One of the leading issues of the day which could be solved very quickly if it were not the official policy of the globalist cabal no one voted for is the illegal immigration invasion of the West. In this is included specious refugee claims, and even those which might be legitimate, although those should be handled closer to where it is happening.
Since it is the time of Apostasy long predicted, some might say that these invasions are part of the chastisement. It may well be, but the same people who are behind that are the same who are responsible for the degradation and demoralization of the West (in particular from 1958). It is called the "mystery of iniquity", who are behind the "operation of error" of the 100% 24/7 MSM narrative and propaganda, and who are the agents of the "powers and principalities of darkness" in this world. The point is that although this or that may be part of the chastisement, it is not true that it is a good thing; and it is not true that it is in any way justifiable. Besides which all of them who are willingly taking part in this invasion, if they are not real, true, authentic refugees, are damning themselves much more surely than if they had stayed where they were. They will not gain the world for losing their soul, even if they gain freebies for a while and also some targets to abuse sexually while not being prosecuted (in England in particular right now). With that out of the way, let us go to the parable at hand; but with proper context first:
The way the 'left' argues is to deny that the opposing position exists. Thus it is that they become upset when people point out that these "migrants" are illegal, and illicit. Even the term is part of this: "Migration" denotes a movement from one place to another in the world without regard for borders. They may argue that the word "immigration" has a "stigma" and that therefore we should not use it; but what they really mean is that the term contains in itself the recognition of borders and sovereign nations; so that those who cross these borders illegally are rightly called "illegal immigrants" - and therefore bad. It is a verbal trick to sidestep the issue as if it does not exist; for how can someone oppose someone else's right to move from one place to another ? This is unreasonable (as they think). Whether or not they are conscious of it (and it is suspected many of them are), they speak as if the position opposing theirs does not reasonably or logically exist.
To understand this, one must examine the basis for their position: There is more than one layer, and the motivations differ from one level to another (according to the more or less firm belief of its adherents), but what it boils down to is this: The false god, equality. Further down, it is from the devil, who, having destroyed everything else which once made up the West, wishes to finish the job by mixing the descendants of what was once Christendom with the rest of the world in order that the connection to the past may be irretrievably broken.
On one level, many people on the 'left' [1] believe that, in order for the world to be more fair, and equal, the West has to open itself up to the rest of the world. They treat the world as if it were one nation, and that therefore it is unjust for some areas to be more wealthy and materially successful than others (one can argue that the 'wealthy' Western nations are also the most morally sabotaged and enchained by Rothschild central banks via illicit monetary manipulation and usury but we will pass over that for now).
Without an understanding of true justice, which is of God, and eternal, and concerns the next life as well as this, many on the left burn inside with 'the worm that dieth not' (Mark 9:43,45,47) [2] when they consider the inequality of the world, which they simplistically consider unjust.
To understand why one cannot argue with them as one would with normal people, one has to understand the absolutist nature of their position. Being absolutist is not, in and of itself, an evil; but starting from a position of error it cannot be anything else.
Considering their absolute faith in the righteousness of their cause, that of equality, their position becomes easier to understand: They do not see the world as divided along nations, creeds, races, languages; but they simply see a world divided. Worse still, it is divided along the lines of 'have's' and 'have-nots'. This is ultimately all that matters to them, and thus, all that they see. Gone is all historical context. It does not matter how this nation came to be wealthy and that nation came to be poor; the fact that they are is unjust.
It could be that one nation came from a background which believed in a God without superstition, and that, even during the years of the waning of faith, this baseline informed all things related to science, so that, knowing that God made 'laws' governing the order of the universe, these 'laws' were discovered in due course; and this came to be applied in greater and greater measure to the profit of some and indeed many; but this was applicable to nations and regions with such similar backgrounds.
Science and technology did not drop out the sky and Europeans rose and kicked everyone else out of the way which is how they came to have 'supremacy' (as it is called) when all nations and their races ought to have benefited at once (if the world were one nation, interestingly enough).
