We can learn a lot from horror movies. The genre has several conventions, but one is to torment the audience with human reactions to danger. Specifically, before humans come up with a counter-plan to any threat, at least one of the characters must have a crying jag or nervous breakdown.
When tragedy happens, our first priority must be to overcome our emotions and think clearly.
Some will tell you to think logically is to be callous, inhuman and machine-like. Our humanity is our emotions, they say. This kind of superstitious thought is what keeps our species in the dark ages. Emotions like anything else require discipline; logical problems require logical solutions.
I call these things logical problems because our emotions are totally irrelevant. If you need to build shelter and a fire before nightfall, your interpretive dance, free verse poetry and lengthy soliloquoys are besides the point. You either build shelter/fire or not. Yes or no. One or zero.
In the case of Andrew Berwick/Anders Behring Breivik shooting up Utoya and Oslo, there’s going to be a lot of hand-wringing, tear-flinging and general emoting. Instead we should be asking ourselves: how did we get here?
My first response was to point out that violence is poison, but that passive aggression that stifles right-wing thought is also poison.
This is too complex for most people, who can handle at most one thing being bad at a time. Further, they need something good as an opposite. So if violencce is bad, peace is good, so never do anything violent even if it will stave off greater violence (I don’t understand how most people can claim what they’re doing is “thinking”; it’s closer to choosing products at a super-market, a combination of emotions, impulses from memory, whims and half-logic).
My second response was to point out that (a) the mindset known as political correctness, by stifling any speech except that which affirms zero social standards, forces dissidents to act in extreme ways and (b) the media likes to think they ignore white terrorism, but they’re in fact ramping up.
Finally, the detail came through that Berwick/Breivik had summarized one of our articles, “Conflict avoidance and how to avoid it,” in his manifesto.
Our goal here at Amerika.org is slightly unusual for a blog. First, we are not in any way concerned with personal drama; we are concerned with practical solutions to human problems. Second, we are aware that Western civilization is in decline and will end up in third-world status (dysfunctional levels of hygiene, law, order, infrastructure and corruption) or worse within the century. Finally, we are post-humanists who believe that all things on earth are means to an end, which is a type of pattern in harmony with the order of the cosmos.
For this reason, we are not engaging in the popular-but-useless weeping and apologizing over what Breivik did. This was an act of war, a political act. It was not a murder like a serial killer, who kills for his own pleasure. This guy killed to attract attention and to change society, which puts him in the same category as Ted Kaczysnki and Tim Mcveigh, or even the American revolutionaries who opened fire on British redcoats. This is political warfare.
As a result, we need to stop being silly sheep and get over the fact that men, women and children died in this attack. Their losses were no different than those who died in the Madrid subway bombings, on 7/7 in the UK, on 9/11 in the USA — or in Dresden, Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Hanoi and other places allied forces have rained death. This is the face of warfare and warfare is how humanity changes course.
With that in mind, instead of writing about the silly emotions and drama, I wrote about the political change we are experiencing now:
The right and left are both spectral.
This means they stretch from moderate ideas to radical ones, all under the same umbrella.
For example, the principle of the left is the individual. This can mean anything from rights and freedoms, to unions and socialism, to anarchy or extreme state-sponsored equality (Communism).
The right has a similar spectrum. Our principle is the natural design and patterning of the cosmos. This can mean anything from libertarian faith in free markets, to mainstream god-guns-and-country Republicanism, all the way through organic societies united by nationalism, monarchism and social Darwinism.
The left and right are 100% incompatible. Since 1945, the left has steadily been winning, with a few moments of rightists fixing things up (Reagan comes to mind).
But in the 1990s, when the Soviet Union fell, the West decided to merge consumerism and leftism to make the post-totalitarian type of society. These societies are politically correct, cultureless, heritageless, and without any consensus of values or even appreciation for history, the family or transcendent/reverent outlooks on the world.
They also — thanks to their leftist bias — will never accept any right-wing ideas. They seek to crush them and eliminate all thought or speech about them.
For this reason, some rightists are fighting back.
Nationalism has been demonized, but as we watch the world spiral out of control, we realize that nationalism, monarchism, Social Darwinism and Tradition are better options than the modern consumerist-leftist post-totalitarian subsidized anarchist state. – “Oslo shooter cites a Brett Stevens article,” by Brett Stevens, Examiner.com
Since 1945, we have been a leftist civilization in the West. Leftism began murkily in the “Enlightenment” and flowered in 1789 with the French Revolution, which ended in an orgy of violence several hundred thousand times worse than what Berwick/Breivik did in Norway. In 1968, it transitioned to the mainstream with the Baby Boomers, who took it from a revolutionary political action to a fashionable one; in the 1990s, with what David Brooks calls the “bourgeois bohemians,” hard leftism became a social norm which included consumerism as one of its freedom.
This is what Friedrich Nietzsche referred to as the age of “the last man”: people who think about nothing but their own personal comfort. Consumerism fits with leftism because both are ultimately expressions of narcissism. Individuals want no restrictions on what they can do, and they want society to subsidize them as they seek external solutions (drama, activity, accolades, wealth) for internal issues (emptiness, lack of purpose, existential fear). All leftism/liberalism is a subset of this impulse, which we call Crowdism on this blog.
Since the 1990s made it clear that leftistm/liberalism was to be the dominant world order, it has become clear to many of us that we live in a post-totalitarian society. Specifically, it’s a form of anarchic totalitarianism, or a decentralized totalitarianism, which is enforced by its own citizens on each other. Speech codes and “correct” attitudes regulate who is promoted, hired, and given access to inner circles.
If you don’t have the right opinions, you’re excluded and demonized. That is total control in a way that Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Big Brother could only dream of. Government no longer needs to be omnipotent; as in the Milgram experiment, citizens will gladly torture and destroy each other for personal reward.
Leftism/liberalism, which sounds so good because it appeals to our individualism, leads to total destruction:
Our society is slowly headed to doom, and most of us do nothing about it. We are inert, because we believe we have “freedom” and “democracy” and that these will magically solve the problem. We are told to mind our own business and take care of our own interests, which is a way of making sure no one will have any social standards but the consumerist quasi-anarchy that now dominates.
So we watch and wait, knowing that sooner or later there will be a crash, and that we are going to commit ecocide and destroy all ancient cultures as we fall. It’s our ultimate act of selfishness: if my society is going destroy me, I want to make sure it destroys everything so no one else gets ahead of me. Misery loves company and sometimes, insists on it.
For this reason I wrote:
I am honored to be so mentioned by someone who is clearly far braver than I. Again, no comment on his methods, but he chose to act where many of us write, think and dream. I would like to avoid a world where violence is our only solution
Someone did something.
We should pay attention.
Not all school shooters had a profound motive, but guys like Pekka-Eric Auvinen and Jeff Wiese did: they were sending a shout out to a dying society.
Not every letterbomb writer is a genius, but Ted Kaczynski was. He believed modern society was headed for destruction as well. Tim McVeigh saw abuses by government and determined to act, believing himself the moral equivalent of Patrick Henry or Thomas Jefferson.
Modern society refuses to pay attention.
But given what we do know â€“ that the man behind the attacks was white, Christian, Norwegian, and right wing â€” we should have seen this coming. It is, in many ways, the inevitable outcome of a multiculturalist ideal that, in practice, has failed â€“ and in this case, failed fatally.
Usually, one tends to think of this problem as one that leads to Muslim attacks on non-Muslim targets â€“ the rocks tossed at homosexuals in Amsterdam; the assassination attempts on Kurt Westergaard, the Danish cartoonist whose drawings of Mohammed in 2006 continue to be a source of controversy and rage; the death threats against teachers in France and Holland and elsewhere when they try to teach their students about the Holocaust. But there are two sides to this coin, as any, and weâ€™ve just seen the other one.
He is also a more extreme example of a growing right-wing trend across Europe, where from German Chancellor Angela Merkel to populist Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders and the Swedish Jimmie Akesson, non-Muslims are taking a hard line against immigration and what they view as dangerous concessions to the demands of Muslim groups. (The enormous success of Akessonâ€™s and Wildersâ€™ parties in the last elections testifies to the weight of this issue among voters.) Their concerns are real: efforts to censor the Danish cartoons; to restage Mozart operas (as happened in Berlin in 2006); to silence dissent (as in the recent criminal case brought against Wilders , and similar compromises to democratic principles, have created a sense of genuine fear for the future of European culture. And as Europe â€“ and increasingly, America â€“ has become all too willing to sacrifice those principles to accommodate a foreign immigrant culture that does not share them, a new nationalism has emerged â€“ even, indeed, from liberals who sense their own liberal ideals are coming under attack. In essence, by tolerating intolerance, we have ourselves now become intolerant.
So that Breivik would have attacked Norwayâ€™s liberal Prime Minister and his party is horrifying â€“ but it is therefore not terribly surprising: these are the politicians who, in the name of civil rights and equality, have made most of the concessions. – Forbes
This place is wired to never look critically at itself. It’s a house of cards staffed by cowards.
You censor people — oh wait, I forgot, it’s not censorship because no law was written to do it, except that the result is the same so who cares — and ignore any opinion other than those which are socially rewarded, politically correct, can be shown in television advertisements, etc.
Modern society is incompetent and refuses to look critically at itself. It is a march to oblivion, destruction of the environment, and the death of all higher functions in human civilization.
Fjordman writes about this event:
Am I an extremist? I admit that I have a strong dedication to truth. Of that, I am guilty. For instance, I notice that virtually nobody talked about â€œmoderate Islamâ€ versus â€œradical Islamâ€ or â€œIslamismâ€ until very recently. Why is that? And although nearly all the major newspapers, TV stations and leading politicians throughout the Western world assure us daily that there is a huge difference between moderate and radical Islam, few if any of them seem able to explain exactly what that difference consists of. I find that strange, and Iâ€™m not the only one.
Does pointing this out make me very extreme? Perhaps. But then how do you explain that Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Prime Minister of NATO member state Turkey, has stated publicly that there is no such thing as a moderate Islam? After all, heâ€™s a very, very moderate Muslim man in charge of a very, very moderate Muslim country where Adolf Hitlerâ€™s autobiography Mein Kampf was a bestseller as late as in 2005. I know how moderate Erdogan is because Western leaders always remind us of this fact. So if this exceptionally moderate man says that there is no such thing as a moderate Islam, surely he is worth listening to? – Gates of Vienna
What do you do when your entire society is constructed to avoid seeing the obvious?
We see this theme in our movies and literature constantly: a giant rubbery monster invades Tokyo, and science can do nothing about it. They ask the experts, who are all stuffed shirts getting fat on easy problems, and they have no idea. Finally, as doom appears to be truly be at hand, the one lone nerd scientist who has always had a theory about this shows up with his quack invention, and it turns out to work. The tide is turned; the day is saved!
It is highly possible that people like Andrew Brewick/Anders Behring Breivik are lone nerd scientists who may have that answer. Their methods may be horrible, but which is worse — 100 dead now, or everyone dead just a few years down the road? The decision of survival for the species as a whole hangs in the balance, at such times.
We’re at one of those points now. The zombies have kicked down the front door and are staggering into the living room while the hero has a panic attack and the heroine collapses in tears. The clock is ticking down. Do we have the will to live, or do we wait with bowed heads for the inevitable end?