There appears to be a discernible and deliberate inclination towards a progressive, socially conscious agenda aimed at substantially altering societal norms, particularly in the US and UK. This movement has sparked notable shifts in the mindset of younger generations and established systems, often marginalising and diminishing traditional ideals, many of which have been extensively tested and proven fundamental to the enduring functionality of societies, either stemming from religious doctrine or lessons gleaned from regions ravaged by conflict.
Religious doctrines offer a visionary framework for societal governance, encompassing laws and ethics guided by the belief in a higher being as the arbiter of moral principles. In contrast, man-made legal systems are considered inferior, less efficient, and prone to internal conflicts and contradictions compared to those established by an all-knowing, all-wise deity.
The implementation of such man-made policies, despite originating from idealistic concepts conceived by philosophers, often results in substantial disruptions when applied within real-world organizations and societies. Initially met with resistance due to conflicts with established practices that have endured for generations, these ideas have frequently been realized through sacrifices made in conflicts, with individuals willingly laying down their lives to usher in the world they envisioned.
Understanding these challenges, agendas like the ‘liberal woke agenda’ subtly permeate the societal framework, altering dynamics surreptitiously before being openly challenged, critiqued, or aligned with prevailing systems. Perpetrators of such agendas gradually erode traditional values within legal confines, identifying thresholds where their imposition of what they consider to be moral may provoke a violent response from the populace. They meticulously record and present these reactions to the judiciary to legitimise their practices within the legal realm.
These agendas are advanced through a tactic of victimhood, injecting, enforcing, and weaponizing policies while assuming the role of innocent victims. This surreptitious appropriation is executed in a manner devoid of scholarly discourse, carried out by individuals who believe themselves above omniscience or have succumbed to an overpowering sense of ego. Often, they are well-connected and resourced by influential figures to serve their self-interests rather than the collective good of the community.
This represents a transgression, deviating from the divine order, by permitting what is impermissible and prohibiting what is permissible. The repercussions are evident in the form of devastating consequences and a fractured community plagued by insensitivity, anger, harshness, and deep-seated insecurities. Division is rife, with people gravitating only towards those within their own circles, led by self-proclaimed leaders lacking genuine leadership qualities, guided more by personal ego than collective welfare.