his country has produced. His history is not our history. Our culture is not his ancestral culture. He has been transplanted and "popped on at the end" but he is utterly disconnected from our historical continuity and feels no identity with it. He also knows he was never even wanted here. The British public never voted for mass immigration, they never wanted millions of Pakistanis or Bangladeshis occupying English towns. These were government decisions, government mistakes, now probably very much regretted. So again this individual feels out of place. When he sees that the culture he is in is also in a state of decay, he cannot muster any respect for it. The Ariana Grande concert would not have been chosen by chance. (I had never heard of her previously, but having read about her now I can see and agree that her worship is nothing to be admired.) He is a fish out of water and he's going to strike out at this society which is dominant yet seems not to deserve to be so. He's a Morlock who's going to eat those Eloi.

Now the immigrant thus described may also feel he just can't get ahead in society. He will not be discriminated against - there are laws about this and companies plough millions into explicitly trying to be as "diverse" as they can be - probably to the direct detriment of their commercial success. But he is not only in someone else's society but in many cases he'll feel frustrated. He can't succeed and rather than blame himself he will of course seek to blame others instead. It's easy for him to do this when he sees "the other" - the other race, the other culture - but the truth is that if he is Pakistani or Bangladeshi he may well have suffered not only from a retrograde historic culture of dysfunction and non-achievement possibly due to genetics, but also from inbreeding here in the UK. There is a great deal of this going on and it's another thing which our politically correct government will not mention. It lowers intellects; it's another ingredient for the bubbling broth of resentment. The immigrant feels he can't compete and he's right. He can't compete and, although many white people can't compete either, he feels no identity with this society and knows they never really wanted him here either. Bleak.

What of the role of Islam? Well it has to be faced that not all Muslims do commit jihad attacks. From this it of course does not follow that Islam should be welcomed in the UK or indeed that any Muslims at all should be here. But we can deduce that being Muslim (at least by self identity) alone is not enough to cause people to commit terror attacks, and further we can notice that many jihadis at least in the West are not very devout Muslims. Their issues arise rather from the above identified grievances. They might sometimes arise, in line with these, from a sense of shared identity with others of their race in the their countries of origin and a feeling that their host country has abused these people in some way. But this is merely a proxy, an excuse, and not a genuine reason, as many European countries are attacked when they have had no history of imperialism whatsoever.

What we notice is that these jihadis in the west are usually not very Islamic then become more so, I would argue, after they become filled with resentment - commonly for the above reasons. Islam is not good, but Muslims who are not filled with resentment do not bomb people. Immigrants who are filled with resentment (for which there is usually no justification, I would emphasise) often turn to Islam (as indeed sometimes do ginger-haired white people). Why do they do this? In the case of immigrants perhaps partly because Islam is their roots. It provides a strong cultural identity since they cannot, or cannot any longer, buy into our corrupt one. We are not even proud of ourselves, our identity, our history, so why on earth should they be? They can see it's depraved. They're losers themselves, they can't aim higher. Islam offers strong identity, purpose and a kind of purity (if a stupid purity) with very little effort. It is also opposed to western civilisation, which has in a sense beaten them. They don't even need to read the Quran to be able to call themselves Muslim. They know also that Islam gives license to strike out and kill these perceived oppressors who are, after all, depraved. That's a bonus. If they become suicide bombers they can die in an act of glory, avenging this society while feeling superior. In the case of the ginger haired white jihadis, they will feel themselves to be outcasts, too, for other reasons, so they join something which is opposed to that which has "beaten" them.

That's what's going on with these people. In the Middle East things may be a little different, with people utterly mind-washed with Islam from birth, often taking it very seriously, believing all the commandments to kill those who don't think exactly as they do. That's probably less so in the UK. Some of those do arrive here of course due to us taking in "refugees" but with our home grown jihadis I think Islam is more often a "hook" for deeper issues of identity and resentment. Of course it is still unwanted here because it is not our culture and it is primitive, backward and hateful.

What should be done with all these people? What should the government do? Well, coming back to the Manchester attack, they have called a COBRA meeting. That's understandable but of course this is probably just yet another person who was a failure and did not integrate. You can't solve this problem with COBRA meetings. The only solution is to begin to assert our own values and identity much more strongly and if people don't like it make it easy for them to leave. When two tribes come together, there'll be war. Unless individuals from the one want to assimilate into the other. Even then it will be impossible unless they do so in small numbers - drop by drop gradually - and ideally by invitation.

