After Jihad Suicide Bombing, Katy Perry Claims “no barriers, no borders, we all just need to co-exist”

Katy Perry puts part blame on the dead and injured victims of a suicide attack at Manchester children’s concert.

After the suicide bombing that killed 22 people in Manchester on Monday, Perry made headlines when she said in an interview that the best way to respond to terrorism is to “just unite and love on each other.” The real solution to all of the violence in the world, she insists, is “no barriers, no borders, we all just need to co-exist.”

You hear a lot of this sort of thing after a terrorist attack, which is why I think it’s worth engaging, vapid and ridiculous though it may be. But it’s not just vapid and ridiculous. There’s also something quite sinister about it. What Perry and her fellow co-existers are doing, in a barely veiled fashion, is putting at least some of the blame on the people who were blown up. The terrorist was led to strap on an explosive vest stuffed with nails because the world has failed to “unite.” It was not his own decision and his own wickedness that caused him to massacre kids; it was our society with its borders and its barriers and its intolerance.

We tend to just laugh at the Katy Perrys of the world — an understandable reaction — but we miss just how morally deranged this point of view truly is.

But obviously it’s the rank hypocrisy of the coexist brigade that jumps out at you most of all. And I’m not even talking about the hypocrisy of hearing a sermon about “unity” and “love” from a woman who couldn’t manage to stay married for longer than 14 months. If you’re going to unite with the whole world, whatever that means, it seems logical to begin by uniting with your own family. If you haven’t yet mastered that process, it’s probably best to leave the problem of worldwide unity to someone else.

I realize that celebrities who pontificate about love and unity aren’t talking about the kind of love or unity that actually requires us to do anything or make any kind of sacrifice. That’s why they feel comfortable telling us about “love” even as they treat their own spouses and children like disposable props. The love that keeps a marriage going is active and self-giving. The “love” Katy Perry refers to is just a vague feeling of pleasant indifference towards all of humanity. She “loves the world” by shrugging her shoulders at it. And when she tells us to respond to these tragedies with “love,” she means only that we ought not do anything to actively stop it from happening again. Instead, we should throw our hands up in loving surrender, and if more of us are brutally slaughtered, well, that’s a price Katy Perry is willing to pay.

Of course, the most egregious hypocrisy is in the bit about “borders and barriers,” which are the two things left wing celebrities always point to as the cause of all misery and strife on the planet. Yet Katy Perry scolds us for our “borders and barriers” from the security of her private estate, protected around the clock by walls and gates and a security detail. So, when she says “get rid of the barriers,” she means get rid of them for normal folks like you. She’s still entitled to live in her fortified mansion (that used to be a convent until she bought it against the wishes of the nuns who lived there) because she’s different. She’s special. You and I must sacrifice ourselves and our families in the name of multiculturalism, but not Katy Perry. We can’t expect her to jump on this particular grenade. After all, she’s more important. She sings songs about making out with women. She dances in her underwear. Whatever you’re doing with your life, it’s certainly not nearly as necessary for the betterment and sustenance of mankind.

But why do Perry and her neighbors in Beverly Hills feel it necessary to have all of that security anyway? We know they’re entitled to it because they’re superior to us in every way, but, still, why? Katy Perry loves the world, she says. She’s united. She should be immune from any dangers. Isn’t that how this is supposed to work?

Perhaps Katy Perry is not quite the moral relativist she claims to be. I think these leftist pop stars and celebrities recognize, despite what they say, that evil exists in the world. Evil commits evil. Evil desires destruction for its own sake. Evil preys upon the innocent because it hates the innocent for being innocent. There is no “environmental factor” that could cause a man to murder a bunch of children outside of a concert venue. He did it because that’s what people do when they submit themselves to the forces of darkness.

There are really only two things you can do with evil, and neither involve clasping hands and singing happy songs: 1) Defend yourself from it, and 2) Fight against it. That’s what those cameras and walls surrounding Katy Perry’s home are all about. That’s what our national border should be about. That’s what the gun in my bedroom is about. That’s what our military is about. And that’s what praying is about, because the fight against evil must take place in both the physical and spiritual realm. Katy Perry clearly understands this better than she lets on. Most leftists do, which is why they aren’t flinging open their front doors to let any old person come coexist in their living rooms.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *