An Ability To Ignore Dissonance

Approvingly reposted by the chappie above:

Though given the increasing luridness and frequency with which these events are happening, and given what is at stake should this trend continue, asking very pertinent questions with a view to making them stop doesn’t strike me as obvious proof of scumbaggery. 

I mean, if you aren’t allowed to recognise the pattern and identify the problem – the dare I say it, root causes – then such horrors will continue and most likely multiply, perhaps very quickly. And it seems a bit rich to rush to one’s fainting couch because someone used the word “savage” to refer to a third-world migrant, supposedly a source of our enrichment, ululating in triumph while attempting to behead a native on the streets of Belfast. 

Apparently the indigenous are allowed to be briefly upset, but only before ramping up their tolerance and inclusivity, and carrying on as before, as if nothing of significance had happened, or will happen again, and again, with ever greater boldness. As the process, to which we mustn’t pay any attention, and regarding which we mustn’t ask obvious questions, continues.

[ Post updated. ]

Carl Benjamin has some thoughts on our pronoun-stipulator and the broader climate of hostility among lefties to people of pallor.

[ Compiles Friday’s Ephemera, clicks schedule. ]

Regarding the recent enrichment in Belfast, and all of the previous fits of diversity and vibrancy, and the ones that will likely happen in a week or two:

Here’s the problem. The liberal political class wants us to treat atrocities like Belfast as single, random, isolated incidents. “Yes, it’s horrific, but don’t overreact,” they say. “Let the police do their job. Justice will be delivered. Let’s remain united,” and so on. 

But the public can see that such incidents aren’t random or isolated. They are, in fact, all the consequence of massive state failure in the area of asylum and immigration. All roads lead back there.

That’s why people are angry… They are sick of the platitudes that get trotted out after each fresh incident. They don’t want to hear them anymore. They know that the decisions of establishment politicians have brought us to this current pass, and they don’t trust those same politicians to fix things, especially when some of them refuse to even recognise that the public’s anger is justified.

There has been a huge vibe shift in recent years. Imagine – God forbid – there were another 7/7. Does anyone think the public response would be anything like as restrained as it was then? We are in really dangerous territory.

The public don’t want flowers and candles and “Don’t let them divide us.” They want someone who says, “I recognise that the state has failed abjectly. We have allowed far too many people to settle in the country without knowing who they truly are. It has disrupted your communities. Your anger is justified. And I will do everything in my power to put things right.”

Any politician unwilling to articulate that message, fully and sincerely, is effectively sanctioning more years of growing social disharmony and discord. Things cannot heal until those in power recognise the extent of the problem and what it will take to fix it. And, on both counts, most of them don’t. 

That’s why the next few years are going to be very, very turbulent.

Sounds about right.

This caught my eye:

Like, just think about this for two minutes. What is supposed to be the standard here? Liberals can make claims like this and it’s illegitimate to contest them? How could this possibly work? What an outrageous arrogance. Saying crazy, untrue things doesn’t make you a good person, actually. That’s actually bad behaviour.

From this thread on the subject of race.

Though much the same applies to a number of other topics.

Regarding the recent enrichment in Belfast, and all of the previous fits of diversity and vibrancy, and the ones that will likely happen in a week or two

Also this, on a remarkably common justification for civilisational self-annihilation:

“But the British colonised other places, so they deserve it” is an argument that might sound compelling to someone whose primary concern is the karmic rectification of historical grievances, but to the normal sane person who cares about what’s best for his family and country, not only is such national masochism entirely unpersuasive and repellent, it is in fact a quick way to identify the speaker as an enemy and a threat to his people.

Which is the only way to describe one who actively wills evil on his countrymen, who aims to sell them out and inflict material harm on them in the here and now in order to avenge the long-dead of distant lands for his own ideological satisfaction.

Not, I think, an unfair summary of the phenomenon.

What should be done with enemies is left as an exercise for the reader.

I’ve seen or heard variations of the justification, or pseudo-justification, several times. And while the people who mouth it are obviously happy with the contrivance and perversity of their statements, they don’t seem to expect what one might regard as appropriate pushback.

As if they can have the perversity and send the oppositional signal – fuck you and yours, or something along those lines – without ever being taken seriously, taken at their word. And while enjoying every advantage of the society upon which they so pointedly wish destruction.

A question must not be asked by an MP during Alphabet Ramadan states another MP.

Which I suppose serves as a reminder that they aren’t merely wrong; they are dishonest, slippery. Morally disgusting.

I’m just going to leave this here.

For when, not if, I need to refer back to it.