The government should probably not simply come out and say "Islam is antithetical to our values" and shut it down. That's our place. All of the demos should be saying that and the government should not be persecuting us for doing so. But if they were to do so then they would have an immediate civil war which they may find it very hard to control given numbers now. But our government should at least be hinting in that direction. Illegals are easy to deal with, for example. Our government should be making deliberate efforts to identify and deport thousands of illegal immigrants who reside in the UK. Criminals should be punished and deported. They should announce that mosques will be monitored. They should have banned halal. Little by little they should begin to send these messages. It might end in financial incentives for repatriation.

Along with this we must try to offer a society worth joining rather than overthrowing. Not one based on mere conspicuous consumption and vulgarity. It's all a complicated web, which is why it takes a post like this rather than a tweet to begin to get into it. But arguably nobody should be here who is not offering value to our society, and large numbers of people from a different culture allowed here against the will of the people is a recipe for a civil war further down the road. Equally, we cannot allow ourselves to be conquered by Islam. Western society has to accept some of the blame (also for the rape of its children, incidentally) yet we also have to fight back. All that is happening, we are allowing to happen. We really owe nothing to other countries, but we people of traditionally British culture are now rapidly losing our own, because so many people are here not because they love it, or feel any affinity with it, but because they can see it's ripe for the taking.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Postby Paul » 24 May 2017, 02:05

A good post Gavin. Nothing that hasn't already been said here and unlikely to be anything that readers don't already know but worth saying again anyway.

I thought I would make a post, having not done so in a long time, but also because I only live a mere 12 miles from the City of Manchester, and perhaps just 13 miles from the city centre and thus the scene of this latest incident.

When I heard about it in the early hours of Tuesday morning I wondered what Ariane Grande (have I got that right?) actually was. I thought it might be a 'thing', an event or exhibition or other fringe concern that Manchester seems fascinated with. It might be something to do with mass homelessness and the recent and current problem with the 'Spice' drug that now infests the inner city. (The regional news footage of 'Spice' usage has been astonishingly shocking).

Then I realised this was a music gig and wondered who Ariane Grande were. I thought they were a group. Eventually I realised it was an individual 'artist' and moreover a female. And then an American female. Nothing I have discovered since has any edifying value whatsoever. The woman dresses like a hooker, cavorts around stage with negroes and, according to comments I've seen under YT videos, has a basic lyrical message (to young white girls) amounting to - go and f*** black men!

There are layers of commentary at this point before any bombs have been detonated.

Too much of this stuff comes winging across the Atlantic from America. I'm not seeking to criticise all aspects of the US or the people, but I would criticise a large segment of it. At the same time our own authorities see nothing wrong with admitting these people and permitting their performances, whilst simultaneously managing very easily to prohibit other Americans who may wish to visit, on the basis of amorphous concepts like 'hate speech'.

What are British parents doing allowing their young teen and even pre-teen children to attend these events? Inevitably, given the ages of the kids, many of the parents actually attended with them. British parents haven't entirely abandoned their children to degeneracy - alone that is. These days they join in with them.

I read the story of the 'heroic' homeless man earlier, who was begging outside the venue when the blast occurred. He ran inside the building to help and apparently did good work. He had a woman die in his arms it is reported. She was in her sixties! And a grandmother!

So here we have an elderly woman taking her pre-pubescent grand-daughter (for such she was so doing) to watch a scantily clad young woman gyrate about a stage with near naked negroes. For her pains she was blasted to death by a nail bomb. She was given the last rites by a homeless man who had until recently been begging on the street for spare change.

Welcome to Manchester! It's apparently a 'vibrant' city. Welcome to modern Britain.

In another irony the homeless chap (and another) have been feted and a go-fund-me page (s), to their benefit have an hour or so ago totalled about 70 odd thousand pounds. At the same time I've not heard about any popular collections for the victims or families.

I don't wish to say the homeless fellows were bad people, that their actions weren't actually selfless (it's probably broadly true, they will be some species of hippie after all) and that they don't deserve praise or even assistance with their current plight. It just catches my attention that the general public would so swiftly rally to these fellows and with such generosity. One cannot help but think these homeless chaps strike a very emotional chord with the overwhelmingly left-wing public. One may mourn the death of a score of children but how terrible is the plight of these homeless men? They're probably only in the position they are because of 'the evil Tories'!

