AND GOD SPOKE

AND GOD SPOKE

Tuesday, May 23, 2017

Liberal Guilt, Moral Relativism and Suicide by Immigration

In 2008, the mantra of the political left was “if you do not vote for Barak Obama for President you are a racist.”   I’d venture that many Americans didn’t like the epithet of “racist,” so they voted for Barak Obama.  Of course, history has it that Mr. Obama was elected.  America had proved, at least in a superficial fashion, that it wasn’t racist.  It had elected a black President.

However, it seems that Americans are still racist”.  The man whom they’d elected is calling them racist.  “In spite of the fact that you’d voted for me, if you don’t receive refugees from Syria you’re still racist” he declares.

Mr. Obama’s appeal to the guilt-ridden “racist” left, as farfetched as this may sound, is, in my humble opinion, a prelude to the greatest holocaust in human history and here’s why I say so.

First of all, allow me to examine the rationale behind the receiving of Syrian refugees:  At face value, it seems like the compassionate thing to do.  “People who are destitute… whose lives are in danger, are being rescued.”  That sounds good, altruistic and loving but it is the very antithesis. 

a.       It seems that the people who are willing to bring the refugees in are willing to risk the associated danger which is fine, but they neglect the reality that they’re willing to risk the danger of fellow citizens in the process.

b.      The pro-refugee folk's apparent justification for this risk seems to be that those not willing to take such a risk acquire the label of “coward,” “Islamophobe,” and “racist,” and therefore, are deserving of the consequences of their “heartless,” fearful” and “hateful” attitudes.  Thus, in reality, it is they who are passing judgment on others.

c.       They risk the lives and safety of their sons and daughters and replace that for the alleged well-being of others.  Such a decision causes one to doubt whether they love their sons and daughters at all. The veracity of this accusation will become more evident as I continue.

Secondly, bringing Syrian refugees onto American or European soil is irrational.  It does not solve the problem as to why there are Syrian refugees in the first place.  Syrian refugees, like any other refugee, are refugees fleeing to the West because, in one way or another, life is better in the West than it is in Syria.   I propose here, an outline of four ways for solving a refugee problem.

a.       The first is not to let anyone in, and build border fences or walls to prevent people from coming in who’ve not been thoroughly vetted particularly through the naturalization process.  Wall building lacks desirability simply because it returns the refugees to the allegedly horrid circumstances from which they’re fleeing.

b.      The second remedy for this problem is the most desirable and gets to the heart of the reason for the refugee problem in the first place.    I confess, however, that there’s a major problem with the remedy that I propose.  It’s not going to happen! 

In essence, this remedy builds itself upon the rather obvious premise that the refugee problem exists because there’s some evil which makes life miserable for those refugees.  We know that in the situation at hand, Syria is dominated by a dictator by the name of Bashar Al Asad.  He’s trying to hold onto his power and has, therefore, resorted to violence to repel anyone or any entity that would seek his overthrow.  The resulting civil war has turned into a bloodbath which is responsible for the deaths of tens of thousands already.  As evil as Mr. Asad is, it seems that his opposition is even eviler.  ISIS is already known far and wide for its cruelty.  So it seems that not too many parties within the boundaries of Syria are particularly nice people.

The most desirable remedy to our problem, however, is that Mr. Asad and his enemies shake hands, sing kumbaya, make peace, set up mutually agreeable boundaries and have the refugees return to Syria which would then be called “Happy Land” (in Arabic of course).  I think you see why this will not happen.

c.       The third remedy would be to obliterate those belligerents who won’t make peace with one another by the above remedy, and by so doing, get rid of those who are making life unbearable for the immigrants.   Safe places can be established for the immigrants within their homeland, buttressed by international “Peace Keepers” who blow the belligerents to smithereens.  Once that’s accomplished the refugees can live in peace in the land of their birth (assuming that there aren’t clandestine belligerents already in the midst of the refugees).

