To be a National Socialist in the West today, you have to be so mentally retarded that Hitler would have euthanized you under the Lebensunwertes Leben principle.
That, my friends, is irony.
Irony
Tag: philosophy
Mailvox: the Pope of the Alt-Right
WS complained about my detached and contemplative approach.
Maybe Vox figures he’s the Pope Benedict of the Alt-Right: the one who leads a contemplative life and assures us of his thoughts and prayers as we’re getting the snot beaten out of us.
I found it mildly amusing that she thought I was thinking about them at all. There is a reason why I didn’t know who Jason Kessler was until yesterday. It was because I paid absolutely no attention to the rally in Charlottesville, despite apparently having been invited to speak there, until it made the news.
Neither Clausewitz nor van Creveld ever commanded in the field. Karl Marx was considerably more influential as an author than as a labor organizer. And it seems unlikely that Alexander the Great’s astonishing military success was entirely unrelated to the fact that he happened to have the greatest thinker in Man’s history as his personal tutor.
In light of the surprising discovery that the front man for the so-called “Unite the Right” rally was a left-wing Obama voter, I’ve been giving some thought to the assertions of some of the petty self-proclaimed national socialists that they are too of the right. In this vein, I thought it would be profitable to consult Leon Trotsky on the matter. His thoughts, expressed in the dramatically titled, but perceptive essay “The Fascist Danger Looms in Germany” are thought-provoking, if less useful than one might have assumed.
In order that the social crisis may bring about the proletarian revolution, it is necessary that, besides other conditions, a decisive shift of the petty bourgeois classes occurs in the direction of the proletariat. This gives the proletariat a chance to put itself at the head of the nation as its leader.
The last election revealed — and this is where its principle symptomatic significance lies — a shift in the opposite direction. Under the blow of the crisis, the petty bourgeoisie swung, not in the direction of the proletarian revolution, but in the direction of the most extreme imperialist reaction, pulling behind it considerable sections of the proletariat.
The gigantic growth of National Socialism is an expression of two factors: a deep social crisis, throwing the petty bourgeois masses off balance, and the lack of a revolutionary party that would be regarded by the masses of the people as an acknowledged revolutionary leader. If the communist Party is the party of revolutionary hope, then fascism, as a mass movement, is the party of counter-revolutionary despair. When revolutionary hope embraces the whole proletarian mass, it inevitably pulls behind it on the road of revolution considerable and growing sections of the petty bourgeoisie. Precisely in this sphere the election revealed the opposite picture: counter-revolutionary despair embraced the petty bourgeois mass with such a force that it drew behind it many sections of the proletariat….
Fascism in Germany has become a real danger, as an acute expression of the helpless position of the bourgeois regime, the conservative role of the social democracy in this regime, and the accumulated powerlessness of the Communist Party to abolish it. Whoever denies this is either blind or a braggart….
The danger acquires particular acuteness in connection with the question of the tempo of development, which does not depend upon us alone. The malarial character of the political curve revealed by the election speaks for the fact that the tempo of development of the national crisis may turn out to be very speedy. In other words, the course of events in the very near future may resurrect in Germany, on a new historical plane, the old tragic contradiction between the maturity of a revolutionary situation, on the one hand, and the weakness and strategical impotence of the revolutionary party, on the other.
Now, there is without question a social crisis across the West. A severe social crisis of historic proportions, arguably more serious than the one of the previous century. But in every case, the big bourgeoisie is allied with government bureaucracies and the ur-communists in revolutionary hope while both the petty bourgeoisie and the proletariat are increasingly inclined towards counter-revolutionary despair. Moreover, the class metric is largely irrelevant, because the dividing lines are far more clearly identified on identity grounds than on class grounds.
In other words, from the Trotskyite perspective, we’re in new territory here, and more sophisticated philosophical tools are required for useful analysis and prediction. But it is already clear that neither simple identity metrics nor conventional ideological metrics will alone suffice.
In defense of the dark lord
John C. Wright reminds everyone that we are on the same side:
In any case, I wanted to take the opportunity to calm frazzled nerves, and to emphasize in how few matters Vox Day and I disagree.
First, we both voted for Chuck Tingle for a Hugo Award. Love is real!
Second, we both support a permanent ban on further immigration into the United States, but would settle reluctantly for a fifty year ban. We both would prefer immigrants, if they must come, to be from civilized nations, and persons who clearly offer more to the nation than the likely burden their coming imposes.
Third, we both believe Mohammedanism is incompatible with Western Civilization. Koranic Law allows neither for the Rights of Man nor any republican form of government.
Fourth, neither of us believes coerced integration of the races is desirable nor possible. There is nothing wrong with a man seeking out his own kind.
Fifth, we both regard the ‘open borders’ and ‘New World Order’ and ‘One World Government’ type talk as treason against the United States and against the West.
Sixth, we both think feminism is cancer. Woman are happier and society is healthier when brides are young, and families are large.
Seventh, we both reject the strategy embraced by GOP politicos and pundits that noble defeat is better than crass victory. The Culture War is real, it is a war, and our side has suffered decades of humiliating defeats. A gentleman does not use the Marquis of Queensbury rules with a guttersnipe, a cur, a blackguard, or when facing a mob.
Eighth, we both call Western Civilization, the legacy of the Christian religion, Roman law, and Greek philosophy, the peak of human glory. It is worth defending; indeed, it is the only thing on this world worth defending. Everything else is cruelty, fatalism, superstition, and injustice.
Ninth, we are both nationalist, and both anti-globalist: there is no moral wrong with a nation existing nor with a nation prioritizing its own interests.
Tenth, he and I both believe that every race, nation, people, tongue and tribe has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers. We both reject the subjugation of one ethnic group by another.
Eleventh, he and I hold similar views on war: imposing democracy by force, or imposing conversion by the edge of the sword, is both cruel and foolish.
Finally, he and I are both Christians, which means, we are both beloved sons of God living in a universe whose Creator has fashioned objective laws of logic, objective imperatives of morality, objective standards of truth and beauty, and also fashioned the human soul to crave and seek and be able to find these things.
The insane atheist world of moral subjectivism and cultural relativism, of deconstruction, postmodernism, and nihilism, he and I both see to be the work of darkness.
For my part, I do not concern myself in the slightest with what John thinks. As with Martin van Creveld and Steve Keen, he is one of those rare talents who is to be cherished for that talent alone; everything else is noonday shadows in comparison.
And don’t forget, John showed himself to be loyal even before we were acquainted. As writer and editor, we know each other in a manner that is uniquely, and and at times even alarmingly, intimate. It’s hard to describe to someone who is not a novelist, but to write fiction is, to a certain extent, to bare the soul, especially to those who know how to read deeply and see the individual revealed in the textual creation.
John is a better man than I am. I admire and respect him, and not only for his incredible literary talent. I do not expect anyone to agree with me about all things, indeed, I do not know anyone who does, including myself from only a few years ago. Remember: the man who is a failure always manages to find disagreement with others, but the man who is successful will always find a way to find common ground with his friends and allies.
Brains vs credentials
It was rather amusing witnessing a brief Twitter encounter between NN Taleb and the British historian Mary Beard. I commented on it.
Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
It’s hilarious to watch @nntaleb steamrolling the pretentious know-nothing @wmarybeard. It’s what happens when brains meet credentials.
mary beard @wmarybeard
Call me many thing. Pretentious may be No nothing, no. What is your view prof taleb?
Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
It’s all relative. The point is that you are resorting to rhetoric and attempting to debate via posturing. That doesn’t cut it with Taleb.
mary beard @wmarybeard
They really are nice these guys
Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
What part of “Supreme Dark Lord” do you find hard to understand? I am literally on the list of Very Bad People SJWs use for fund-raising.
Jo Pearce @JosPearce
hilarious – they clearly feel threatened.
Supreme Dark Lord @voxday 6m6 minutes ago
By what? She might wave her credentials again in lieu of saying anything intelligent or convincing? I quiver.
patty l lane
Go back to your games you twit
Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
Go back to your cats, you sad lonely woman.
Jude Evans @onlyonejude
Actually, just try being civil??
Supreme Dark Lord @voxday
This is me being civil.
No substitute for effort
Peter King relates an interesting story that explains Bruce Springsteen’s unusual work ethic:
“Have you read the Springsteen book?” Garrett said the other day in a lengthy conversation before practice. (“Born To Run,” an autobiography, 2016, Simon & Schuster.) “He’s 20 years old, everybody at the Jersey Shore loves him, but he’s unknown nationally, and a good friend and adviser tells him, ‘If you really want to be great, you’ve got to get off the Jersey Shore.’ And so they pile everything in a couple vehicles and head west to this sort of open mike night in San Francisco.
As Springsteen wrote, the band was part of a four-band showcase; one band would get the chance to move on and perhaps get a recording contract. The Jersey guys went third and thought they killed it. The fourth band, though not as energetic, was very good. Via “Born To Run:”
“They got the gig. We lost out. After the word came down, all the other guys were complaining we’d gotten ripped off. The guy running the joint didn’t know what he was doing, blah, blah, blah.”
That night, Springsteen reflected, sleeping on a couch in his transplanted parents’ home in the Bay Area. “My confidence was mildly shaken, and I had to make room for a rather unpleasant thought. We were not going to be the big dogs we were back in our little hometown. We were going to be one of the many very competent, very creative musical groups fighting over a very small bone. Reality check. I was good, very good, but maybe not quite as good or exceptional as I’d gotten used to people telling me, or as I thought … I was fast, but like the old gunslingers knew, there’s always somebody faster, and if you can do it better than me, you earn my respect and admiration, and you inspire me to work harder. I was not a natural genius. I would have to use every ounce of what was in me—my cunning, my musical skills, my showmanship, my intellect, my heart, my willingness—night after night, to push myself harder, to work with more intensity than the next guy just to survive untended in the world I lived in.”
That’s how we approach publishing at Castalia. Yes, we may be smart. Yes, we’ve got some advantages, and, of course, some disadvantages as well. But the one thing we absolutely know is that no one in the publishing industry is going to outwork us.
I was particularly satisfied this weekend, although I was turning in even later than I normally do – I’m usually irritated with myself when that first glow of sunrise is beginning to appear and I realize that I’ve stayed up too late again – because I managed to complete the edits on two books that night, both of which will be published this month.
I very much appreciate the near-fanatic levels of support we receive from you guys. It is an integral part of Castalia’s success. And you can rest assured that we will never take it for granted or coast on our past accomplishments.
He is not arguing here
John C. Wright defends an alternative definition of argument:
An invalid argument is not an argument in the same way a cure that fails to cure is not a cure.
People use the word argument both to mean any arguments and to mean valid arguments.
Likewise, people use the word cure both to mean any cures and to mean only cures that work
You are getting worked up over a semantic argument. Which is also not an argument
To which I respond: if the word “argument” can be legitimately understood to mean only valid arguments, that meaning is nonsensical. Such a definition renders the very concept of arguing incoherent because only the correct party could be considered to be presenting an argument.
And if both parties are advocating incorrect positions, then neither party is presenting an argument, and therefore neither of them can be said to be arguing at all, which effectively destroys the language as we have no word for the not-arguing they are doing, nor do we have one for the not-arguments they are presenting to each other.
The semantics are not irrelevant here. The fact that people may use a word a certain way does not mean they are not incorrect to do so. People say “inflammable” to mean “not flammable” too, but that usage is incorrect. A faulty syllogism is still a syllogism, an incorrect or invalid argument is still an argument, and an unsuccessful medical treatment is still a treatment.
Which may explain why that limited definition of argument does not, in fact, exist. Whereas, as it happens, both definitions do exist for cure:
- a method or course of remedial treatment, as for disease.
- successful remedial treatment; restoration to health.
So, it is observably incorrect to say that an invalid argument is not an argument in the same way a cure that fails to cure is not a cure. To put it into purely logical terms, A cannot be Not-A, but X can be Not-Y.
There is no normal
David Marcus observes that the God-Emperor is the inevitable result of the Progressive Left methodically destroying traditional social norms:
Progressives have found a rallying cry in their opposition to Donald Trump’s presidency. Whether in the New York Times, on the John Oliver Show, or in protests in the nations’ streets, they are insisting that Trump is “not normal.” News media and elected officials not considered critical enough of Trump are criticized for normalizing him and his ideas. Suddenly progressives, of all people, are deeply concerned about our culture’s long-held norms and traditions.
The irony in all of this is crystal clear. These are the same people who over the past few years have insisted that five-year-old boys becoming five-year-old girls is normal. They tell us that a guaranteed basic income and running for president as a Socialist is normal. Forcing Catholic hospitals to offer birth control, undocumented immigrants voting in our elections, and abolishing the police: normal, normal, and normal.
In Donald Trump, with his admittedly dangerous, devil-may-care attitude, progressives have stumbled upon the value of conserving norms and traditions. A president just doesn’t say these awful things about his opponents and the media. A president doesn’t tweet attacks at enemies late at night. A President doesn’t put a controversial figure like Steve Bannon a few doors down from the Oval Office.
But here’s the thing: it’s too late. We are way past that now. The Left let its freak flag fly. We all saw it. No normal is the new normal and there is no clear way back from that.
The dyscivilizational forces of the Antiwest cut down the forests of tradition, decency and normality. Now the meme-devils of the Alt-Right are free to pursue them without restraint, limitation, or hesitation. And we will.
Let them open up their hate and let it flow into us. We will drown them in it.
Before we can replant the trees and regrow the forests, we must first eradicate all of the elements that destroyed the old ones.
Posterity: TK vs VD
As you probably know, my argument is that the Posterity for whom the Constitution is intended to defend the Blessings of Liberty consists solely of the genetic descendants of the People of the several and united States. Posterity does not include immigrants, descendants of immigrants, invaders, conquerers, tourists, students, Americans born in Portugal, or anyone else who happens to subsequently reside in the same geographic location, or share the same civic ideals, as the original We the People.
Tom Kratman, as part of his series on Civic Nationalism, took a very different stance in an essay entitled Ourselves and Our Posterity. He claims that in this particular case, “our posterity” means nothing more than “succeeding generations”. Read the whole thing, it’s not an incompetent case, merely an incorrect one. Not only that, but he also claims that the alternative definition to which I subscribe, “actual legal descendants and heirs”, is “utter nonsense”. He wrote:
I’m not sloppy Vox, you’re just wrong, your genetically based posterity argument utter nonsense, start to finish.
He also added, rather confidently, that he can match me IQ point for IQ point.
Vox, since you set store by it, I can match you IQ point for IQ point. Yes, I can… Once again. you have a word in the preamble which doesn’t carry it’s own definition. The dictionaries of the day do not help you, because they use three definitions. Within the document, itself, you have clear, absolutely unambiguous evidence that they intended immigration and naturalization because they provided from immigrants to eventually, within their lifetimes, be able to hold any elective office in the land but one. You have the 1790 act, which is commentary on the intent, but not actually necessary because the constitution itself, as mentioned above, provides for the ability of naturalized citizens to become senators and reps. ANd then there is the problem of omission. I mentioned Hobbes in my first post in this thread. Why? I mentioned it because he had translated Thucydides 148 or so years before the revolution; they had that in their libraries, and so they knew about more restrictive – genetic posterity-based – rules for citizenship and neglected to use them. Would have been easy. Didn’t bother. Did, once again, put in provisions for non-genetically based citizens in the highest office.
Now, I don’t mind people calling me out. It adds a certain flavor to the discourse. The problem, however, is that one’s ability to match me in the decathalon is irrelevant when the contest concerned is the 100-meter dash. This is particularly relevant if you happen to know that I can’t pole vault over my own height. As I warned Tom, his case is an eminently reasonable one, but it is a purely logical argument of the sort preferred by lawyers, the very sort of argument that reliably fails when the relevant evidence is examined. As with many an economic model, Tom’s case relies upon imputing a false rationality and coherence to the behavior of all-too-often irrational and self-contradictory human beings. I could come up with a dozen alternative explanations to his logical conundrum, but I won’t bother, because I have a considerably more effective response to offer.
The question is this: how do we determine which of the three definitions of posterity should correctly apply to the term “posterity” as it is used in “ourselves and our posterity”? The answer, as I previously suggested, is straightforward. To understand how the term was meant to be understood in the Preamble, we must look at how the same people using it were using it in their other writings. Fortunately, there are more than a few mentions of “posterity” in both the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers which are discussing the very constitution in question. There are seven instances in the Federalist Papers.
- To this manly spirit, posterity will be indebted for the possession, and the world for the example, of the numerous innovations displayed on the American theatre, in favor of private rights and public happiness. (DEFINITION 3: future history)
- In framing a government for posterity as well as ourselves, we ought, in those provisions which are designed to be permanent, to calculate, not on temporary, but on permanent causes of expense. (DEFINITION 3: future history)
- This dependence, and the necessity of being bound himself, and his posterity, by the laws to which he gives his assent, are the true, and they are the strong chords of sympathy between the representative and the constituent. (DEFINITION 1: descendants)
- WE, THE PEOPLE of the United States, to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ORDAIN and ESTABLISH this Constitution for the United States of America. (TBD)
- No partial motive, no particular interest, no pride of opinion, no temporary passion or prejudice, will justify to himself, to his country, or to his posterity, an improper election of the part he is to act. (DEFINITION 1: descendants)
- …upon Congress, as they are now constituted; and either the machine, from the intrinsic feebleness of its structure, will moulder into pieces, in spite of our ill-judged efforts to prop it; or, by successive augmentations of its force an energy, as necessity might prompt, we shall finally accumulate, in a single body, all the most important prerogatives of sovereignty, and thus entail upon our posterity one of the most execrable forms of government that human infatuation ever contrived. (TBD)
- Whence could it have proceeded, that the Athenians, a people who would not suffer an army to be commanded by fewer than ten generals, and who required no other proof of danger to their liberties than the illustrious merit of a fellow-citizen, should consider one illustrious citizen as a more eligible depositary of the fortunes of themselves and their posterity, than a select body of citizens, from whose common deliberations more wisdom, as well as more safety, might have been expected? (DEFINITION 1: descendants)
Note that the distinction between “posterity”, used in the sense of future history, and “his posterity” and “their posterity”, used in the sense of direct genetic descendants. This suggests that “our posterity” is also meant to be understood in the case of the latter. Also note that none of the seven examples are clearly instances of Definition 2: succeeding generations with the possible exceptions of 2 and 6. But there is considerably more evidence to consider. Now let’s turn to the Anti-Federalist Papers.
- Therefore, a general presumption that rulers will govern well is not a sufficient security. — You are then under a sacred obligation to provide for the safety of your posterity, and would you now basely desert their interests, when by a small share of prudence you may transmit to them a beautiful political patrimony, that will prevent the necessity of their travelling through seas of blood to obtain that, which your wisdom might have secured. -Anti-Federalist No. 5,
- The first thing I have at heart is American liberty; the second thing is American union; and I hope the people of Virginia will endeavor to preserve that union. The increasing population of the Southern States is far greater than that of New England; consequently, in a short time, they will be far more numerous than the people of that country. Consider this, and you will find this state more particularly interested to support American liberty, and not bind our posterity by an improvident relinquishment of our rights. – Anti-Federalist No. 34, The Problem of Concurrent Taxation
- Rouse up, my friends, a matter of infinite importance is before you on the carpet, soon to be decided in your convention: The New Constitution. Seize the happy moment. Secure to yourselves and your posterity the jewel Liberty, which has cost you so much blood and treasure, by a well regulated Bill of Rights, from the encroachments of men in power. For if Congress will do these things in the dry tree when their power is small, what won’t they do when they have all the resources of the United States at their command? – Anti-Federalist No. 13, The Expense of the New Government
Notice in No. 34 the way a distinction is made between Virginia’s posterity and the posterity of the 12 other States. This makes it very clear that “our posterity” refers, specifically and solely, to direct genetic descendants and no one else. Furtheremore, there are other relevant examples from the era that underline the same point.
- We have counted the cost of this contest and find nothing so dreadful as voluntary slavery. Honor, justice, and humanity forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. – DECLARATION OF TAKING UP ARMS: RESOLUTIONS OF THE SECOND CONTINENTAL CONGRESS JULY 6, 1775
- They were governed by counts, sent them by the kings of Oviedo and Leon, until 859, when finding themselves without a chief, because Zeno, who commanded them, was made prisoner, they rose and took arms to resist Ordogne, son of Alfonsus the Third, whose domination was too severe for them, chose for their chief an issue of the blood-royal of Scotland, by the mother’s side, and son-in-law of Zeno their governor, who having overcome Ordogne, in 870, they chose him for their lord, and his posterity, who bore afterwards the name of Haro, succeeded him, from father to son, until the king Don Pedro the Cruel, having put to death those who were in possession of the lordship, reduced them to a treaty, by which they united their country, under the title of a lordship, with Castile, by which convention the king of Spain is now lord of. – John Adams, Letter IV, Biscay
- That mankind have a right to bind themselves by their own voluntary acts, can scarcely be questioned: but how far have they a right to enter into engagements to bind their posterity likewise? Are the acts of the dead binding upon their living posterity, to all generations; or has posterity the same natural rights which their ancestors have enjoyed before them? And if they have, what right have any generation of men to establish any particular form of government for succeeding generations? The answer is not difficult: “Government,” said the congress of the American States, in behalf of their constituents, “derives its just authority from the consent of the governed.” This fundamental principle then may serve as a guide to direct our judgment with respect to the question. To which we may add, in the words of the author of Common Sense, a law is not binding upon posterity, merely, because it was made by their ancestors; but, because posterity have not repealed it. It is the acquiescence of posterity under the law, which continues its obligation upon them, and not any right which their ancestors had to bind them. – BLACKSTONE’S COMMENTARIES: WITH NOTES OF REFERENCE, TO THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS, OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES; AND OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, 1803
First, posterity is directly tied to “ancestors”. Therefore, it means “descendants”. Second, “his posterity” means succession from “father to son” of men bearing the same name. Therefore, it means “descendants”. Third, posterity is again directly tied to ancestors and it is specifically distinguished from “succeeding generations”. In fact, the former is used as potential justification for the latter. Therefore, again, posterity means “descendants”. In fact, it is the first definition of posterity, which Tom incorrectly described as “utter nonsense, start to finish”, that is the only possible definition applicable. Therefore, my case for “ourselves and our posterity” referring solely to direct genetic descendants is not merely correct, it is conclusive.
Finally, Tom appealed to the fact that the Founding Fathers had Hobbes in their libraries. But they had John Locke in their libraries as well. And Locke’s reference to posterity not only underlines my case, but deals a fatal blow to the false notion that immigrants and invaders and other pretenders can ever stake a rightful claim to the Blessings of Liberty intended by the American Revolutionaries for their direct genetic descendants.
- No damage therefore, that men in the state of nature (as all princes and governments are in reference to one another) suffer from one another, can give a conqueror power to dispossess the posterity of the vanquished, and turn them out of that inheritance, which ought to be the possession of them and their descendants to all generations. The conqueror indeed will be apt to think himself master: and it is the very condition of the subdued not to be able to dispute their right. But if that be all, it gives no other title than what bare force gives to the stronger over the weaker: and, by this reason, he that is strongest will have a right to whatever he pleases to seize on. – John Locke, Of Conquest, Second Treatise on Civil Government, 1690
Mailvox: Breivik: saint or monster?
A Norwegian asks about St. Breivik:
What I still not have clear for me, is your standing concerning AB Breivik, and that actually troubles me somehow. I am self a Norwegian, I live in Oslo, and what happened 22/7/11 made a deep and difficult impression on my mind. Breivik shot down in cold blood 69 people on that island, and the majority of the victims were teenagers (children, I could say), which «guilt» was to be an offspring of a member of the social democrat party (Arbeiderpartiet). I have indirectly heard an eyewitness reporting about a child scared to death, and with blood pouring from a wound in the throat while slowly dying.
For me, Breivik doesn’t represent any positive and decent quality, and he neither represent any legitimate way of doing resistance against a fallen political class and elite. Maybe I have misunderstood, but if you somehow make a hero out of Breivik, that makes it so difficult for me to do what I much would like to do: to make you one of several good teachers in my life.
Somehow I can look at Breivik (and other terrorists) as (almost impersonal) expressions of tidal waves in our history. But simultaneously, I can do nothing else than look at their actual actions as utterly horrific. As I see it (and feel it), no one devout to God would never ever could have done what Breivik did, and no one would neither could defend his actions.
First, let me say that I have family members who are a) devout Christians, b) good men, and c) are responsible for killing considerably more people than Anders Breivik. I also have a number of friends whose confirmed kills are in double-digits. Nor am I at all persuaded by the notion that the God who loved David, who slew “his ten thousands”, or the Jesus who praised the faith of the Roman centurion, is anywhere nearly as appalled by war as most men would like to believe.
From a philosophical perspective, I tend to regard the Norwegians, and the “Norwegians”, killed by Breivik as having been more culpable on average than the average Japanese, Korean, or Chinese infantryman were. And don’t forget, the Viet Cong were no more professional soldiers than were the Quisling Youth on Utoya, and most of them were even younger.
Breivik did not target innocents. He didn’t attack teenagers at a pop concert or families enjoying a night out on a public promenade. He struck a highly effective blow against the political machine that is still actively engaged in attacking his people and attempting to eradicate them. If you don’t believe violence is a legitimate way of resisting invasion, if you don’t think that making war on those making war on you is permissible, that’s your prerogative, but your opinion is both ahistorical and irrelevant.
The fact is that Anders Breivik not only gave up his freedom to strike back at the quislings who are actively seeking to destroy your nation and your people, but he did so alone, and in the full knowledge that he would be hated for it by many of the very people he sought to save.
You may recall that someone once said something about the quality of the love that such a self-sacrifice requires. Can you honestly say that it was nothing but simple hatred that inspired him?
Of course, those who are not religious cannot fathom that kind of love, which is why they simply deem him mad, and a monster, and try to avoid thinking about the future. I don’t expect you to simply accept my perspective, but it might give you some food for further thought. While he did a terrible thing, it is far more terrible that he was put into a position where he felt the need to do it in the first place. Focus your anger, and your disgust, for those who knowingly created the untenable situation.
In any event, my expectation is that if the West, and Norway, survive the ongoing clash of civilizations, Breivik will be considered its first hero. And if it does not, well, then Breivik will be regarded in much the same way that Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, and P.G.T. Beauregard are presently regarded in New Orleans, as an evil monster who was “on the wrong side of humanity.”
And just to be clear for the excessively slow, although I am not a Catholic, I am aware that Mr. Breivik has not died, been beatified, or canonized. Nor do I believe in praying to intercessors.
UPDATE: It is clear to me that a few readers here simply do not understand what war is. I direct your attention to Clausewitz and ask you this: was Breivik practicing “politics by other means” or not?
The ugliness of reality
And the logical gibberish of the anti-intelligent:
“No reasonable person would be offended by the observation that African people have curlier hair than the Chinese, notwithstanding the possibility of some future environment in which it is no longer true. But we can recognize a contention that Chinese people are genetically predisposed to be better table tennis players than Africans as silly, and the contention that they are smarter than Africans as ugly, because it is a matter of ethical principle that individual and cultural accomplishment is not tied to the genes in the same way as the appearance of our hair.”
And they wonder why they’re so reliably wrong. You can certainly fight science, reason, and observation with “ethical principle” if you like, but it’s not going to work very well. Nor is it going to convince anyone with the intellectual ability to penetrate your rhetoric and understand the irrelevance of your ethical principles.
The idea that Chinese people are not smarter on average than Africans because the idea is ugly is like a programmer insisting that his code works correctly, despite the constant crashing of the program, because it is more elegantly written than the code that actually functions. Sometimes, indeed, very often, reality is ugly, or at least falls well short of what our aesthetic preferences would wish it to be.