THE WEST’S MOST FUNDAMENTAL AND LETHAL DIVIDE
The recent terrorist attacks in Britain have exposed once again the enormous divide between millions of ordinary people who “get it” and the elite class of politicians, media and so-called progressives who do not.
In the last three months, there have been three sets of Islamist attacks in London and Manchester.
Five additional such plots have been thwarted over that period. The security service is trying to monitor 3,500 homegrown Muslim terrorist suspects. It says it cannot be sure of preventing more such attacks. It is clear that it is overwhelmed by this problem.
Yet even now people are minimizing, misunderstanding and misdiagnosing the threat – and attacking those who are calling it out.
President Trump drew fire (yet again) when in the aftermath of last Saturday night’s atrocities at London Bridge and Borough Market he tweeted: “At least 7 dead and 48 wounded in terror attack and Mayor of London says there is ‘no reason to be alarmed!’” In the ensuing furor, Trump was accused of twisting out of context what Mayor Sadiq Khan had said. He had merely been telling people, it was claimed, not to be alarmed at the sight of more armed police on London’s streets.
But Khan had gone on to say: “I’m reassured that we are one of the safest global cities in the world if not the safest global city in the world.”
In other words, he was saying there was no reason to be alarmed that the presence of armed police meant London was unsafe, because it wasn’t. Just as Trump had said he said.
The generous explanation is that Mayor Khan was trying to prevent public panic. But what he said was untrue. London is a prime target for further Islamist terrorism; and while statistically the chances of being caught up in such atrocities are very small, to say the city is safe is to deny what’s happening.
Khan’s comments have enraged many Londoners and others. They note that this Muslim mayor never suggests that the radicals should be driven out of those London mosques which are hotbeds of Islamist extremism.
Instead, they hear those who criticize Mayor Khan, the Muslim community or Islam demonized as Islamophobes.
The Jewish community is not exempt from this madness. The president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, Jonathan Arkush, this week called on British Muslims to “stand up and be counted.” “Every British mosque should be holding its own protest against terrorism, proclaiming ‘Not in our Name,’” he wrote.
More than 80 people from synagogues and communal organizations as well as unaffiliated individuals promptly signed an open letter accusing Arkush of “fanning the flames of inter-community hatred.” This despite the fact that he also said the terrorists were “not representative of British Muslims” and that the attacks were “a perversion of Islam.”
“We particularly reject the assertion,” wrote the signatories, “that members of a religious or ethnic group must quickly and publicly denounce any members of that group who act repugnantly. We hope you will remember that this has been used to persecute Jews in living memory. Just as we as Jews have no responsibility for the actions of Jewish terrorist groups, Muslims are not personally responsible for the actions of groups such as ISIS.”
Presumably, this was a reference to the Jewish terrorists of the Irgun and Lehi (the Stern Group) in pre-Israel Palestine. If so, the analogy was singularly inappropriate. The mainstream Zionist leadership at that time not only denounced these Jewish terrorists but actively helped the British hunt them down to kill or jail them.
By contrast, Islamist terrorists are at the extreme end of a continuum of attitudes that themselves pose a threat to Britain. In a 2015 poll of British Muslims, nearly a quarter said Islamic Shari’a law should replace British law in areas with large Muslim populations; 4% – equivalent to more than 100,000 British Muslims – sympathized with suicide bombers; and only one in three would contact the police if that person believed a close contact was involved with jihadists.
While most British Muslims are against violent extremism, their community therefore helps swell the sea in which terrorism swims.
More and more Muslims are now saying they have to tackle this. Yet the Jewish signatories wrote: “We stand with all our Muslim sisters and brothers, and all people of faith and no faith, in love and healing from these atrocities – together.”
Really? They stand with the Muslim Brotherhood whose aim is to infiltrate and conquer Britain and the world for Islam? They stand with the radicals in British mosques? The poll also revealed that 38% of British Muslims believe the Jews have too much power over global affairs and 26% believe Jews are responsible for most of the world’s wars.
Do these Jewish signatories stand with them, too? Public anger in Britain with such moral inversion has reached a tipping-point. Every attempt to deal adequately with the Islamist threat has been stymied with cries of “Islamophobia” and claims that such measures would help the terrorists’ aim of “dividing us” and “undermining our core values”. But they’re not trying to divide us or undermine our values. They’re trying to kill us and conquer us.
The great political struggle of our times is not between Left and Right. It is between those who are connected to truth, reason and reality and those who are not. It reflects a fundamental division in the West, whose fate will be decided by its outcome.