The reality could well be they're in their current position because of the evils of Feminism! Or they may just be Spice addicts! Of course it could be neither of those things. Nobody knows any more. We live in an asylum.

Early Tuesday morning, upon arising I did my usual browse of the web. Already the dominant message among the young (predominantly female, on social media) was .......... not to be a racist. References were being made to the IRA, to the killer of Jo Cox and to 'white-skinned rapists'! The young women are so mind-controlled that they cannot bring themselves to speak the plain truth, nor even see the facts before them that amount to that truth.

I have a daughter now aged 24. She now has a 2 year old son. She has never needed too much 'red-pilling' and is quite traditional and to the right on her own steam. Since the baby arrived this has been accentuated. She isn't fooled by any of the nonsense but is upset and involved mentally (in a way) in respect of murdered children. Apart from one other friend, outspoken and so rapidly losing friendships, all the other young women in my daughter's peer group are far more concerned about the plight of Muslims and black people than any other. This morning I witnessed them (in text) all squaring up for a cat fight among themselves in solidarity with Islam and making sure we all remembered there are white criminals too. I had to disconnect from reading that.

Another irony is that some of the young women were being backed up and supported by their own Mothers (of course), who are also Useful Idiot lefties. I know some of them, they're my age group. I also know that several of them are degenerates and moral basket cases. One particular woman I know to be a married adulteress and a classic champagne socialist hypocrite. If Islam were dominant, as she likes to suggest, she would have been STONED TO DEATH decades ago. You really couldn't make this craziness up. Of course I'm dying to say something........

My daughter, for her part, has had a full day away from the internet (not a bad thing either), in order to avoid being drawn into the whole sorry mess. So have I, being busy at work all day.

I called at Mum's on the way home on Monday evening, a couple of hours before this bomb incident 13 miles down the road. The conversation there, regarding the election (or specifically 'the Tories') is best left for a thread in the Leftism section of the forum. I shall attend to it shortly. Suffice to say my Mother is a total fool, politically speaking. I'm afraid to say (actually I'm not) that immense numbers of women are fools in this way too.

On Tuesday morning I called in at Mum's again on the way to work. For no specific reason as I mused, walking through the door. I'll have a coffee ..... and deliberately not say anything about current events, to see what might happen, unusual for me. Nothing happened. There was no mention of the incident in Manchester just hours and mere miles away. The interminable BBC election news was on the interminable TV set. All my parents are bothered about is finding fault with Tory politicians. This all relates to what free stuff they might not be given - even the stuff for which they don't and never will qualify for (and would never claim for anyway). Then there's the NHS. They're fascinated with the NHS and no matter the conditions, it will never be quite good enough. The events in Manchester, whilst not to say they are irritating to them, are nevertheless a fringe occurrence on the edge of their consciousness. It's a terrible thing yes, but have you heard what the Council are saying about bin collections?

It's debilitating by now. You have the outright murderous enemy on the one hand, the enablers and appeasers on the other and a great mass of useful idiots in between. I read a comment earlier that said - 'Children? They're the next generation of tyrants'!
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Postby Charlie » 24 May 2017, 05:44

I can't really add anything to what Gavin and Paul have said, but there's a line in James Burnham's The Machiavellians - though I don't have it to hand - about how the worldview of the masses (the ruled) is very much shaped by the elites (the rulers).

Seems like an apposite thing to mention as the jihad-hashtag cycle spins again.

Burnham's statement may be entirely obvious, but then remember that the elites push stuff like this:



It's not just what we listen to. It's who we are.


True enough, sadly.

(It's good to see propaganda like that get so heavily downvoted, but out among the masses there are still far too many people devouring the same lotus as the elites.)
Charlie
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Postby Gavin » 24 May 2017, 11:55

Yes, that's really something to aspire to there, isn't it? Our future: an entitled, rapping, Muslim woman. And the boot of government coming down all the time telling us to approve of it. That spells the end of civilisation.

Paul, thanks for your interesting reply. Yes, it is a long time since we've been posting on here, because we have understood the situation for years now and are just watching it unfold and worsen pretty much as we had predicted. In my long post here I just wanted to really summarise my current thinking and wrap together all sorts of points and observations on these topics into one place. (I must have listened to hundreds of podcasts etc. since we last wrote here and I have been reading about previous wars - always ethnic).