Also, one does not succeed by actively keeping others down as the primary modus operandi. The opposite is true: One succeeds by self-application of skills without reference to outside influences. But this does not matter to the left: Absolutely speaking, everything does not add up to a condition of equality, and this is therefore evil.
Thus, to argue against illegal immigration to these people is to argue, in their minds, against fairness and justice. They simply will not comprehend it. Borders are against equality, and in their minds, fairness and justice; so borders have no legitimate existence; it is simply a 'systemic structure' of supremacy and racism to them. [3] Their position presupposes, as said before, that the world is to be treated as one nation; and also that equality across the board is the natural condition of fairness, and justice, in the world; it is much to presuppose on nothing more than a vague sense of what is the proper balance in the world; but it could be argued that their position presupposes that there was an original equal condition in the world. That could be the world before Original Sin; but what they will not admit is that Original Sin may be true, even as they fault what they see as injustice (understood as inequality, not actual justice, per individual) on literally everything else in existence except Original Sin.
In short, what they do not recognize as true is what they do not realize is driving them.
There was a book written by Malachi Martin called "Hostage To The Devil", and one of the cases related therein inspired this parable, because what it describes is familiar:
Let us say there was a building project to be done somewhere. The stones had to be sourced from somewhere; there was a pile of stones nearby (from a quarry) and near to that was an old stone church.
One of the builders pointed to the church and said, "Let's use that pile; it's not being used for anything".
But the other said, "I don't know about that; seems it is already arranged for something. Let us use those" he said, pointing to the pile of stones further off.
But the first said, "No, I don't want to use that pile. It's so messy. Those other ones are already shaped for what we need".
Second: "They're already stuck together."
First: "What are you talking about ? The sizes and shapes are just right. Just separate them."
Second: "Might be more work".
First: "It'll be fun. I really want to use that pile."
Second: "You don't actually see anything there, do you ?"
First: "Just a pile of stones, perfect for us to use".
The Second builder is clearly more aware than the First, even he is not fully cognizant. The pathological denial of the first consists of 1. Denying that the church, or even the concept thereof, exists; and 2. Being absolutely bent on using those stones and not the others, and without any apparent reason than personal preference.
The reason that is not stated, of course, is a desire to destroy the church, but without recognizing its existence as a motive for action.
This illogic is paralleled only by the spectacle of an antipapacy which claims the authority of the actual papacy while undermining every dogma of the Faith. Claiming an authority which is the force behind dogma but denying the Faith which is the force behind the dogma. It is like saying: "I deny what makes the papacy but use its authority".
There must be a term invented by someone, somewhere, to describe this kind of contradiction. It is not only a 'cognitive dissonance', because it denies the existence of one of the things which is dissonant with the other. Perhaps it is not possible to capture this in words while being sane.
1. The term 'left' is to denote all those who are against God, which includes those who believe in any 'god' except the Catholic God of 33-1958 A.D., or at least those who generally have got the right idea; it also denotes all globalists, communists, atheists, in short, all who wish for a new globalist order based on naturalism. The left/right paradigm is not completely accurate, since the 'right' is, according to the narrative, supposed to support modern day Israel, which is conflated with the true ancient one. But for convenience the term 'left' is used as commonly understood.
2. The phrase is used unconventionally here, but it applies to a 'temporal kind of hell' which is experienced by many on the left when they see inequality everywhere and it is the only sin that exists. This is because equality, or equalism if it is a religion, is their god. And since they are the ones who feel this way they consider it the lot of others to be punished, and not themselves, for their inequality and for not having the virtue of suffering with an illusory moral indignation for the inequality of others. This is called 'virtue signalling'.
3. It so happens that 'systemic structures of structured systems' are built on lines of whether it works; whether it is reasonably efficient; but not whether everyone representing this or that part of the world takes part. That's not the point of getting things done.
No comments:
Post a Comment
--