2 thoughts on “What divides us is truth, reason and reality….”
Re: “The recent terrorist attacks in Britain have exposed once again the enormous divide between millions of ordinary people who “get it” and the elite class of politicians, media and so-called progressives who do not.”
The divide is philosophically a very simple one:
It’s between those who do and do not accept the basic Golden Rule of Law moral principle, mostly simply put as “Do Not Attack First,” from which we understand that our only real right is to not be attacked first, and our only real concomitant, corollary responsibility is to not attack thereby innocent other people first – so we can do nothing either TO, nor FOR, anyone else, without first getting their express assent or permission .
More generally put:
“All is disallowed unless and until very specifically allowed.”
Those who reject this Rule of Law, believe on the contrary that
“All is allowed unless and until very specifically disallowed!”
This means the only real crime is to try to stop someone from doing anything they want, to whomever they want, whenever they want to.
Anyone who tries to stop anyone else from doing whatever pops into their head, is being “MEAN!” (or, in today’s political language, “Hateful”) and must be a “bigot,” who is out to get them for some irrelevant reason, for instance disliking their colour (a “Racist”)!
All criminals portray them selves as victims, and their victims as the criminals who forced them to commit their crimes!
It’s “How the Devil’s greatest trick was to pretend he doesn’t exist:”
– BY playing the victim!
Since rational people get angry with criminals for their predatory choices, and criminals insist they have no choices because we’re all equally victims who should therefore tolerate the diverse differences between the kind of victim who attacks innocent others first, and those who don’t, they insist pity is always good and anger is always bad.
The meaning of life is to fix the mistakes and solve the problems which cause the damage which causes the pains we fear the most. There is no safety or security. Repeat endlessly.
And to do this, one must use one’s own natural pattern-recognition software to discriminate and sort through all the various symptoms of principles and all the divide-and-conquer synonyms criminal liars made up to obscure them; aka THINKING.
OR one can give up and become a part of the problem, gaining instant wealth by failing upwards because there’s no money in solutions, and popularity because people like to be tempted, coddled and indulged in being poor victims.
Logically all criminals demanding equality of outcome (enslaving their victims) must also demand that other people (their victims) must not hurt the lazy criminal parasites’ feelings!
Which leads to a lucrative career in championing “victim’s rights” (to remain irresponsibly wrong) by extorting their real victims: honest folks who tell them to stop being lazy & blaming others for their lack of motivation.
Therefore pity is held as the highest virtue, and anger as a vile sin.
Because in order to pose as a champion and extort one’s real victims, one must not only play the victim while accusing one’s own victims of being the real criminals, one must also insist that there are no real crimes nor criminals, because even if attacking “first and second” do exist, we’re still all too stupid to understand cause and effect, and so we’re all really only ever helpless victims, entitled to pity, and the only real crime left is to get angry and accuse “another victim” of being a criminal just because they got caught committing some crimes!
People like to dummy down their thinking to a basic binary “Good/Bad” rule emotive level. This pits the dynamic feeling of ANGER against the static feeling of PITY.
Encouraging delinquency is what ALL criminal and idolatrous leftopaths call “Progress!”
When Conservatives and Libertarians get angry at criminals and demand they make better choices, that’s “evil” to the delinquently indulgent criminally negligent leftists who then try to ban that righteous and productive anger as “hate” (the perfectly natural human response of perpetual anger at ongoing crimes). They prefer to do nothing in stead of risking themselves, and so choose to pity and coddle all the criminals as victims, and so encourage their bad choices. So in the end, which of us is truly evil? Which is the worse choice – anger, or pity? I think we all know the answer.
So to these thought-killing literally psychopathic idolaters, people who only feel pity towards criminals, are pitiful, and good and so deserve only pity; while those who feel anger towards delinquency are ‘hateful,’ and so only deserve hate and scorn.
It’s the most childish and lazy – and, ultimately hypocritical and masochsitic – stance of tu quoque “projection” they can take.
Most people are instinctive hypocrites, endorsing to and for others what they would never condone being done to them selves.
When confronted by anyone in any situation, being asked if they think ANYONE, ever, is either a criminal or a victim, most people will instantly and automatically choose to virtue-signal “VICTIM!” – because it’s easier and less risky than calling a potentially dangerous criminal out by accusing them of their crimes, and it gets to show off to others how tolerant and virtuous one is – all without ever having to take even a second to think!
