Thoughts on the shooting in France and multicultural stupidity

by Dota

Throughout my years in elementary school I felt that certain teachers harboured unwarranted prejudice against me. I’d complain to my parents and my Dad’s response was fairly consistent: “What have you been up to?” My Mother’s response was somewhat more sympathetic: “Why don’t they like you? You’re so likable!” Both of their responses subtly implied that the way people treat you is a function of your own behaviour toward them. I have mentioned numerous times that the West needs to embrace this virtue of reciprocity. The virtue of tolerance that was championed by the Old Left of John Stuart Mill has been degraded by the modern left. In his essay On Liberty Mill championed a diversity of opinions (NOT a diversity of races) while placing one sole limit on free speech: using it to incite a mob.

Today’s Left tolerates just about anything, from female impropriety to the deviant (and often harmful) sexual practices of homosexuals. The Old Left never argued for an indefinite suspension of standards. Rather, they regarded freedom of speech as a prerequisite for a society driven by reason. It is difficult to tolerate the behavior of some blacks because their behaviour isn’t tolerable to begin with. Running around town punching random people in the face is not tolerable behavior. Disrupting people’s brunches and making a nuisance of oneself is not tolerable behaviour either. Storming an office and cold-heartedly gunning down office staff because they supposedly insulted Islam is NOT tolerable behaviour.

Western nations need to get the memo that tolerance is not a cheap resource to be squandered on the undeserving. Tolerance is earned by being tolerable. If Muslims in Europe wish to be tolerated, they need to knock off their intolerable behaviour. If they wish to act like savages they must then be deported back to the zoos from whence they came.

I understand that not all Muslims are terrible but you know what they say about rotten apples. I also understand that some of these North Africans and Arabs arrive in Europe as refugees from homelands that are beyond repair. This is rather unfortunate, but these circumstances do not excuse their barbarism. Every action begins with a choice. The Moroccan refugee that vandalizes public property in the Netherlands makes a choice before he picks up his baseball bat. The terrorist scum that execute civilians in cold blood make a choice before they pick up their guns.

The West’s immigration policy is suicidal by design.

Cultural Marxism, immigration, feminism, and modern Liberalism are the numerous heads of the same hydra; in opposing one, you inevitably oppose them all. The enemy is the encroaching police state. Feminists and low quality immigrants like Mexicans and North Africans have one thing in common: They both depend on a large welfare nanny state. The Feminist position on surveillance is also telling. Feminists are loathe to admit it, but they are either comfortable with, or indifferent to surveillance.

Feminist fruitcake Autumn Whitefield Madrano believes that female indifference to surveillance is the result of the “male gaze.” Or at least partially so:
“I’m not saying that just because women might be used to being watched by men means that we’re inherently blasé about being watched by governmental bodies; in fact, I’m guessing some women are more outraged than they would be if they were male, even if they’re not directly connecting that outrage with womanhood. (Also, I don’t believe the male gaze to be wholly responsible for my indifferent reaction here; it’s just the one that’s relevant.)”
I’m sure most sane readers won’t be able to digest the convoluted logic above, so allow me to provide you with a more plausible explanation. As the physically weaker sex, women are naturally willing to forgo freedom for security. This might explain the avalanche of rape hysteria that has gripped the U.S. Feminists talk a good game about freedom of speech while initiating witch hunts that force people who do not conform to their views to resign from their jobs. Feminists, social justice dingbats, and their corporate sponsors are also trying very hard to end online anonymity.

Violent and psychopathic immigrants play their own role alongside feminists in helping to usher in the police state. With every terrorist act, each surpassing the other in barbarism, the case for surveillance grows. It is not an oversight by Western elites that they allow in immigrants and refugees from countries that are currently being bombed by Western armies. These deranged refugees and immigrants are the perfect ingredients for a recipe of social and political chaos, which will then be remedied by a nanny state with an intrusive surveillance apparatus. Our elites will naturally be unaffected by these changes, so they’ll continue waging wars for profit in lands near and far.

It is imperative that freedom loving men take a decisive stand on issues pertaining to immigration with the utmost sense of urgency. A feminized nanny state with every citizen suckling at its breast may appeal to a woman’s definition of freedom, but would be hell for men of character and spine. It is vital for Western men to recognize that the left isn’t here to set us free, but to enslave us.

Originally published at Occident Invicta.

No comments:

Post a Comment