Charlie, I read that hit piece on Richard Spencer and thought the review of it was quite right - more about the author than about Spencer. Transparent attempts to just slur and demonise him instead of actually considering and if necessary refuting his arguments. That's the way of the Left.

I see "option two" seems to have been pretty much correct in my predictions regarding this loser who has killed the children in Manchester. I always think about what I have written, what I might be missing, and possible objections. The "rejected asylum seeker" scenario was on this occasion unlikely, I think, as it might have been harder for that individual to make a bomb - he would probably have used a truck or knife instead.

One thing I mentioned is that losers like this one can't compete. In this case we have to consider who might be acceptable. We have a lot of substandard people coming into our country who are no use to it. But what if they were actually really capable and useful? I mean, what if for example we had been taken over by Germans? We wouldn't like that either. A people resent being colonised, although being colonised by a more advanced culture is arguably objectively better than being colonised by an inferior backward one - and funding it yourself.

So it's quite hard for these people to be accepted either way. Mass immigration is just a bad idea. It's de-facto invasion: you lose your territory and your culture. Immigration can only happen very slowly, naturally and by invitation. The occasional marriage, for example or the odd foreigner who just really loves our country and culture and moves here for that reason (wouldn't really be very common). When large numbers come we end up with what is actually a totally fragmented society, bubbling with resentments, just as we see today.

On the other hand I have also thought about a possible logical regression if the ethno-nationalist route is followed. For example, let's say you remove not only broad culture but also race and ethnicity within that from the picture. You've still got potential political disagreements. You've got many differences going right down until you are atomised as an individual. The idea being we need to "work together" and "get on", that where we draw the dividing line is somewhat arbitrary.

Maybe, and maybe the best ideas can prevail. But numbers also prevail of course in a democracy and that's a major problem there, produced largely due to the disaster that is feminism plus mass immigration. Also people do tend to form natural ethnic "blocs" which make for major divisions. Really as Douglas Murray says in his new book, none of this should have happened with the approval of the British people, and such massive changes should have been put to referenda. Instead, our government won't even deport foreign criminals and it punishes open, healthy, criticism of Islam.

The government also faces the problem of having, at the moment, a few thousand potential jihadis in the UK, but if it comes down hard on Islam it suddenly "activates" a few hundred thousand more. They know that. These Muslims will work together, especially if push comes to shove, whereas our people are still too busy watching X Factor and Ariana Grande etc. Still, we can't be held to ransom like this. This is why we have armed police and the army. It's time to get a lot, lot tougher on the problem.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Postby Danny » 24 May 2017, 15:54

Some very perceptive stuff in this thread. I don't have anywhere else to vent, so forgive me for adding my penny's worth...

Twitter has been awash with variants on this theme:



So, when will it be time to get political? When the dead have been buried? When the next bomber strikes? When fighting breaks out in the streets?

Of course, such displays of liberal hauteur are attempts to discourage debate altogether – not merely to postpone it until a more appropriate time.

In an attempt to depoliticise what is happening, the left seek to portray terrorism as simply tragic; the appropriate response to which is sadness, not anger. As if suicide bombers were merely an unfortunate force of nature, like hurricanes or earthquakes.

I felt disgust as details of the attack emerged, but can’t say that I experienced either shock or surprise.

Watching events unfold, I’m struck by a sense of foreboding, a sense that we’re approaching something dark and unavoidable - a cataclysm in which multiculturalism collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.
Danny
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 07 Apr 2016, 09:20

Re: Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Postby Charlie » 24 May 2017, 18:23

Danny wrote:Watching events unfold, I’m struck by a sense of foreboding, a sense that we’re approaching something dark and unavoidable - a cataclysm in which multiculturalism collapses under the weight of its own contradictions.


Absolutely.

As Malcolm Pollack put it:

OK, I will say this, then: how many conflicting ideas can you hold in your head at once? Here is a tricky triad. See if you can make it all hang together:

1) Our society should celebrate, and encourage, sexual diversity in all its forms of expression.

2) Our society should celebrate, and encourage, multicultural diversity in all its forms of expression.

3) Our society should celebrate, and encourage, peace and harmony and happiness.

Like I said: tricky! This will be on the final. Don’t forget to show your work.
Charlie
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Postby Paul » 24 May 2017, 20:47

Peace

Freedom

Diversity.

