"Fortified, Yet defenseless, The West Suicidal Response to Terrorism.

 I tend to agree, the people of old from the West, would have just eradicated the scrounge from their country, but now they refuse to mention for fear that they might "offend" or be called a "racist" or an islamophobe"...Oh the horror.....the shame.   When regular people are fighting back like that 12 year old girl did in scotland did because she was tired of her and her sister being harassed by "Migrants" and nobody in power would do anything about it, they would turn a blind eye, unless you made a mean tweet or some other social media post, then the full weight of the British judicial system would fall on you.  Me personally, I have concerns about travelling to the former Great Britain because they would lock me up because of my social media post

   The same thing is going on in the rest of Western Europe, the Europeans are afraid to call out the Muslim invaders for what they are, and the common people know but the people in power don't listen to the "Riff-Raff", and any deprevations done by the "refugees" are not experienced by the power class so the S-A's continue, the r*apes continue, in england they have the pakistani grooming gangs and nobody does anything about it...."we can't appear intolerant...mind you".  In a couple of generations, the conquest of Western Europe will be complete, and the people in Eastern Europe will have a hard time stopping the flow of refugees from the west.  I won't live to see it.  The people that built the Sistine Chapel and other great works are being replaced by people that can't build mud huts effectively.

Yeah I shamelessly clipped this one also.

Michael Smith

13h ·

When terrorists strike, Western governments have perfected a predictable playbook: retreat, restrict, and reassure the public that their growing helplessness equals safety. This defensive surrender, while wrapped in the language of security, represents a catastrophic misunderstanding of how free societies survive existential threats. We’re building a modern Maginot Line—and pretending it’s victory.

The Maginot Line failed because France chose expensive static fortifications over adaptable strength. The Germans simply went around it. Today’s security theater follows the same doomed logic. Birmingham installs “hostile vehicle mitigation bollards and upgraded CCTV at strategic locations” to keep the city centre safe. The Australian Prime Minister responds to violence by demanding even tighter gun restrictions on law-abiding citizens. These aren’t solutions—they’re admissions of defeat dressed up as policy.

Consider what this approach actually accomplishes. Bollards protect one street while terrorists strike the next. CCTV cameras create perfect footage of atrocities for the evening news. Gun control ensures that when violence erupts, victims are guaranteed to be defenseless for the critical minutes before police arrive—if they arrive at all. We’re not making citizens safer; we’re making them more photogenic victims.

This is the bunker mentality in action: harden specific targets, disarm the public, expand surveillance, and hope terrorists don’t notice the obvious workarounds. But terrorism succeeds precisely by exploiting vulnerability and spreading fear. When governments respond by rendering citizens even more dependent on protection that cannot be everywhere at once, they validate the terrorist’s central message: you are helpless, your leaders cannot save you, and your way of life is indefensible.

The alternative requires acknowledging an uncomfortable truth: in a free society, security is a distributed responsibility, not a service governments can provide through concrete barriers and security cameras. This means empowering citizens to respond to threats rather than training them to cower and wait for rescue. It means recognizing that capable, trained civilians are force multipliers, not liabilities to be managed.

History demonstrates this clearly. Israel’s security model, forged through necessity, emphasizes armed citizens and immediate response over passive measures. Switzerland’s approach reflects similar wisdom: a prepared populace is itself the deterrent. These societies haven’t eliminated terrorism, but they’ve fundamentally changed the equation. An attacker facing potential resistance from multiple directions confronts a vastly different scenario than one assured several minutes of unopposed slaughter.

The standard objection—that armed civilians would cause chaos—reveals the bankruptcy of current thinking. This argument demands that citizens remain helpless while assuming they’re too incompetent for anything else. But proper training and clear legal frameworks address these concerns far better than policies guaranteeing that only criminals come armed. The real question is whether we trust free people with the responsibility of freedom, or whether we prefer the comforting illusion of safety through submission.

Each bollard installed, each surveillance camera mounted, each restriction imposed on law-abiding citizens represents a choice: are we free people capable of defending ourselves and our communities, or subjects to be managed and protected by an apparatus that demonstrably cannot be everywhere at once? The bunker mentality chooses the latter while pretending it’s the former.

True security in a free society doesn’t come from fortifying targets and disarming citizens. It comes from distributed resilience—the recognition that strength resides in the fabric of civil society itself, not in fixed defenses that can be bypassed or overwhelmed. When Birmingham installs more bollards—and inventing Orwellian names for them like Hostile Vehicle Mitigation barriers—and Canberra demands more gun restrictions on top of some of the strictest in the Western world, they’re not solving the problem. They’re building their own Maginot Line while congratulating themselves on their prudence.

The Maginot Line was expensive, impressive—and ultimately useless— because it was static and rigid. Our current response to terrorism follows the same failed playbook. Strategists bank on the enemy following their playbook.

The question is whether we’ll recognize this before the cost becomes unbearable, or whether we’ll continue fortifying while surrendering the very freedoms that make our societies worth defending.