Manchester: The stone cold truth (about my opinion)

If you came here looking for some insight or inside information about a recent murder-by-bomb that occurred, you’ve come to the wrong place. This ain’t about that.

No, this is something more personal. Just my own thoughts about my distance from what happened and my views on the aftermath.

Let’s get the obvious out of the way.

So apparently some dude goes to a concert in Manchester and kills others and himself with a bomb and injures many others. That it is terrible for those directly involved, the victims, the injured, and their loved ones goes without saying. [And yet I said it … hmmmm … kinda weird statement.] 

What crossed my mind was this: how would a righteous course, a just judge, handle a murder that resulted in the death of a murderer? There’s no one to try in a court for murder and the victim is dead. 

Anyway, then there’s the circus, the rhetoric, the schpeel. What was a tragedy turns into foolishness. The amount of such tragedies that occur tends to turn my heart steely. 

Captive by word of mouth

Unsurprisingly the political parasites and collectivists chime in, not just announcing their personal alleged feelings of sadness for the horrifying event, but alse claiming that the whole of Britain says this or does that or feels something.

This is another occasion where people take it upon themselves to speak for millions of strangers. I just can’t decide if it’s arrogance or ignorance.

I guess it doesn’t have to be an “either-or” but rather a mix of both.

Strangers/Unity

Here is where I may appear more heartless, but I want to be honest in the face of all this flowery nonsense.

The people of Manchester,the individuals who live there, and those who were involved in the tragedy, they all were strangers to me yesterday. In a meaningful and practical way, they did not exist in my life. There’s a very good chance that that fact of life is mutual between us.

And during the news coverage, there was no significant change to my life. 

And you know what? Tomorrow, there’s every chance that we’s still remain strangers and exist in our own worlds. Nothing has changed fundamentally. This tragedy did not unify them with me, us both having a common cause against the unseen, politician/media-hyped enemy. Just like so many similar tragedies that have occurred, it’ll be just like what happens to the Facebook profile pictures of some people. Before the tragedy, it was just a face. When the tragedy occurs a meaningless symbol is added or a change is made. And then once the tragedy has lost its impact and real life takes hold, the profile picture goes to something else to do with the day-to-day existence.

Not wanting to be the victim of a terrorist is just a small subcategory of the human desire not to get killed. There’s nothing to unifying about it. The fact that that a supposed terrorist attack happened on that day doesn’t mean there is now a 100% chance or even a significantly increased chance that it will happen again and more frequently. 

So, despite the rhetoric of the media clowns, there is no united national group of people because of this attack. There’s no unified feeling. We’re still strangers living on an island, getting on with our own lives. I’m sure some may feel part of something, but that definitely doesn’t speak for everyone.

Spirit of Manchester

My christian background caused me to laugh when I heard a number of times about the “spirit of Manchester.” I was wondering if in the past it was called “Legion” due to the wide variety of people who live there and thus the various conflicting agendas, self-interests, personalities, and so on and so on.

The way certain influences have tried to romanticize the concept of millions of people living in a city as having a certain spirit … hey, maybe they were trying to bolster the inhabitants after such a shocking event, but it’s no better than comforting a child who is afraid of the dark by telling him that Santa will watch over him. 

The issue here is that they’re trying to take what should be the ideal of human values – determination, fortitude, diligence, etc. – and link in to a certain location, a plot of land, a legal fiction, when the location is quite irrelevant. 

It was great that there were good and giving people who helped out. It does show evidence for hope in the human condition. And I’m sure that some people can live as the ideal of what humans are supposed to be. 

But the notion of a Mancunian spirit is a pleasant fiction, an opium, a placebo. It’s a subjective as the notion of a true American (or should I say “true Scotsman.”)

Nationalism

Linked to this is the following issue.

There are people in this landmass who don’t like the idea of a nationalist party. They get connotations of racism and discrimination from such a concept. Parties like the British National Party, English Defence League, even UKIP are shunned due to the discrimination linked with the nationalism of the parties.