Choose any two.
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Postby Paul » 24 May 2017, 21:10

Yes Gavin. Much of what needs saying has already been said here, as is perhaps the way with all kinds of forums. You can only repeat things so many times, at least continually. It may be that in the interval between the last post I made prior to yesterday, and yesterday itself I have witnessed perhaps 500 instances or made observations, about things that would merit a post in the various threads here. No doubt others are in the same position. I don't just mean large, newsworthy stories that we all hear about. I mean also strictly local issues, things specific only to the people I know or see personally, or the local area, or local politics or matters peculiar to one's own field. Everything seems broken, and of course it is. So we all see a myriad of problems all the time.

Charlie - that video is just something else. No surprise of course, by now, but one still has to see these things to believe them, in a way. What kind of people are ever attracted to stuff like that?
Paul
 
Posts: 512
Joined: 02 Aug 2011, 11:37
Location: Lancashire, England.

Re: Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Postby Charlie » 25 May 2017, 12:14

I now regularly get the feeling that mad old Christians like Bruce Charlton may be right:

The totalitarian state notched up another ratchet in Britain this week. Terrorism is now proposed and accepted as normal. Increasingly complete mass surveillance - excused by, but not actually preventing, terrorism - is normal. Recurrent lockdown emergencies are normal. Armed police and troops in swarms are normal.

In institutional life micro-management, pervasive propaganda, constant monitoring and thought-control are now normal.

The problems must continue, we are told - but in actual practice we are also told that we must adapt to them: and, it turns out, we must adapt by more totalitarianism.

The message is being hammered home by word, picture, deed and - most powerfully - by no change... except more totalitarianism.

(Totalitarianism doesn't work at preventing the problems - but that's okay, in fact that is the point! - because the problems are created as excuses for more totalitarianism, and therefore the solutions aren't supposed to prevent them!)

Modern people put up with all this because we are hollow men, stuffed with straw; men without chests; lacking any religion hence lacking any motivation to do anything inexpedient.

To take effective action would be to invite reprisals. And to endure short term suffering en route to long term good... but for us there is no long term good. (For us, death is the end of everything; a comfortable life is the ultimate we can hope for.)

We are cowards. Because atheism doth make cowards of us all. Because not to be a coward requires a goal beyond the immediate; and for a population not to be cowardly requires some clear social goal which would be thwarted by totalitarianism. People can only be brave when they have something to be brave about.

To resist totalitarianism requires courage and a reason; courage requires being able to imagine and believe a better goal than what totalitarianism promises; a reason requires being able to imagine and believe that we, personally and now ought-to work for that better goal.

(Courage cannot be conjured from nihilism. And we modern Britons/ Westerners believe in nothing. The frenzy of a cornered rat is not courage; and is anyway utterly ineffectual against a vast totalitarian system. What is needed to escape totalitarianism is cold courage - the hardest courage of all to attain, because it is a consequence of high and firmly-held impersonal ideals.)

Atheist societies are utilitarian - in their explicit aims at least - everything done justified by making people (some people) feel better. But when/if people's feelings are the end-point of justification, then government becomes a matter of manipulating people's feelings - which is exactly what totalitarian systems are aimed-at; which is exactly what we now have.

But what is in it for those in the leadership who deliberately create the situations that create terrorism? Those who claim it is impossible to change what they have created (because effective change is unthinkable, unsayable; so we therefore must just-accept more-of-the-same causes, so we must therefore just-accept more-of-the-same consequences: accept this as normal.

(Even as 'normal' is very obviously and very quickly getting worse: getting more totalitarian.)

What they are actually doing - on purpose, planned, with deliberation - is to create an ever-more totalitarian state. Why is this strategy so hard for people to recognise?

They aren't incompetent, they aren't well-meaning fools, they aren't self-enriching hypocrites: they are doing what they want to do, and doing it more and better every month: they are implementing totalitarianism step-by-step and they are winning!

Why? Simple. The aim of totalitarianism, from a Christian's perspective, is not to kill us nor to make us miserable, but to get us damned. That is why they do it.

Thought control is desired in order that we will choose damnation over salvation - our thoughts will be policed, minds filled, actions directed, feelings manipulated towards sins: sins such as fear, resentment and despair.

That's it - in a nutshell: infuse fear, resentment and despair - all sins, all leading to self-chosen damnation. That is, to the active rejection of Good because Good is now considered to be evil.