d.      The fourth remedy is to bring the refugees in and hold out the welcome mat.  That, it seems, is the plan that many of the politicians of the west, such as Angela Merkel and Barak Obama have taken.  The refugees come in.  They introduce the actualization of multiculturalism to the American and Western way of life and because of the resulting clash of incompatible cultures, a sort of homeostasis takes place in which life in the United States and Europe becomes as intolerable as life in Syria.  Hence, refugees will no longer want to come in.  That will most certainly end the influx of further immigration!   In essence, terrorist instigated violence will erupt, and law enforcement and domestic related military intervention become necessary to diminish the violence which will nevertheless, become greater in frequency because of the inadequacy of law enforcement to cover all eventualities.  The only possible outcomes will either be civil war temporarily delayed by peacekeeping militia” or a police state with loss of liberties accompanied by occasional or perhaps even frequent acts of violence.  It seems likely that the former will morph into the latter. A police state is destined to become the natural universal outcome everywhere on our planet which all of us allegedly call home.  In essence, it will grow to be a less and less comfortable home in which to live with time except for those who reside at the top of the political spectrum.

Thirdly – How do I know that the fourth remedy will be as disastrous as I predict?

A vast plurality of Syrian refugees is men of combat age.  Apparently, they’d left the women and children behind to fight ISIS which, it seems, at least to me, is not exactly the manly thing to do. Besides, women have served as terrorists as well.  Furthermore, there is absolutely no way to adequately vet these refugees because there’s no way that customs officials are sufficiently trained (let alone psychiatrists) to read people’s minds.

b.      The incidences in Europe, of refugee-instigated terror attacks, including beheadings, mass murders rapes, especially of young, virgin girls as well as their enslavement, and other atrocities have risen exponentially since the influx of these refugees has begun.

c.       Muslims do not have a history of assimilating into western culture.  To a very high degree, Muslims have displayed a disdain for western law and particularly secularization.

d.      And how can I assume that almost every refugee who has shown up on Western shores is a Muslim?  Boatloads of refugees that have arrived on the north side of the Mediterranean had thrown Christians overboard before their arrival onto Western shores.  No such behavior has been documented to have occurred at the hands of Christians.
e.      Since the vast majority (if not all) of this influx of refugees is Muslim, and in light of the reality that a large plurality of these refugees is men, it’s easy to assume that many of them do not have a benevolent attitude towards their well-meaning western hosts.  Islam is a worldview bent on world domination and the establishment of Sharia law all around the globe.   It is naïve to think that Muslims think in the same manner as western folk.  They don’t.  Islam, when implemented as Sharia, offers no rights for women.   Islam allows for polygamy, and the most radical/religious/orthodox among them provide loopholes in their interpretation of Sharia law which allow for homosexuality and bestiality.   Women wear hijabs and burkas, not because it is an indication of piety and modesty, but because the men don’t have the self-control to reign in their lusts and passions.  Hence, the incidences of rape in Europe are skyrocketing because the lifestyle of young Western women and girls does not require the sort of attire demanded by Sharia law.  Furthermore, the one doing the raping blames the victim for wearing her comparatively skimpy attire.

f.        But this is not the only way that Muslims think differently than people in the West.  The word “Islam” means “submission.”  To the Muslim mind, Muslims are expendable.   The only thing that counts is the expansion of Islam.  Out of servitude, therefore, the truly devout Muslim will offer up his life for the cause.  Why else is there this enormous prevalence of suicide bombings?  Like ants that sacrifice themselves to make bridges by which armies of ants can cross a stream, Muslims are sacrificing themselves to cross the Mediterranean to get into Europe.  Already many have died, but that’s OK as far as Islam is concerned.  They’ve died as martyrs.  Their deaths prick the conscience of the compassionate but misguided West.  This tact is also useful in garnering anti-Israel sympathy.  No life means anything to Islam and so Palestinians, whether willingly, or otherwise, are placed in harm’s way so that they’re either maimed or killed by an Israeli ordinate and by so doing serve as nice photo-ops for appearing on CNN or some tabloid, thus garnering sympathy for the cause.

g.       Ultimately Jihad requires either the subjugation of non-Muslims or preferably their deaths.  What ISIS does to the Christians and Yazidis in Iraq and Syria it will surely do to the people of the West.  Armies won’t stop them because they will be among the people of Europe and America.  They will each have a face.

h.      Islam in its fundamental, unbridled form, appeals to the most base of human instincts that being sex, self-indulgence, power, and sadism.  The accompanying behaviors associated with these instincts are hidden in the West only because such behaviors would give Islam a bad name.  In Islamic countries, however, these behaviors run rampant.

A book authored by William Golding in 1954, entitled “Lord of the Flies” depicts the gradual moral and behavioral decay of a group of boys stranded on a desert island who are unbridled by Law.  They begin to indulge in cultic practices until finally, they kill the most likable among them.   This book is nothing more than a depiction of what is common in the gang community where gang members join as a result of deprivation, particularly of paternal love and instruction.  Gangs have their own set of laws.  Islam like a giant gang filled with initiation rites.  Initiation into the gang requires some evidence of loyalty.  As gang members get initiated by killing some other gang member or robbing some old lady on the street, so,  radical Muslims will be required to kill some Muslim of a different (wrong believing) sect or some unbeliever as proof of his or her loyalty.  Why else, do you see evidence in the news of ISIS killing other Muslims for not being “real” Muslims?  Just like in the case of gangs, leaving the gang can mean death, so, in Islam, leaving Islam can be punishable by death.

To him whom we would call the “radical Muslim,” Islam makes perfect sense.  It appeals to the most basic of human instincts!  It assumes that man originally was that way.  Armies cannot stop this way of thinking and, in light of the “end game” resulting from the homeostasis approach to the immigration problem mentioned above, the “bad guys” in Syria will win.  They allegedly get rid of the people that they don’t want and foist those individuals upon the people of the unsuspecting West.   Evil wins because lawlessness infiltrates the West.  Anarchy and an unconfined “gang-like”/self-indulgent and sadistic mentality enter its midst under the guise of “religion.”

So what is the true solution to the immigration problem?  The only genuine solution to the immigration problem is the 2nd remedy mentioned above.  But that remedy runs counter to human nature.  Rather than giving in to the self-preservation and sadistic instincts found in Asad, ISIS and others, these individuals ideally should replace such instincts with selflessness, compassion, humility and benevolence…traits that run counter to human nature and yet embody nobility and strength of character.   These are traits can only be found in their fullness and perfection in the person of Jesus of Nazareth, the Jewish Messiah.

Our politicians have done a great disservice to those they allegedly serve.  They attribute credibility to a worldview that is thoroughly sadistic and destructive.  Its only rationales for credibility are that it has the moniker of “religion,” it expands its domain, not through reason but violence, and a façade of religiosity covers the reality that it is unloving and lawless.

And what feeds into this “creeping Jihad” that would vote a politician into office who would open the floodgates for the entrance of this cancer into the midst of the West?  Simply put, it’s moral relativism. 

The people of the West have determined that it is better for a woman to be lascivious, and kill a baby because nurturing that baby is too big of a responsibility and denies her of her freedom.

The people of the West have determined that it is better for a man to “be free” rather than assume the responsibility of protecting and nurturing the woman he’s “screwed,” and the child he’d created.

The people of the West have determined that ”freedom” is synonymous with the term, “license.”  Abandoning a spouse contrary to the vows of fidelity which one has taken is OK because it means “freedom.”   Indulging in sexual behaviors contrary the laws of nature (as opposed to the laws of human nature) is not only acceptable but rewarded as “brave.”

The people of the West have determined that cheating is OK because they’ve determined that success, wealth and reputation are more important than honesty, transparency, humility and a clear conscience before a God whom they would prefer did not exist because their lifestyle could not endure His scrutiny.

The moral relativism of the Western mind can no longer discern between good and evil.  It can only see the “color of one’s skin.”  It does not see (As Martin Luther King Jr. eloquently put it) the “content of one’s character.” 

The people of the west have replaced the morally pure, righteous and, dare I say holy, Jesus, with morally relativistic self-indulgent and arrogant politicians. These politicians who along with their cohorts in the media have been in the process of opening the floodgates of the West to people who own a worldview which sounds good at face value but which is nevertheless fundamentally cruel and sadistic. 

The liberal of the West attempts to assuage his guilt of self-indulgence and lawlessness by offering asylum to those whom he assumes to be in need.  But he lets the bad guys win and ultimately offers asylum to those who will execute his demise.


No comments:

Post a Comment