Yet the mainstream parties, including the big “fat” politician at the top, the so-called “Prime Minister,” are free to spew out nationalism in the form of talking about “British values” and defending the British way of life as if it were something better and higher than other ways of life within other landmasses. I’ll get to the reason why this is hypocritical in the next section.

But words like that only fuels the feeling of superiority that many in this country appear to espouse. The great thing about the Jewish Bible is that the prophets were not afraid to tell the people how depraved they had become. In this country, we have ego-expanders and ego-strokers who attach righteousness not with actual good deeds but with … with what? I don’t exactly know what Britain is supposed to be. It can’t be the government even though the politicians feel they can talk for everyone. It can’t be the individuals because there is a gamut of different people with very different ideas. I can’t imagine Britain being an ideal. God help us if it is! It just seems like another label having to do with traits that have nothing to do with morality.

Evil?

Ha! Did I say morality? Did I talk about morality? In a secular (godless) country? As my friend would say, “Bwah ha ha ha ha!”

We have newspapers and public speakers bemoaning the total and absolute evil that the murderer was, how he could slaughter children at a concert. And yet day after day, so many, in all walks of life, including in the media and government, put down and undermine objective morals and the basis of objective morals.

All “good” and “evil” are is down to opinion, except when it comes to the decrees of the politicians that make up UK law. If you cross and conflict with these dictates, all of a sudden, you’re immoral. To be a criminal, in and of itself is frowned upon, even though law is not the record of Deity on high and his objective and informed teachings upon the lives of his creation, but rather the enforcement of dictates made by people known to be liars, immoral and untrustworthy, having a track record of legislating for murder and thievery. Isn’t that odd?

So in our culture, the nature of evil is either just your point of view or if you fall fowl to the enforced opinions of politicians. That is, if they manage to catce you and convict you.

Not the platform upon which to build hope for “our nation.”

So those in the media bewailing the evils of that murderer and ISIS are just windbags, leaky hot-air balloons, seeking for a popular notion.

It is somewhat hopeful in that it is a blessing of God Almighty that people still have a concept of good and evil. The fact that they can recognise the evil in this deed.

But the foundation for this is fickle, unreliable and all you have to do is look elsewhere for a different point of view that is more accepting of such acts of killing.

It puzzles me that they cannot grasp why people would attack the children or young people of a place. I mean, a part of me wonders why these random murderers pick the general populace of a place and not the politicians, government groups, like the police or army, or the tax offices. But then it reminds me of what democracy, statism and collectivism means. It doesn’t mean freedom. It doesn’t mean individuality. It means that when the busybody-voters choose to invest in a bunch of politicians, and those parasites makes stupid and dangerous mistakes, everyone, everyone, becomes guilty in the eyes of other collectivists. “Britain” becomes this big immoral beast, and to stab even a little bit of it, even if it’s not the head, is still an attack on the beast.

I’m not saying it’s right or good. I’m not saying I know what was in the mind of the murderer. I haven’t got a clue. But the notion that it’s unimaginable how someone could attack the young people of a populace, especially with the different and conflicting moralities in the world, shows a real lack of thought.

Statism

And all this gives more power to the ruling class as more of their thugs, mercenaries and mini-tyrants (yes, I mean the army and police) appear and are given more freedom to roam the streets, looking for who they can devour.

It makes many people feel safe, after such an unsettling episode, that the hand of the god called “govt” is over the land in the form of the uniforms and the guns. The unarmed citizenry can feel comforted knowing that they signed over their protection and responsibility to the gun-wielding arm of the constabulary and army, as they prowl the streets.

The threat level is announced all over the country to be raised to “critical” to ensure that the fear levels are just right. 

And what do I hear on the radio?

“We should tell our politicians and our police to do something about this.”

With my car radio defaulting to BBC Radio 4, it is all too often that I hear the meaningless collectivist rhetoric of “we” and “our,” as if the radio presenter were speaking about a known group of people of which he was included. All too often I hear the adulation of and willing surrender to the ruling class and its enforced opinions. It appears to be important for the media to pump out the message until there is some other distraction to turn to.