This is a spiritual war. A Christian war.

We cannot conjure courage from cowards - and the Western population just are cowards - lacking cold courage. Because lacking ideals - indeed modern people cannot even imagine anything better than pleasure and comfort: that is the summit of fantasy.

First we need a basis for courage. What is needed are love and hope, based on faith in God (not feelings); and aimed at eternal joy (not comfort and convenience, amusement and the avoidance of suffering).

If totalitarian mind-control becomes complete; it will be because ultimately we did not want anything better.
Charlie
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Postby Danny » 25 May 2017, 14:26

Pretty much...

Terrorism is merely the presenting symptom of a deeper, cultural sickness.

The deeper issues will persist for so long as our elites continue with the fiction that Britain (uniquely among nations) is a cultureless void with no traditions other than relativism and ‘tolerance’.

We need a basis for courage


We simply need to understand that our heritage is worth fighting for. And that, without a fight, ‘Britain’ is doomed to become merely an antique geographical term, like ‘Sumeria’ or ‘Scythia’.

The beginning of a resolution will be found in the rediscovery and re-emphasis of our culture and identity. We have forgotten what government is for. Government is for defending our national borders, maintaining order and preserving our national way of life. It isn’t a cash cow, or a force for furthering tolerance.

A government that emphasised the preservation of our national heritage would simply deny Islamism the space to flourish.
Danny
 
Posts: 13
Joined: 07 Apr 2016, 09:20

Re: Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Postby Charlie » 25 May 2017, 22:32

Saw this elsewhere - it's taken from the Guardian:

Abdalraouf Abdallah, 24, was jailed for nine and a half years last year after being convicted of funding terrorism and preparing acts of terrorism. Abdallah had helped a number of men travel to Syria so they could fight in the civil war. He was unable to travel himself because he is paralysed from the waist down after being shot during the Libyan revolution. The family friend said Abedi and Abdallah knew each other: “All the Libyan lads in Manchester know each other”.


I'm not sure whether or not the Guardian meant to give the game away in such a flagrant fashion.

"Not All Muslims" they tell us.

Right, so not all (Libyan) Muslims in Manchester will blow themselves into bolognese at local pop events, but they do know a guy who would.

PS: I agree, Danny.
Charlie
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Postby Charlie » 26 May 2017, 17:21

I don't think anyone around here would disagree with James Thompson's assessment:

Feelings are not a proof of accuracy in judgment, but they are a guide to examining new actions. The Islamic terrorists are making a clear statement: We can kill you whenever we like; we can kill your children; we can kill you in your most important public places; we can make your leaders hide behind bodyguards; we can make you partly undress every time you go through an airport; we can make fools of you by using your laws against you; we can make you scared of making fun of our religion even while you make fun of what remains of your own; we can have more children than you do and get you to pay for them; we can breed resentful losers in such large numbers that any one of them can become a murderer, and it is unpredictable which Mohammed will take the predictable step of murdering you; and you will accept our excuses that we had no idea that that particular Mohammed would take the logical step of biting the hand that fed it, in the sure and certain knowledge that you will feed us once more.
Charlie
 
Posts: 435
Joined: 13 Jan 2013, 19:43

Re: Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Postby Gavin » 26 May 2017, 19:55

Outstanding. Thanks for pointing us to that.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Postby Jonathan » 26 May 2017, 20:42

Gavin, Paul, Danny, Charlie - lots of good points in this thread. Not sure if I have all that much to add.

This reminded me of the Dolphinarium bombing back in 2001.

A failed asylum seeker... So the other likelihood, it seems to me... Well, partly it will be racial... But there is more to identity than race...


When I see you trying so hard to understand what's motivating these Jihadis, it keeps bringing into my mind a verse from Kipling's "The Stranger". I can't recall if it's been mentioned already in this forum - it's a poem which pulls you in to serious contemplation, I think, and not one well suited to be read lightly - but this is the relevant part:

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control--
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.


Who is to be considered a stranger in this sense? Seventy years ago the Germans would have qualified as strangers, but now they don't look so bad. Two hundred years ago, it would have been the French. There is no absolute standard to guide us in every single case. Then again, in some cases the answer seems so glaringly obvious that no absolute standard seems necessary.

The Pakistani or Bangladeshi is not in most cases able to bond as well with English people as he can with his own, simply because he feels a natural affinity with his own at a deep racial level.


