The deceivers of the West in their own ranks encourage violence, animalistic behaviour and irrationality.
to the point of overflowing, invariably refer to negative rights. The ‘right to abortion’, for example. Or the right to ‘get high’ (legalise drug use/sales) or the right to no fault divorce, even the right to suicide and euthanasia.
Let's ask then.
Does this woman invite her family and friends to cheer for the fact that she has killed her unborn? Does the man involved write her a congratulatory card and say, ‘Thank you, dear Susie, I am so glad you did that, it makes my day’?
Do they have a glass of champaign with each other and toast on the fact that the court just legalized their separation? Are they neutral about how their family and social environment should view this event? Is everyone invited to appreciate it as a positive event with dance and a fine dinner? With nice presents? Does colleagues and others pat their backs and say: "Well done, everyone!"? What about "no false"? No one blames the other one?
Do relatives or people at university tell Judith that she is a clever girl and has found the best possible way to secure herself financially?
Does everyone openly celebrate this lifestyle with her? Do they say to her: ‘Well done! You're helping the onlyfans support agencies to make their own good cut through you, keep it up, my dear!’? Does everyone find the idea of strangers getting off on Judith's pictures extremely pleasant? Does her dad carry a picture of hers in his purse to show her sexy pose around during a barbecue?
I'm thrilled that you smoke your first joint as soon as you wake up in the morning. I'm sure you're now keen to get on with your daily duties and get ready for work."
to someone on the waiting list? Will they follow their daughter's or father's last breath at their deathbed and accompany them on their final journey? No. They will not be able to witness the horror of the operation because they will never get to see the operating room or their loved ones who, as living people, will have to remain connected to life support machines until their last usable organs have been cut out of them.
Do Doctors cheer up on the fact that "actual death" now is being discussed to being changed to a lower threshold like "cardiovascular death", since "brain death is a very complicated matter"? Do the relatives say "Thank God, the doctors of the future will be freed from these live saving efforts, and the moment my moms heart stops beating, they can declare her dead."?
Firstly, a weird strategy: it should be made easier to understand actions as ‘a right’ that actually have nothing to do with a positive effect for the individuals involved on the one hand, nor for the wider circles in society. However, understanding these 'rights' as something good is precisely the language of those who stylise it as such.
Secondly, without the respective reference to relatives, spouses, children, parents, and the immediate circle of friends and colleagues, my questions would be far less provocative. Of course, the exercise of such 'rights' would not be celebrated by the immediate family and immediate social circle. Because nobody in their right mind would see any reason to do so.
That leaves us with the answer that only people in their wrong minds would come up with the insanity to celebrate such things. Why? Because they do not have "loved ones" or a bunch of brothers and sisters, parents and relatives, nor do they care for having them.
Abortion is essentially a criminal offence. There is no 'right' to abortion. But there is the 'possibility' of an unpunished abortion within the law as an exception. That's the whole secret. Abortion remains being a punishable act. Since the killing of a human being - even the smallest of our species - remains a criminal offence.
Banned Drug usage and selling is essentially a criminal offence. There is no right to use or sell them. But there is the possibility of unpunished usage, by exception that only proves that rule.
There is no ‘right’ to prostitute oneself and no right to consume pornography. At most, pornography and prostitution is tolerated, as it cannot be prevented on a small scale anyway. But have you ever heard of a case in which a woman tried to enforce her 'right' to prostitution? Who should she have taken to court anyway? She wouldn't have had anyone in the milieu who would have said ‘no’ if she had asked or offered herself or wanted to set up an account with onlyfans. Quite the opposite, no?
In the case of no-fault divorce: Again, it's not a right, it's just the possibility of legal separation, but why would you actually want a no-fault separation? If no one sees themselves as guilty in the marriage, why would these spouses want to separate at all? If they both see themselves as blameless, then it would be in the nature of things for them to stay together. There is no other logical way.
There is no ‘right’ to be killed. Not a single law recognises this (at least so far) as its highest principle. If you absolutely want to die, then you must either kill yourself or put yourself in a dangerous situation in which the probability of being killed increases significantly.
There is no right for Christians to flee to a Muslim country if they are fleeing war or economic decline. Because there is no such human right in either direction, it is completely irrelevant to ‘demand’ anything else from the West and its brain-dead understandings.
If you deliberately kill someone, then in the full knowledge that you are carrying out an act that is criminal in principle. To make it easier for you by stylising it as a right is hypocrisy and a disturbance of the human conscience.
and ask yourself why it should be made easy at all? Why should it be easy to divorce and/or rip a family apart, why easy to scrape out a 'fetus' out of a woman's womb, to switch off a life-support machine, to determine a cardiac death or to have given an old and/or very ill person the medicine to end their life? It must be the most difficult of all actions.
Why? Because otherwise we despise the value of life and pretend to be an inanimate machine.
since it's not you personally who decides that but the ones who make the rules.
If you want to have no protection at all from being killed or wanting to kill yourself, you will have it. If you cannot say that you are the result of the Christian heritage, and you act as a traitor towards what the West had build, you will be captured by a belief-system which will neither be that benevolent nor that merciful.
Either from within, or from outer forces.
So, the 'no border policy' places you in the worst possible position you can think of. If you then add on top that half of your population, that is to say your men, are to be fought and despised as the evil ones, who so far protected you as women from all inner and outer forces, you lost every sense of reality.
Ask these tolerant people what exactly the many foreigners are supposed to integrate into?
The answers are frighteningly vague and superficial. If you don't know what your own culture is based on, then you don't have one. If you've lost it, there's nothing to convince a newly arrived foreigner to recognise that what he's encountering has anything to do with sovereignty, self-worth or a strong characteristic. Where there is nothing, nothing can be appropriated.
can very easily be interpreted as meaning that the rights of people who come from other countries are above those of the locals.
Why should anyone respect the natives at all if their demands are so vehemently based on their negative rights, which I cited as examples in this text? Abortion, divorce, drug use, pornography/prostitution, denying man- and womanhood, getting money for not working, being unpunished for crimes, and so on.
What does it say to the foreigners when they hear that the natives consider such things as starting a family, their Christian holy days and traditions, their personal relationships of a long-lasting nature, even their property, to be so unimportant that they are willing to give it all up?
and your place of origin has taught you that only the oppressor has the say. And then you come to a country where people behave like the starkest contrast to this and show you no authority whatsoever, which you desperately need in order to get a positive orientation that will steer you away from the path of violence and destruction.
Socialising someone who has been used to getting by, stealing and lying in order to cope with everyday life will not be possible in a society that looks weak to this person, a society that is hypocritical in his eyes and that does not manage to make the local laws, rules and order clear to himself and his compatriots. One will laugh or spit on them.
What he sees and observes is that these tolerant locals say that they are in favour of immigration,
They become easy targets to be mocked, attacked, despised, even killed. And if the killing does not result into unmistakable reaction, then this might give the signal that the local folk wants to be dominated.
