If Muslim terrorism targeted MPs instead of people who just happened to be outside the House would UK foreign policy be corrected sooner?— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 24, 2017
If four MPs had been killed by the Westminster Muslim terrorist instead of non-MPs, would we be closer to fixing UK foreign policy? https://t.co/ZoPFTRjVXu— Claire Khaw (@ntfem) March 25, 2017
What year was the Brighton bomb?
What year was the Anglo-Irish Agreement?
Do you think Muslim terrorists are better at putting two and two together than shit for brains MPs sitting in Parliament as representatives of the idiocracy?
It would appear Islamophobic Western Man considers the neocon policy of bombing and invading Muslim countries as an expression of Western masculinity.
The Military Industrial Complex of the Western Man has the perfect modus operandi: keep invading Muslim countries and keep allowing Muslim immigration.
Allowing Muslim immigration while preventing people from complaining about immigration and giving Muslims special status causes Muslims to be hated, creating the desire in beta male cannon fodder to bomb and invade Muslim countries, which is brilliantly self-perpetuating.
Creating a fear of Muslims in the West also allows the state to pass ever more repressive laws to justify spying on everyone, another beneficial side effect for the intelligence community who are part of the deep state.
It cannot be healthy or decent to express your masculinity in enabling, facilitating and committing mass homicide, can it? This is after all what serial killers do.
Part of the white man's cultural identity is the belief he has the right to mass murder Muslims globally with impunity from retaliation.
When he suffers retaliation in the form terrorism in his own country, the degenerate Western matriarchy calls for the observation of pointless rituals of a minute's silence and candlelit vigils, clearly designed to generate emotion and to suppress thought so its victims never think to question Western foreign policy or their government's immigration policy, both designed to prop up the stinking degenerate matriarchy of parasitical female voters and their spawn, who are voracious clients of the welfare state.
Why does the white man feel he has to mass murder Muslims abroad as a cultural practice? Because at home he is a pussywhipped mangina whose social status is below that of a fornicating slut or Slut Single Mother with variously fathered feral bastards who live off his labour and his taxes whom he doesn't even get to fuck.
Simon Sheppard on How Feminism Caused Two World Wars
"We should ask, and seek a satisfactory answer to the question: Was it a coincidence that the British government capitulated to women at precisely the same moment in history that it directed a blood feud of a savagery unknown for centuries? Extraordinary lengths were taken to prevail in the First World War, and extraordinary measures were taken rather than accede to the German and American peace overtures which were made, especially during December 1916."
"It is generally acknowledged that the First World War directly led to the Second."
"A man who has lost control at home can seek to dominate elsewhere."
"The desire to dominate and subdue women, a natural male instinct with sound evolutionary origins, was expressed another way. Germany was subjugated instead. Moreover the British government had itself become feminized, choosing as its adversary one more masculine than itself, the sort of enemy the female would choose. By attacking a more masculine opponent, males were serving the female interest."
"A nation, like a man, that is secure in itself and in its masculine capacity to control does not wish to cruelly persecute a vanquished foe. This took place after both world wars."
'... feminization played a part in the instigation and unprecedented magnitude of violence of the subsequent two world wars. One cannot help but wonder at the carnage and suffering which might have been avoided had British bobbies, on facing organized suffragette rebellion in the years around 1910, simply been told to “roll up their sleeves.” '
Why doesn't Western Man stop waging war on Muslims abroad?
Why does he continue to allow Muslim immigration into his country while he wages war against Muslims abroad? It makes no sense, but then it makes no sense for men to let irresponsible and promiscuous women have the vote and most women in the West are irresponsible and promiscuous, do not have legitimate children, are not good wives and badly parent what children they manage to have leading to a shortage of employably literate and numerate citizens, leading to a labour shortage, leading to an insatiable demand for cheaper and more willing immigrant labour.
Why does this deep-seated and long-standing problem remain addressed? Because politicians are not capable of planning beyond the next election.
How should it be addressed? My proposals to abolish multi-party democracy, abolish the welfare state, repeal pro-feminist legislation and impose a one-party Secular Koranist theocracy capable of promoting social conservatism and the long term national interest will be unlikely to get any publicity from the corrupt liberal media more in the business of suppressing news than reporting it.
It is impossible to get an answer from a patient who is in a catatonic state.
Western Man is simply in a state of neurotic suspension, on the one hand compelled to do the same thing again and again because that is what he has been doing ever he can remember, and on the other fearing the consequences when he wakes up to admit that he has been in error for God knows how long and for how many generations for allowing indiscriminate universal suffrage, tolerating widespread bastardy and allowing his addiction to extramarital sex and cheap foreign labour to go unaddressed.