Diversity of opinion should co-exist within a single country, but when that diversity becomes an emotional cacophony of clashing values, the society runs the risk of becoming flat-out crazy nuts, unpredictable, and dangerous, especially when those divergent opinions and values attempt to form public policy.   This type environment, a country rich with a national dissociative identity disorder, is the natural byproduct of an intellectually lazy people.  The result is biblical.  The people themselves ‘know not what they do.’

Lest I be too obtuse, let me give you one clear example:  Let’s assume our subject is a developed and civilized society with a rich cultural history that includes widely accepted governing laws of the land.  Let’s say….Sweden or Germany.   Let’s further assume that this developed and civilized country accepts a statistically significant number of refugees from a differing culture with values and laws that are diametrically opposed to the values and laws of the host country.  Conflict, on many different levels, is bound to arise.

This example begs numerous questions such as

1. Was the conflict unexpected and therefore there were no plans to deal with the problems?  Can we, therefore, conclude that leadership was intellectually lazy and perhaps even naïve?
2. Or was the conflict fully anticipated beforehand and knowingly accepted with no forethought or effective plan to mitigate the foreseen problems?
3. Or, was there indeed a plan hatched with foresight that has simply failed terribly?
4. Was the society as a whole entirely too giving, so humanitarian, so blindly giving in fact that its own very existence was not protected? Is this country a victim of self-sabotage?  Did the leader-loons open the group home without sufficient staff to protect all resident loons?
5.  Rather, were the leader-loons manipulated, outsmarted?  Did they lack necessary skills? Are they incompetent?
6. Or, worse yet, did they simply not care sufficiently about the people and the society they were charged to protect? Are these leader-loons so sanctimonious that their personal need to prove to the world their own bleeding heart generosity gave way to the risk of losing what is most dear to so many?

In each and every one of the above scenarios, the lunacy of the leaders controlled the thought process.  Of course, lunacy must be the natural result.  Lunacy breeds lunacy, just like short people breed short people, and brown eyed people breed brown eyed people.   In this instance, the result is harmful, possibly irreparable, possibly even fatal.

A ‘LET THE IMMIGRANTS COME’ policy, with no rational, moral forethought opened the floodgates to a wild, vehement force that unleashed on their own countryside. Just ask the affected women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve, or ask perhaps their fathers, mothers, or husbands, or ask the Swedish women who now must swim only with other women to avoid being molested.

Assuming the leader-loons had cognizance, which I think is a reasonable assumption, did they have the right to threaten, perhaps even destroy, the rich heritage and way of life they were elected to safeguard?

 

 

Copyrighted 2016. All rights reserved.