I think it's more of a cultural force which is invisible to western eyes, so we flounder about looking for explanations (race, Quran, Islam). The eastern mentality is: Honor above all; my honor is my family's honor; honor is defended with blood. If you curse a muslim in the street, he makes a phone call and ten minutes later you're surrounded by his brothers and his cousins and his neighbors. Tommy Robinson described such experiences in his book, and in interviews. This clan mentality is taught from age zero. It's part of the culture. The red-head English convert gets the same protection, once he's part of the in-group, however racially different he may appear.

His history is not our history. Our culture is not his ancestral culture.


Given the state of post-modern education, our culture is not ours anymore, either, and nobody knows anything about history.

When he sees that the culture he is in is also in a state of decay, he cannot muster any respect for it.


Sigh. So true.


What we notice is that these jihadis in the west are usually not very Islamic then become more so...They're losers themselves, they can't aim higher... In the Middle East things may be a little different, with people utterly mind-washed with Islam from birth...


It's worth noting that in the Middle East we get both kinds of Jihadis. You've got the card-carrying Hamas members, who threw molotov cocktails when they were 14, spent 5 years in jail after shooting at civilians, and then blow themselves up at 28. A fictional biography, but there's nothing particularly unlikely about it.

Then you've got the other kind. A woman with 70% burns over her body (read: disfigured and therefore humiliated) tries to blow herself up with her doctors. A woman who was caught having an affair volunteers to be a suicide bomber. A stunted, slightly retarded teenager attacks soldiers at a checkpoint. A woman with psychiatric problems - two recent suicide attempts - pulls a knife. A teenage girl in a perfectly happy family - so reports a fawning left-wing reporter - pulls a knife at damascus gate, where half a dozen other attacks took place, and gets shot to death. I'd look carefully to see which of her uncles is particularly pale at her funeral. These are real examples, culled from my memory.

The point is that the ideology of Islam provides a solution to all the misfits and tragic victims of Islamic society, who have lost all honor and whose lives have become an endless sequence of humiliations. Note that these humiliations are inflicted by muslims upon muslims. The woman who had an affair is not being harassed by Israeli soldiers at checkpoints, she is being humiliated by muslim men and women who now treat her as a whore. These are spontaneous attacks, which often cannot be interdicted by security services.

There is a difference worth noting, here, however. The sudden Jihadi in Israel uses a kitchen knife. The sudden Jihadi in Europe uses a bomb or an assault rifle. Evidently, a Jihadi in Europe can get his hands on advanced weaponry with the same ease that a Jihadi in Israel can get his hands on a knife.

Along with this we must try to offer a society worth joining rather than overthrowing.


Again, so true. Though, of course, a remote location or secure borders might make the question less pressing :)



Then I realised this was a music gig and wondered who Ariane Grande were... The woman dresses like a hooker... At the same time our own authorities see nothing wrong with admitting these people and permitting their performances


I agree with your diagnosis of the problem, but I fear that if the government had this power, it would only be used to prevent criticism of Islam, rather than maintaining the native culture. This has got to come from within the society - Englishmen organizing to set an example to other Englishmen.


Really as Douglas Murray says in his new book, none of this should have happened with the approval of the British people, and such massive changes should have been put to referenda.


I'd heard of his new book, but after seeing you mention it as well, I went ahead and ordered it. My only quibble with Douglas Murray is how he handled the Insult Erdogan Dirty Limerick competition. I had such high hopes for my entries, and was somewhat dismayed to find that political considerations had dictated the outcome.

That said, I suspect he may be indulging in hindsight. Even though no majority of Britishers ever voted for these consequences, they tacitly approved of the policies which led to them. There were no hundred-thousand strong demonstrations in support of Enoch Powell, were there? It's the same all the world over. A majority of Israelis also supported the Oslo accords. I was as blind as any, at the time.


Terrorism is now proposed and accepted as normal. Increasingly complete mass surveillance - excused by, but not actually preventing, terrorism - is normal.


Have you perchance seen the movie 'Brazil', by Terry Gilliam of Python fame? It predicts this perfectly, except that it was made before Islamic terrorists seemed to be a real threat.


The beginning of a resolution will be found in the rediscovery and re-emphasis of our culture and identity.


