With monotonous regularity we are served news about mass murder by the virtuous. Consider the killing of “unbelievers” and the reaction to the miscreants. Not long ago, the present’s journalistic and penal responses would have been unimaginable. Depicting events in the now fashionable tone would have prompted an enraged public to retire the source in the nut house.

Perennially, we are treated to the decapitation of hostages, the liquidation of the inconvenient and assorted massacres. All this for reasons and with methods that surpass the imagination of fiction writers.

What hides behind the reluctance to confront the challenge the way it presents itself? Take the police report re-written because it used the term “rape” depicting The New Years Day events in Cologne. Or the censure attempt of the Orlando tapes. The deeds of Islamists are occurrences that “should not be.” Therefore, to maintain membership in the liberal tribe of the “decent ones,” one must ignore the evidence.

As in the given instance, the “evidence,” albeit difficult to overlook, is not allowed to decide debates. We need not be surprised.

Looking at the origins of human behavior, we encounter two approaches to tackle problems. The first one finds the facts, weights them and establishes a relationship. With that done, a construct emerges that might call itself a theory. It remains valid until it can cover new facts. In the second approach, the theory derived from a mixture of wishes and cultural prejudices is stated at the outset. This theory serves as a skillet into which pleasing facts are thrown in to be stewed until the palate is suited. This is how the resulting PC creates facts to fit the theory. America’s chief chef of the concoction is the current President and his kitchen crew.

Concretely put, the resulting PC constrains thinking and fact finding so as to keep the public’s mind within the limits it deigns to set.

One of these is western guilt, which is the ritualized remorse of the successful. It proceeds from the assumption that success is achieved at the expense of victims. In successful societies, the dirty secret of the achievers is said to be the exploitation the “toilers.” Globally, the equivalent is that via"colonialism" — ended after WW2 — the developed world exploits underdeveloped countries.

It so happens that this argumentation is based on the economic science of the illiterate, the history of the ignorant, all wrapped in the realism of the drugged.

First, backward societies are fed the pleasing idea that their condition is caused by an evil from abroad. Believing that excuse, deprives these of their ability to improve their condition through a local effort that could close the developmental gap. Several retarded societies have climbed high to join the modern world — South Korea used to be poorer than Africa. Retarded development can only be overcome if the problem and its origins are identified by a mobilized society.

Second, we find a self-incrimination motivated by a combination of naiveté, and a desire to exercise moral leadership to redeem idealized remote cultures. Its practical effect is the impediment of the defense of the (guilty) western way of life. Effectively protected can only be what is worth a defense. Defending a realm of evil will be feeble. Even the best cannon is ineffective if those manning it doubt the cause.

Third, the threat grows because the system that underpins the modern world is questioned while its defenses are caused to fade. The dictum of “if you do not like it, kill it” is spreading among all political tribes. The lawlessness by entering migrants and of the parallel society of the settled ones is growing. Meanwhile, there is also an enhanced external threat which unfolds in combination with the internal hazard. So, the spiral of violence rises and the extraterritoriality of enclaves, over which only nominal sovereignty exists, expand. Parallel societies enjoy immunity from the law except the one of their own making by invoking “race” and religion to claim an exception. Those opposed are, so the governing elites, xenophobic bigots.

Remarkable about this confused kowtow before anything that claims a moral right to flaunt the law is that it invokes a principle. Disturbing about the retreat before unreasonable demands is that the resulting concession is made at the expense of other sacrosanct norms.

In the case of Islam-inspired crimes, the first reaction is a denial that shrinks the incident, and that proclaims religion to be irrelevant. If a Muslim erases a homosexual party, then he is “only” homophobe and, although he shouts “Allah Akbar,” not a representative of the faith. Once this line of defense fails, the deed is lessened invoking religious freedom and folkways. An open minded “culture of welcome” is said to demand a restrained, non-judgmental reaction. Even if it is part of a pattern, the incident figures as a regrettable misinterpretation of the “religion of peace.” Add that, in the 17th century’s wars of religion, Christians were violent, and that there still are Christian extremists. (Would it not be nice if they would migrate to Muslim countries and live out their tantrums there.)

There is something hypocritical about the inclination to avoid talking a stand by finding a moral argument for retreat. The chiding to understand, condone and to tolerate, likes to cite values and principles. However, the soft-pedaled crimes of some groups are more than transgressions against a tradition-bound indigenous majority that needs to learn about diversity. No matter how hard the apologists try, the violators are not innocents and their deeds are not harmless.

Tolerance for the misbehavior of integration resistant groups goes beyond lenient patience with slow learners who, as guests, live out their quaint cultural peculiarities abroad. Just consider now some of the items on the list of abuses.

Let this begin with civic issues. There is the diminishing public security, the Sharia-inspired rejection of the political-social order of the hosting country, and the support of subversive recruiters that serve hostile states. Then there is the economic crime of ethnic gangs, and the political violence against “apostates,” local critics, and insolent media. Below the state-level, we find child marriage, forced unions, rape, female genital mutilation, the negation of the freedom of religion, such as the tolerated persecution of Christians in refugee camps, and the politicizing of religion that defies the separation of church and state.

Clearly, the behavior that western elites tell us to “understand” in order to tolerate it, infringes on another set of rights. These are women, equality, freedom of religion and expression, due process, and citizenship. They are said to be fundamental, so that it is the purpose of every civilized order to protect them. It follows that new rights granted to privileged newcomers collide with, and prevail over, acknowledged liberties made into law through freely given consent.

Genuine liberalism — such as what moved the Founding Fathers — denies freedom for those who use their claim to deprive others of their unalienable rights. The democratic state created to enshrine liberty must protect its fundaments without allowing exemptions. Those that are deputized by the people to govern that find reasons not to be unequivocal in this matter, abuse the power of government.

Neo-liberal elites create a disadvantage for their peoples because they put the rights of recalcitrant migrants over those that elected them. Thereby, imported minority rights obstruct the birthright of the majority to live according to its ways. The claim, that majority rights create a dictatorship of the majority, is hollow. The inclination to sacrifice the majority’s freedom to serve a cuddled minority has another explanation.

Recalcitrant but privileged communities resist moral and legal pressure. Their resistance is not only verbal but also physical in a headline grabbing way. That confuses liberal elites who are committed to peace at any price. Anything that resists must feel to be justified. Therefore, it is virtuous to deal with it by giving ground rather than by resisting it. This makes “resistance” — in translation “disobedience” — a low-risk undertaking. We know this: Whatever is easy but profitable is repeated.

All principles demand that, if need be, they be defended at a sacrifice. Our day’s liberalism assumes that nothing is worth blood, sweat, and tears because challenges can be met with incantations. Life teaches another lesson. As the news reaches Average Joe, he proves to be smart enough to draw disobediently “subversive” conclusions.