Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Muslim Kill Liberals pt 4

The UK's Evening Standard reports on more cultural enrichment in London in Battersea murder: Cyclist, 17, 'hacked to death by masked gang armed with machetes' on south London estate.
A 17-year-old cyclist was hacked to death by masked youths wielding machetes in a terrifying attack on a London housing estate, witnesses said today.

The victim was chased by a gang wearing balaclavas and carrying large knives who stabbed him multiple times and left him sprawled on the bonnet of a car in Battersea.

Neighbours told how they raised the alarm after being woken at 1.25am on Sunday by the boy’s scream of “help me, I’m dying”.

He was rushed to a south London hospital by paramedics where he he was pronounced dead around 90 minutes later.

He is the fourth teenager to be murdered in London in this month alone, and the eighth this year.
The article doesn't specify the identity of the victim, but you'd have to be pretty dense not to comprehend the source of cultural enrichment that gang stabs random teenagers with machetes and leaves them to bleed out in a parking lot. It does mention that it has been the fourth murder of a teenager this month. 

I would never tell a parent who lost a child that they deserved it, but then again you'd never find me raising my child in an area with such cultural enrichment. Native Brits who remain in Londonistan must realize they are taking on these kinds of risks by living amongst Europe's favored sons & daughters. Immigrants themselves are also the victims of immigrant violence, judging by the names, but even they made the willful decision to root their families out of their ancestral homeland. It's not apparent to me that the migrants are any safer in the European neighborhoods they end up in. But if I was living in Jihadistan and Britain was offering welfare bennies to anyone who could make it there with a sad enough sob story to apply for asylum...well I'd certainly be tempted.

There is another lesson in this story. The article mentions that knife and gun crime is on the rise. I'll spare you a gun control argument, but notice what's happening here. In London there are armed gangs roaming and killing people nearly at random. Four dead in a month. If four were killed all at once it would be breaking international news for a couple days. Since they're spread out, they're barely covered. Google News shows only four outlets picking up the story, all British.

If you're somewhat conservative or K-selected, this would be an abhorrent reality. In America, we pretty much look the other way as gangbangers shoot each other up, but once innocent citizens start getting hit we take strong action to stop the random criminality. This is a core distinction between r- and K-selected traits. In r, violence is okay just so long as it is random. The violence should not give any group selective advantage. Note the British stance on guns. Absolutely not allowed. Why, because it will lower crime? Certainly not! This article alone should be enough to destroy that narrative. No, they're against citizen gun ownership because it would give one group -- gun owners-- a competitive advantage. Guns by themselves don't give an advantage (in a lawful society), and random crime doesn't either, but put them together and the armed folk gain a survival advantage versus their gunophobic counterparts.

Ostensibly the r-selected rabbits don't want random violence or gun rights (which is equated with violence). They don't want any violence at all. That's what they say, but r/K theory would predict that, at a subconscious level, they should actually desire the violence. And in practice, isn't that what we see? Besides the gated communities of the very rich, every place liberals touch there is violence. The inner cities are violent. The refugee camps are violent. The Mexican gangs are violent. The Muslims are violent. BLM is violent. Their foreign policy (under Obama) tended to support violent radicals. Their protests turn violent. They bring violence to the peaceful rallies of their political opponents.

For a group that is against violence of all sorts, they sure seem to surround themselves in a perpetual cloud of violence. Still they loathe self-defense gun rights. This is probably the most confounding thing to standard conservatives, but it is all perfectly congruent with r/K theory.

1 comment:

  1. I enjoyed the argument that armed folk gain a survival advantage versus their gunophobic counterparts. It explains perfectly why the r's are for gun control. Silly rabbits, gun rights are for K's.