Besides, since the default virtue is to hold everyone as Innocent Until Proven Guilty, they get to pretend to be acting morally and within the law, too! So it’s win/win for them, every time! And they don’t care that what they’re encouraging is granting all criminals a permanent excuse state of ” Innocent Until NEVER Proven Guilty,” either – because they’re not in charge, not authorities, but can still pretend to be!
And unfortunately, this plays into the criminals’ Brazen Rule of Chaos, where, since all is allowed unless and until very specifically forbidden (which implies all rules can be challenged, cancelled or abrogated under different circumstances, including the mere passage of time) then the only crime is to try to prevent anyone from doing whatever they want to, to whomever they want to, and whenever they want to. This explains liberal defiance.
People are easily-manipulated by the most simple, binary emotions.
Since everyone accused must be considered innocent until proven guilty, the criminal left in stead focuses on the victimhood of the accusers, reversing the onus of proof by demanding that the defense has to prove a negative – “We don’t have to prove you offended and oppressed us, because you first have to prove that we aren’t victims!”
In other words, as long as we’re presumed victims, whomever we choose to blame and extort is presumed oppressive!
Works. Every. Time.
i.e: They guilt the politicians by emotively asserting that THEY are accusing them of NOT-being “real” victims!
If the politicians (and here I include the media) had any guts or preference for rationality, logic, and facts, they would insist:
“No, you still have to prove that assertion, with, you know, ‘evidence,’ not merely extortive appeals to our emotions, too!”
To reiterate: Leftopathic Virtue-Signalling Explained!
I don’t want to be angry with criminals for their predatory choices, because that’s “hateful!”
I’d rather pity them as fellow victims, as that’s less risky and only costs YOUR tax dollars!
The mere emotion of Pity = the highest Virtue.
The mere emotion of anger = the most vile Sin.
The Human Condition is: criminally-negligent HYPOCRISY!
The politicians are only fear-mongering crisis-salesmen, refusing to solve temporary problems with simple solutions, in favor of exploiting the almost infinite number of symptoms of not-solving them, because their motto is: “There’s No Money In Solutions!”
The educators are only fear-mongering crisis-salesmen, refusing to solve temporary problems with simple solutions, in favor of exploiting the almost infinite number of symptoms of not-solving them, because their motto is: “There’s No Money In Solutions!”
The enemedia are only fear-mongering crisis-salesmen, refusing to solve temporary problems with simple solutions, in favor of exploiting the almost infinite number of symptoms of not-solving them, because their motto is: “There’s No Money In Solutions!”
After spinning them out at us as “eternal crises,” they only ever offer band-aid therapies to “manage” them, because this cements their positions over us as indispensable “experts” – “Please Give Generously, AGAIN!”
By it’s very nature, ALL “governments” and “politicians” are predisposed and preinclined to the Brazen Rule of criminal Chaos approach and tenets, determining that because they are themselves, and so are better than you peons, they have the right to do whatever they want to, whenever they want to do it, to whomever they want to do it to.
Successful De-Radicalisation of At-risk Muslims the Aussie way – but Government is in Denial.
Sydney, NSW, Australia; 08/08/2017
Just a few days ago, a story broke in the mainstream press about Pastor Keith Piper of Sydney and his Liberty Baptist Church. The story was picked up by the Daily Mail, Russia Today, The Guardian and SBS. Here are the links:
As commonly happens, those media outlets missed the big story. So, what was all the fuss about?
Pastor Keith Piper has accomplished something done by no one else in history. He has found the Holy Grail of Islamic de-radicalisation. Through painstaking research and application, Pastor Keith developed a program which convinces radical Muslims to abandon the senseless violence of their ideology, and to peacefully join the rest of humanity.
After a decade of delivering this program called Five Steps to Freedom, Pastor Keith has fine-tuned it so that after just five hours in the program an individual or group of Muslims will reject Jihadist ideology entirely. Not a single graduate has ever returned to violence or Jihad.
Since 2008, almost 2,000 Australian Muslims have successfully been de-radicalized this way. Through referrals from happy customers, the number of program applicants steadily increases. To Pastor Keith’s knowledge, no other country has a successful de-radicalisation program to match his results.
For the Five Steps to Freedom program to address Australia’s deteriorating security situation it requires Government backing. The wider community desperately needs a proven program to restore community safety to pre-Jihad levels. This could save countless lives and billions of dollars now being spent to monitor the increasing number of Islamic radicals in our cities. The program has the potential to revolutionise the world of counter-terrorism.
