Why do they always target the innocent?

I am not saying that a majority of Islamic people become Islamists - relating to the expansionist political ideology. I'm not saying that a majority of militant atheists become terrorists. I am saying that when terrorists do arise, they tend to follow an observable pattern like this. Devin Patrick Kelley, 26-year-old, opened fire inside a small church, murdering at least 28 and injuring 30 more. After a tragedy of this magnitude, two factors come into play. Liberals blame guns and conservatives blame "mental health." The President made an official statement in which he also blamed "mental health." Yet, none of these explanations are satisfying. All of them are wrong - dangerously wrong.

The truth of the matter is far more sinister. It is simply not the case that it's the same on the right. The reason Dylann Roof was such a hysterical media case is precisely the fact that he was the white stag of the media world - the elusive right wing terrorist. Most violent crime every year and most domestic mass terror incidents occurs among those who, if they were voting, would predominantly be voting left-wing. Militants and atheists and Islamists are politically left-wing wherever they gain political power, in favor of transferring all authority to themselves- remember the Orlando Marteen shooter's father in the front row of a Hillary Clinton rally days after the horrific attack.

As such, these two sides of potential terror target the innocent for the same essential reason: hatred of being itself. They are two sides of the same modern nihilist phenomenon - ennui taken to its pathological end point, mayhem for mayhem's sake. Radical Islamists claim to believe in God, but you'd be a fool to believe that this is the cause. They worship the power granted through their own pathological ego to "save the world." Militant atheists generally vote for the left, and for that reason they effectively worship state-power. They have no grounding, they are certain only of death and taxes.

Compare the two: For the militant-atheist, often neo-Marxist, being is a tragedy and human beings are the cancerous cause of this tragedy - that's why they believe in an "environmental utopia" without human beings. They may be "Green" on the outside, but like watermelons, they're red on the inside. For the militant Islamist, being is also a tragedy and their stated commands given from "Allah" is to annihilate as many infidels from being as they can while they are waiting to die.

Primarily and essentially, both the militant atheist and the Islamist are waiting to die - and before they do, they want to cause as much suffering on the innocent as possible.

A few examples: The monster who shot up the Shik Temple was a militant atheist. The two attackers who descended on a church in Normandy last year and hacked the head off the priest were Islamists. The Sudanese immigrant who shot up a white church in Tennessee was a racially motivated Islamist. Devin Kelley is only the latest militant atheist to slaughter Christians. Throughout the 20th century, most of the annihilators - whether Stalin, Mao, Hitler or Pol Pot, were militant atheists. "Progressives" in their own words.

The media crows, but you would be a fool to believe in their tears. A southern baptist church annihilated by a Rachel Maddow watching leftist terrorist who publicly and often avowed his hatred for Christians. This is what the media lives for and never acknowledges: they incite violence against conservatives and against the innocent with almost every nightly broadcast with epithets like "Nazi!" and "Christian mind-virus." Yet when hate crimes directed at Christians occur, they refuse to name it, refuse to talk about it for longer than a single news cycle. What do we do about this ghastly phenomenon? How do we convince these life-destroyers that although suffering is an intrinsic part of being, being itself should not be condemned?

Unfortunately, both the militant atheist and the Islamist has been so polluted by hatred that convincing them of the essential value of life is probably impossible. The "New Atheists" like Richard Dawkins see no value in life without leftism - that's why they promote infinite "progress", because to their mind life is unendurable unless it is progressing to some utopia - a utopia that is inevitably leftist in its worldview and totalitarian in its scope.

How many Christians would Dawkins be willing to sacrifice to bring about his neo-liberal government controlled utopia? How many would Prince William be willing to sacrifice to achieve his psychotic "population reduction" and his "green vision" for the future? Untold numbers.

The militant atheist complains: "But my views derive from logic and reason!" That's what Marxists and fanatics always claim. They have no sense of limitations whatsoever: they believe, fundamentally, that they understand the world and all it's particulars. They are the worshipers at the Tower of Babel. And what do they always conclude? Being is corrupt, people are a cancer, life would be better if there were fewer people alive in it.