In a recent post, the principle proposed was that the true or real enemy of the people, at any time, can be identified as the predators and parasites.
More fully, it means any who cast an eye at what we legitimately have … and want it. Not only want it but create ideologies and schemes in order to take it from us. Because they think they have a right to what is ours.
It’s a good model of “the enemy” because it’s all-encompassing. Someone taking lives in Paris is just as much one of these predators and parasites as any bankster or socialist or even government itself. That is, he wants to take our lives away from us because we do not give his beliefs our belief.
In this are two aspects – proactivity in taking from us and unreasonableness. These people are always actively trying to steal that which is not theirs to steal but there is never any reciprocity involved – nothing is ever given back, something called give and take, which is the basis of deals and agreements.
As for us, we want one thing – either protection, the right to protect ourselves or both. We do not wish for your assets, we’re happy for you to live your life your way [even if we might comment on that, we don’t want any official way to force you]. In short, we wish for you to keep your grubby hands off and out of our business, provided that that business is legitimate in our traditional culture.
In the post on Israel, Harry J linked to a YouTube clip. The content of the clip was a worry. It was an American Jewess in Sweden saying that in her view, multiculturalism was good and the “leaders of transformation” towards that goal were the [leftwing] Jews. WTF?
One sane commenter wrote:
Nobody “needs” her transformation of society and nobody asked for it.
And there it is again, is it not? Someone outside of our sphere telling us what we must give away and actively trying to steal that from us. She herself has to give nothing of course. She’s there to take.
A second aspect was the rest of the comments
I don’t think I’ve ever read such bile-filled comments by everyone against everyone else. If I were an atheist and wanted to show just what fanatical “religion” does to people, that would be the comments thread. People of all different hues were in there, urging the killing of the other hues. It was true insanity.
The only sane commenter in the thread further wrote:
The problem is multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is codeword for anti-culture: The destruction of coherent and consistent values [in the nation].
And that is the key, the prime issue. Yet again, it is people trying to take away from us that which is legitimately ours – in this case, our culture and values. And 3.7 million French people marched yesterday behind both that assertion and for the right to protection from alien groups who made their way into our the society and who don’t share our values.
As the marchers would say – either you, the government, protect us from these others or else authorize us to protect ourselves or if you won’t allow either of those, then it’s so bleedin’ obvious who should be shown the door immediately:
1. Those from outside who wish to “transform” our society into their image;
2. Documented foreign criminals at all levels, including the EU;
3. Those who clearly have no intention of embracing what our land has always been about.
And following from that, the incarceration of those who facilitated, abetted, plotted towards and created this situation. In other words, the politicians of the nation and of the EU Commission.
A legitimate question is: “Should there be no transformation in society? No progress?
The answer is that there will always be advances – in science, in medicine [although there is a theory of my mate’s that there has been no real progress, especially in IT, since 1999 – we can discuss that at length another time] – but that these things are incremental, they’re mere tweaking in response to inefficiencies here and there, things failing to be fit for purpose etc.
It categorically does not mean wholesale [relatively] sudden changes and social engineering, tinkering with the building blocks and underpinnings of the society. There should be no such salaried job as Change Agent. There is zero need for that sort of change and you telling us there is such a need is so much hogwash.
We do not buy it or to paraphrase the words of that commenter:
Nobody “needs” your transformation of society and nobody asked for it.
If you try to impose that on us, then you are attempting to take from us that which is ours and you will be opposed – vehemently or by our stonewalling. Keep your grubby hands out of our affairs and take heed of Arkell v Pressdram.