Pastor Keith has developed a completely new paradigm. His team have been energetically pressuring Government leaders to recognise and adopt the Five Steps to Freedom program. The truthfulness of these claims was investigated and verified by a Federal Senator and his staff in November 2016.
Despite Keith Piper’s strenuous efforts since late 2016 to catch the interest of key Government officials, the program is being ignored. The question is, ‘why?’
All the appropriate information about Five Steps to Freedom was supplied to the NSW Minister of Counter Terrorism, and to the Federal Minister for Counter Terrorism. Their departments have ignored multiple approaches through phone calls, e-mails and intermediaries requesting a face to face meeting to discuss adopting the program.
A full program application was submitted to the NSW Correction Services, offering to de-radicalize prisoners. This application was rejected by staff including the Director of State Wide Programs Corrective Services.
Corrective Services informed Keith Piper that they could see no evidence of the program having sound independent empirical support for its effectiveness. Program graduates now number nearly two thousand documented, de-radicalised Ex-Muslims. They would constitute a significant body of proof in any Court!
Corrective Services also consider this program would conflict with the current strategies their organisation is implementing for Jihadist offenders. However they provided no details of this alleged conflict.
The Five Steps program was also offered to the NSW Juvenile Justice, Detention Service. They rejected it even though their officers are terrified of violence from radicalised youth in their care.
These negative responses immediately raise a number of questions.
Firstly; ‘does the current strategy being pursued by Corrective Services have evidence of sound independent empirical support for its effectiveness?’
Most likely the answer would be “no.” All the officially sanctioned and funded de-radicalisation efforts have not delivered any significant results to reduce the problem, despite the spending of millions of dollars.
Secondly, ‘what is the Government strategy to defeat extremist Jihad ideology?’ The national security situation is deteriorating, not improving, despite Government policies and rhetoric.
Thirdly, ‘What is the spend per radicalised Muslim just to spy on them in anticipation of a terrorist act, and watch them recruit even more members?’ Taking notes won’t solve the problem. Pastor Keith’s program can permanently solve the problem for a fraction of the ballooning budget spent on ‘cloak and dagger’ surveillance of grumpy Muslims.
Corrections Services staff were invited to attend the program and to verify the process for themselves. As yet, they have declined to do so. They have also been invited to meet with de-radicalized graduates of the program who are now living happy and productive lives, assimilated into the wider community. Again, they have declined to do so.
This situation of denial of the evidence and facts of de-radicalisation is a national outrage. The Australian people are under constant threat from radical Jihadists attempting to bring down civilian airliners and attack major sporting venues.
Many Jihadist plots are foiled by authorities – but every so often they succeed as in the Man Monis Lindt Cafe siege. The cost of Counter Terrorism/Counter Jihad runs to the billions of dollars, whilst the social costs to the community plus the lives already lost and ruined goes beyond estimation.
Pastor Keith’s course can turn around an extremist Jihadi in just five hours and at a fraction of the cost the Australian security agencies spend spying on these people. Surely the authorities have nothing to lose by running a pilot program?
Jails are significant hubs for extremist activities where ISIS and other Jihadist recruiters find many new members. This situation presents a golden opportunity to trial innovative methods to confront and defeat the problems of extremism and Jihadist recruitment.
The prison service has access to radicalised Muslims. They can engage with a Five Steps to Freedom pilot program to review its performance.
With proof of effective application in a pilot prison trial, it is a short step for the program to be offered to de-radicalise most of the Jihadist inmates in NSW prisons. Assuming the success of the NSW experience, the Five Steps to Freedom program could then be applied wherever national security is threatened by advocates of extremist Jihad ideology
The Five Steps team calls on the authorities and community leaders to support our initiative and to pressure the Government to trial this program.
Five Steps to Freedom is a home-grown Australian de-radicalisation program which since 2008 has de-radicalised nearly 2,000 people from their associations with Jihadist culture and ideology. These people are now assimilated within Australian society.
Please contact us with your questions. We can provide a briefing and an executive overview of the program. For those of sincere interest an introduction is available to meet with de-radicalised Ex-Muslims who are graduates of the Five Steps to Freedom program.
For information and/or appointments to learn more, please contact:
Mr Chris Newman, Education Officer, Five Steps to Freedom.
Postal: 188 Purchase Rd, Cherrybrook, NSW 2126
The Team at Australia Wake Up; Chris, Harry, David, Sam, Brendan, DavidC
Australia Wake Up Team
Comments are closed.