I’m going to be out celebrating my grandmother’s 95th birthday, so there probably won’t be anything new until after it’s done.
But I did want to point out a source of some confusion regarding my opinions on violence. On the one hand, I advocated shooting would-be illegal immigrants but I also condemned the Norway massacre. Some might interpret this as inconsistency and, indeed, perhaps it is. But I see a difference between shooting people who are in the midst of invading our country and shooting people who are not harming anybody at the moment. There are a couple of other distinctions that should be made.
Should we shoot the illegal immigrants – if they’re 15 years old? I say “yes” (in the legs, at first). They are just as much a threat to our country as the older ones – probably even more so. Should we advocate shooting up a La Raza youth rally? I wouldn’t advocate it – but I would not mourn the victims either. There is an almost 100% probability that the teenage Hispanics at that rally would all grow up to be adult anti-white activists. The world would be a better place without them. As for the white teenagers in Norway, I’ll admit ignorance – but, despite whatever sick ideologies they might have today, they belong to the race that is being dispossessed. Their attitudes are likely to change.
The blog Unqualified Reservations (linked to by Apuleius in a prior post), by Mencius Moldbug, quotes Breivik’s essay – in which he describes himself, in his earlier years, as an active “tagger” and a hip-hop fan. He also had gang affiliations (for protection). If the adult Breivik had met the adolescent Breivik, he might have shot him. It bugs me that Breivik felt justified in being the judge, jury and executioner for adolescents who were simply products of their upbringing and environment – just as he was. At that age, we are all products of our circumstances.
This being said, I believe that early adolescents, who murder in cold blood, should be tried and punished as adults. They are no longer “mislead youth” but real, dangerous, criminals. Especially the black ones who seem to be married to the lowest part of their genome, and are unlikely to ever divorce it. “Products of their circumstances or not”, such creatures have no place among us.
The treatment of violence is a tricky thing. To openly advocate it invites risks of criminal charges – unless one is advocating that government initiate violence; then it’s okay (sarcasm). If we completely renounce violence, then we are doomed. We must protect ourselves (and sometimes the best defense is an effective offense). As Moldbug says (ibid.):
If you ask a lot of people to be angry about the Bronxification of East Oslo, someone is going to act on it. The goal of trumpeting is to obtain power, and the means of power is violence. To denounce violence is to renounce power. To renounce power is to surrender.
Perhaps, in Breivik’s shoes, I would see things differently – and it’s easy, from the comfort of my Northwest abode, to condemn such acts of desperation. There’s a lot more to be said about this – and I’ll leave it to the commentators for now. I’ve got a grandmother who needs visiting!