The West’s Response to Jewish Killings Isn’t Protection It’s Appeasement!

Appeasement at it's worst....

SO LET’S TALK ABOUT AUSTRALIA’S RESPONSE

Because this part matters.

A Jewish gathering gets attacked.
People are murdered.
The country is shaken.

So what does Australia do?

Does it confront the ideology that keeps producing this violence?
Does it ask hard questions about radicalization, imported conflicts, or incompatible belief systems?

Nope.

Australia’s response is to go after its own citizens.

They announce gun buybacks.
They float new “hate speech” laws.
They warn everyone to be careful what they say.

That’s the response.

Not to the killers.
Not to the ideology.
To you.

LET’S NOT PRETEND THIS IS CONFUSING

The attack targeted Jews.
That part is not ambiguous.
The motive wasn’t foggy.
The hatred wasn’t subtle.

And yet the state’s instinct wasn’t:
“We need to confront the belief system that just showed its face.”

It was:
“We need fewer guns in civilian hands.”
“We need tighter controls on speech.”
“We need to make sure criticism doesn’t get out of hand.”

Out of hand for who, exactly?

Because the people who carried out the violence already ignore the law.
They ignore gun laws.
They ignore speech norms.
They ignore Western values entirely.

But law-abiding citizens? They’re easy.
They comply.
They apologize.
They surrender ground quietly.

So that’s who gets regulated.

THIS IS THE MODERN WESTERN PLAYBOOK

Something horrific happens.
The government promises action.
The action has nothing to do with the cause.

Instead, it looks like this:

• Disarm the people who follow rules.

• Restrict speech before someone notices a pattern.

• Avoid naming ideology at all costs.

Wrap it in the language of “unity” and “cohesion.”

In Australia, this instinct comes straight from the top.

Anthony Albanese isn’t responding as a leader confronting danger.
He’s responding like a risk manager trying to avoid controversy.

Gun buybacks create headlines.
Speech laws earn activist applause.
Neither does a damn thing about why Jews were targeted.

That’s not leadership.
That’s optics.

WHY THE CONVERSATION ALWAYS GETS DERAILED

Here’s where governments quietly smile.

Some people react with rage.
Some say insane things.
Some cross lines that should never be crossed.

And the moment that happens, officials get to stop answering questions.

Now the story isn’t:
“Why does this ideology keep producing violence?”

The story becomes:
“Look at these awful comments.”
“Look at this dangerous rhetoric.”
“Look how irresponsible critics are.”

Case closed.
Failure buried.
Next press conference.

That’s why bad rhetoric is useful to people in power. It poisons the well for everyone else.

STRIP THE NOISE AWAY AND THE QUESTION IS SIMPLE

Why does Australia respond to Jewish killings by weakening free speech and self-defense?

Why is criticism treated as the threat instead of the belief system that just spilled blood?

Why is the solution always silence, disarmament, and appeasement?

This isn’t about hate.
It’s about statecraft.

A serious country:

• Protects speech so problems can be named early.

• Enforces laws against criminals, not citizens.

• Demands assimilation instead of pretending parallel cultures are harmless.

• Understands that ideas matter.
  
  

• A weak country does the opposite.
  It manages feelings.
  It avoids confrontation.
  It punishes obedience.

CALL IT WHAT IT IS

Australia didn’t respond to Jewish killings by confronting hatred.

It responded by telling its own people:

• Say less.

• Own less.

• Expect less.

• That’s not strength.
  That’s surrender with a press release.

And the more this pattern repeats, the more obvious it becomes:

When governments won’t confront dangerous ideas, they always settle for controlling the people who are easiest to control.

That’s the real story.
And that’s the conversation they’re desperate to avoid.