A renaissance.
Jonathan
 
Posts: 407
Joined: 03 Aug 2011, 05:14
Location: Israel

Re: Thoughts on the Manchester bombing

Postby Gavin » 27 May 2017, 08:02

Yes, we're trying to understand them - but also to a good degree succeeding, I think.

It's certainly well known that Muslims have a strong sense of "honour" and a hair-trigger sensitivity to any perceived slight (good point). You actually see a similar degree of the same among our underclass thugs and even many of the British public in general too today, but it is still arguably more pronounced among Arabic peoples. I think the question is "Why do they feel their honour to be offended?" and I suggest the answer lies in the kind of things I mentioned: underachievement - in part perhaps due to lower IQ, knowing they have a primitive culture, feeling like a fish out of water (not being dominant in someone else's country), dismay at seeing even a decadent culture do better than theirs. Even things like being rejected by women too, so they embrace that strong point of identity which requires no effort: Islam.

You see less tribalism among our own people, certainly: they are unlikely to be able to muster three brothers, cousins etc. within minutes to come to a fight. Well, the Muslims have a lot more children (largely at our expense) and many of our families are totally fractured now because we are in decay.

Part of the problem is that second-generation Libyan, for example, has of course not been obliged to in any way adopt our national culture and norms, from birth, even inasmuch as he is able to do so.

On race, I just wonder whether the red-head English convert ever is considered such a tight member of the group as the Middle Eastern Muslims. Perhaps he is, or perhaps there is always some kin barrier. I wonder what others think about this. For my part I think race barriers can be overcome but only if small numbers are presented - just like adding drops of another liquid to water. If there are very many then kin kicks in and you're going to get major divisions. Maybe Jews understand this best of all. Sam Harris wants Israel to no longer be an ethno-state but I am not sure how multicultural it is at the moment or what the current consensus is on that matter in the country.

I said "His history is not our history. Our culture is not his ancestral culture".

Jonathan wrote:Our culture is not ours anymore, either, and nobody knows anything about history.


This is quite true but I wonder if the immigrant does not still see evidence of a culture his people simply did not build all around him when he lives in the UK, in the sense of parliament, the architecture and the people. At least in a residual sense. But you are right that we are fast losing our culture and that our people are very ignorant of history and many apparently cannot wait to adopt the culture of the ghetto or of African tribes instead (see the preponderance of gross piercings and tattoos).

Jonathan wrote:Even though no majority of Britishers ever voted for these consequences, they tacitly approved of the policies which led to them. There were no hundred-thousand strong demonstrations in support of Enoch Powell, were there?


Powell did receive thousands of letters of support from the British public. I think we have to bear in mind that the media and political class had great control and influence at that time and could filter debate more easily than they can now. They could very easily control people's thoughts over this new phenomenon of mass immigration, which they felt was wrong, but of which they were told they must approve otherwise they were evil. The entire weight of state and media apparatus was geared towards repressing people's opinions on these matters and "re-educating" natives, even though they felt something was wrong and that such a project would not work. The mainstream media still try this today, but of course (for) now we have the Internet.

It's interesting that the BNP didn't get more of a grip later on, but they did begin to do well in particularly enriched areas. I think there was just a bit too much stridency and associations of thuggery with some of their figures (Tyndall etc.) whereas arguments on these matters need to be put in a calmer and more reasonable manner as some figures are doing today. They also seemed to be saying for example "Blacks cannot be allowed at all", which was too categorical for the British public to accept. I think the line that should be maintained is rather: if you allow large numbers of "other" into your society and do not oblige them to integrate (or leave if they cannot or will not) then you are going to have conflict, especially if they are from an inferior culture. But this reality has certainly become ever clearer as the situation worsens.

I think there is a strong case that the immigrants are far more "racist" than we who had mass immigration opposed on us, by the way. For example they refuse to integrate, which is arguably a matter of common courtesy if nothing else. Muslim men would totally ostracise and probably beat a female member of their family if she were to even begin to question Islam. As I have mentioned before, they would beat her and possibly kill her if she accepted any romantic advances from an infidel (and he would not fare very well either). These are misogynistic racists. They are strongly against any integration and only for dominion. But the MSM diligently avoid mentioning this as best they can.
Gavin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3430
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Next

Return to Multiculturalism & Immigration

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron

User Menu

Login Form

This site costs £100 per year to run and makes no money.

If you would like to make a small contribution to help pay for the web hosting, you can do so here.

Who is online

In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.