And on this occasion, it is a call to the listener to find a prayer pillar, and invoke the name of the gods in Westminister and the priests in the blue uniform in order to bring down even more commandments to condemn the “evil-doers,” those who would even sympathise with the alleged cause of the murderer without having actually committed an actual unlawful act. It’s time for more laws. It’s time to kick out those deemed to be interlopers. Throw the book at them! The indignation in the voice of the broadcaster … it made me chuckle to hear such a message.

But that’s the thing I notice about the mainstream media. When fear and distress is about, it’s time to reaffirm the faith of the people of the nation, but in what? “God” has been dying for some time and in the hearts of many, he is already dead.

No, now it’s time to put your faith in the oligarchs and their armies! 

God help us!

May the true God they see as dead or irrelevant, may he help us!

Advertisements

8 Comments

  1. Hrvatski Noahid

    I like the anti-EU and anti-Islam platform of the English Defence League and UKIP. I like nationalism. There is nothing wrong with loving the people with whom you share a common culture and identity. You write the fact that a supposed terrorist attack happened on that day doesn’t mean there is now a 100% chance or even a significantly increased chance that it will happen again and more frequently. True. But if Britain continues to import Islamists, the killings will definitely happen more frequently.

    • I think about your use of the word “nationalism” and trying to figure out how meaningful it is. The UK is multicultural. So sharing the same culture means what? Culture is not the same as country or people. And identity, what is that? To share the same identity due to the political ruling class you happen to live under? And what does this love contained in nationalism mean? You don’t love someone from a different culture, identity or under a different ruling class? Or you don’t love them as much? What is the concrete expression of that difference?

      My article spoke of superiority. Is that the nationalism you embrace or respect?

      “If Britain continues to …” What are talking about? What is this “Britain?” Are you calling the ruling class “Britain?” They’re the ones in control of the import. Are you referring to the individual who happens to live in the UK? The individual whose solitary voice cannot impact these matters? So what are you factually and really talking about?

      Is Islamist the same as Muslim? Are all Muslims internationally the same?

  2. Hrvatski Noahid

    Yes, the UK is multicultural. We saw a good example of multiculturalism in Manchester.

    If you were born in Britain and have lived there your whole life, you are British. You share a common culture and identity with other Brits. This is a statement of fact. You cannot objectively describe yourself as German or Russian. You cannot possibly know what it means to be German or Russian in any true way. I see nothing wrong with loving others who share your culture and identity more than you love complete foreigners. And I make no apologies for saying that.

    No, I do not respect anyone’s claims of superiority. We are all equally and infinitely inferior compared to HaShem.

    Let’s cut the political correctness. If the number of Muslims/Islamists in Britain increases, the number of terrorist attacks will increase. If you think otherwise, I fear for you. I really do.

    • Without a clear definition of culture and identity, i can’t agree that that is a statement ​of fact.

      There are many more cultures in the UK and Manchester. It’s not just British people and Muslims. Multicultural is not simply bi-cultural.

      Being British, German, Russian or whatever is not culture but government territory. A nation is not a culture as can be seen by the word “multicultural” in one nation. The two shouldn’t be conflated.

      The people in this landmass are as much strangers to me than someone from another one. I see no reason to love strangers differently because of something as irrelevant to character as landmass.

      By the way, I’ve never asked for an apology.

      Superiority isn’t a bad thing in and of itself. It can be very true in some descriptions. Someone may have a superior command of the English language than me. Or another person may have a superior character than me. We’re not equal in many ways. And there’s little point in comparing man to the Great Transcendent.

      I don’t want you to fear for me, so I won’t mention any disagreement or doubt regarding your last statement

  3. Hrvatski Noahid

    Great thinkers throughout history have debated what a nation is. Our friendly discussion will not give a definitive answer.

    • You know what, my good colleague? I’m ok leaving it there, but let me make some things clear. I don’t look down on you because you like nationalism. I don’t see the way you describe it as a flaw that makes you all of a sudden a bad person. You know I think highly of you (and I pray that lasts for as long as possible).

      Also, I don’t see your view of Islam or Muslims as totally wrong. There is a VERY good reason why we are forbidden to create religions and this is one of them.

  4. Hrvatski Noahid

    Thanks David. I appreciate that. Stay well.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: