Initial thoughts on the Norway massacre

Even though it is still early and the facts are not yet clear, there are a few lessons we can learn from the recent Norway tragedy:
1) “Gun control” is tantamount to murder.  By not allowing citizens to defend themselves effectively, government essentially turns them into sitting ducks.  As American and Proud says:

As the death toll continues to rise in Norway’s apparently related bombing and shooting attacks, a few truths are once again revealed for any who would see:

  • Unarmed victims are defenseless and easy prey for any evil lunatic bent on slaughtering them at will. The adults at the youth camp were utterly unprepared to protect themselves, let alone their charges.
  • People instinctively don’t question an armed man if he appears to be a police officer. Many of the same people react with horror at the sight of an armed citizen.
  • The best defense against an active shooter is others with guns—it was not the unarmed who took the suspect into custody.
  • Once more, “gun control” has proven useless. Many reports, if accurate, say the gunman used “automatic weapons,” which, except for some tightly regulated collector exemptions, are banned from civilian ownership in Norway.
  • Once more, the race is on to tar an entire demographic for the actions of a deranged and monstrous individual, and to conflate “conservatives” with violent extremists.

And once more, expect to hear renewed calls for more citizen disarmament, that is, an expansion of the potential victim pool for those who count on such measures to make their diabolical tasks all the more easily executed.
The fact is if you disarm the public, you must protect that public or slaughter the public. This is what happens time and time again and the same people come out screaming about the gun he used, rather than the laws that prevented OTHER guns to be a deterrent.

2) Governments should not engage in genocidal programs against their citizens; somebody might say, “those government types are destroying my nation!  I refuse to sit by and do nothing.  I know!  I’ll kill a bunch of them.”  According to Wikipedia, 11.4% of Norway is now of immigrant background.  This represents a steady replacement of the native population.  Obviously, some people are upset about this.  There will be lunatics in every population.  There is no need to give them an excuse to murderously lash out.
3) The perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, has probably set back conservative interests in Norway many years.  Just as Timothy McVeigh gravely damaged the ant-government conservative movement in the U.S., so too has Breivik in Norway.  My guess is that Breivik was smart enough to realize that any attack directly on immigrants would hurt his cause, that an attack on white race-traitors would be more “productive”.  It is hard (for me) to see how any such attack can be “productive” – though it is possible that some of those young victims would have grown up to do immense damage to their nation.  Nobody can know.
4) The victims were very young.  How many of us might have attended such a camp in our teenage years?  Did it ever even occur to the murderer that one of his young victims would have grown up to be a Norwegian Jared Taylor?  Now, instead of worrying about the steady destruction of their nation, through immigration, Norwegians will worry about neo-Nazis with guns.  Thanks to Breivik, the face of evil will now be blond-haired and blue-eyed.  This can only contribute to white self-hatred.
5) If I lived in Norway, I would be inclined to distribute leaflets to inform people of the dangers of non-white immigration.  Unfortunately, such leaflets are illegal in Norway; they would be considered “hate-speech”.  By stifling freedom of speech, Norway allows frustration and anger to build up – to the point where it explodes in tragic ways.  The Norwegian government cannot say, “there are better ways to express your displeasure; we can discuss this”.  No, there are no better ways – because they will not allow discussion.  The only options they allow are a) silence or b) violent outbursts – which nobody can do anything about, until it’s too late, due to gun-control laws.
Minds can be changed.  Lost lives can never be brought back.  Norway, if you do not want the latter, then you must allow the former.

This entry was posted in activism, crime and violence, freedom of speech issues, immigration/ Hispanics. Bookmark the permalink.

19 Responses to Initial thoughts on the Norway massacre

  1. Robert says:

    Thanks for the link. And you hit the proverbial nail on the head. Freedom of speech was removed along with their right to bear arms. They have a more restrictive firearm law than that of CA/NY or MA, they are not allowed any full auto except for collectors, they are not allowed any carry permits they must have only hunting firearms, they must show NEED for a firearm before a permit is granted. There’s more that removes the deterrent from criminals.
    IF the gun control law was more “Arizona” and Less “California” in Norway, perhaps the body count would be closer to 5 than 100…

  2. Aoirthoir says:

    Yes and these are the people of Odin.

  3. Annoyed says:

    Also it could be some type of conspiracy, he was probably crazy but there is a possibility something else was going on.
    I agree that by not allowing people to state their concerns, you lead to them taking more aggressive action.
    Anyway his actions have likely destroyed the possibility of anti-immigration parties advancing in Norway, by his association to them it allows them to be easily smeared.
    Not that I ever would support this but if he had to kill someone, he could have killed the raving muslim clerics or immigrant gangs, it might have actually produced a positive outcome. There is no way killing kids at a summer camp will advance us politically.

  4. Stealth says:

    Alex Jones types, as always in situations like these, believe that this is a false flag attack. Some times I wonder if they’re right. The US government, at least, has had it’s hand in all sorts of no-good goings on in the past. Same with the Canadians, at least within their borders.
    I’ve often wondered if the federal government keeps the entire Nazi movement alive by inserting agents provocateur here and there. Hal Turner, anyone?

  5. countenance says:

    The suspect in the island shootings (still no news about suspects in the Oslo bombings) seems to be what we Americans would think of as a “mainstream conservative,” and, prescient because you mentioned this in your post yesterday, very much a Philo-Semite. Like you said, you worry more about rampant Philo than moderate Anti. Like there are Antis that go off the deep end and shoot people and things up, now we know Philos are also so capable.

  6. Californian says:

    By stifling freedom of speech, Norway allows frustration and anger to build up – to the point where it explodes in tragic ways. The Norwegian government cannot say, “there are better ways to express your displeasure; we can discuss this”.
    Good point. One wonders if this incident may be the harbinger of even armed rebellion?

  7. Jay :
    It sounds in this post like you are getting dangerously close to saying that you approve of what this monster did. Please be more careful, for yours is a well-crafted and important blog.
    This whole Norway massacre is incredibly weird. There’s no other word for it now. Apart from tragic and horrible.
    I just spent about five hours reading through the manifesto. It is incredibly confusing. Why? Because it is hardly “rambling,” as the MSM have been claiming from the start. Unless you consider this rambling :
    “Western state sanctioned negationism or “politically motivated historical revisionism” on the subject of Islam started for the first time in Great Britain in the late 19th century. The process was politically motivated with the goal of creating a good foundation for BritishMuslim cooperation and trade.”
    I am so freaked out by this horrible atrocity, I’m not even sure what to think yet. I have to admit that it has made me question my own views, which in general align with those expressed on this blog.
    If anything, this horrible massacre will be an intellectual and ideological nightmare for millions – if not billions – of people the world over.
    It is up to those of us with superior reasoning abilities to parse what happened with care, and not jump to conclusions.

    • jewamongyou says:

      “Dangerously close to approving”. I don’t see it that way. I think it’s important to understand the motives behind such crimes – just as it is important to understand the thinking behind 9/11.

  8. Bay Area Guy says:

    The perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, has probably set back conservative interests in Norway many years.
    Indeed. Based on doing some digging on Breivik, his views are all over the place (similar to Jared Loughner’s, whom the media also tried to paint as some far right extremist), and include pro-gay, some anti-racist and philo-semitic views.
    But of course, that won’t stop the MSM from painting him as some far right extremist/neo-nazi.
    His attack also set back European nationalism 20 years. European nationalist parties and anti-immigrant sentiment was on the rise, and it seemed that native white Europeans were finally beginning to wake up.
    But of course, anyone who is pro-Western or anti-multiculturalism will now be lumped in with this kook.
    This one comment on a Yahoo article sums it up perfectly.
    Now Europeans will be less likely to fight for tighter immigration for fear that they’ll be sen as being aligned with this psychotic killer. They’ll be less likely to report on the middle-eastern man who may be engaged in suspicious activity, but will report the neighbor becasue he may seem too happy. The media is going to spin this story in such a way that it paralyzes people into fear and places them in a condition national self loathing.

  9. Bay Area Guy says:

    And of course, the media cherry picks a quote from some ultraliberal open borders enthusiast. One should read it, just to see the perversion known as cultural liberalism/Western self-loathing.
    (my bolding)
    “In one way, I think it was good that it was not a Muslim terrorist group behind this,” she said. It pointed up the complexity of immigration and inter-religious issues for Norwegians, “a small and privileged people,” she said.
    “We must open our eyes and not simply think that we can keep all this wealth to ourselves.”

    Oh yes, apparently all white Europeans have an obligation to let in and “share the wealth” with the dregs of the 3rd world. Never mind their own self-interest or preserving their nationhood.
    If anyone wants to know why Asia is on the rise and why the West is in a state perpetual decline, that quote sums it up in a nutshell.
    James Burnham called liberalism the ideology of Western suicide for a reason.
    As JAY rightly hinted at, if it weren’t for Norway allowing all this immigration and undermining of the nation in the first place, there would be no anti-Muslim “extremists.”

  10. Californian says:

    Right on about James Burnham. His book, “Suicide of the West,” ought to be required reading. (Wm. F. Buckley, jr., once stated that this book was worth more than a year’s Penatagon budget!). Burnham dissected the liberal syndrome way back in the early 1960s. His point was that liberalism served as a rationalization for the “contraction of the West.” He has some especially good insights re liberalism and the pathology of guilt. Anyway, check out a copy. There are also some good chapters on dealing with ideological thinking, and a sort of min-game on ordering of values.
    The perpetrator, Anders Behring Breivik, has probably set back conservative interests in Norway many years.
    Well, what has Norwegian conservatism accomplished in recent years such that it will be set back? Perhaps I am thinking of American conservatism, which follows a few years behind liberalism.

  11. Bay Area Guy says:

    Well, what this incident illustrates, as Hunter Wallace over at Occidental Dissent has repeatedly pointed out, is that violence is NEVER the answer.
    (with the exception of self-defense against non-white aggression, which is not only right but necessary)
    All violence does is make martyrs of people and harm the reputation of the ideology to which the perpetrator adhered.
    Of course, the best example of this was the assassination of MLK. Since he was killed by a white extremist, MLK is now essentially a god, and no white person in his right mind would ever dare to criticize him publicly. Not only that, but his god-like status also indirectly validates fundamental notions of “equality.”
    Had MLK lived longer and died of old age, he might have very well made inflammatory or alienating statements. He could have been discredited, and had he not violently met his end, your average white American today would know that he was hardly some moderate colorblindness advocate.
    They would know that MLK, unlike Barack Obama, was a REAL Socialist/Marxist, who believed in affirmative action style quotas and even supported a federally guaranteed minimum income.
    But now, along with the likes of JFK, MLK can now never be criticized, nor can what he fundamentally stood for be challenged.
    Lesson: DO NOT use violence as a tactic. It only undermines our image and makes martyrs of our enemies.

  12. Mac says:

    From Stratfor
    What the Norway Attack Could Mean for Europe
    July 22, 2011
    At least 17 people have died and more have been injured in an explosion in downtown Oslo and a shooting at a Labor Party youth camp outside the Norwegian capital. Norwegian police arrested the shooter at the camp and believe he is connected with the explosion, though others could be involved.
    The significance of the events in Norway for the rest of Europe will depend largely on who is responsible, and the identity of the culprits is still unclear. However, STRATFOR can extrapolate the possible consequences of the attacks based on several scenarios.
    The first scenario is that grassroots Islamist militants based in Norway are behind these seemingly connected attacks. Grassroots jihadist groups are already assumed to exist across Europe, and this assumption — along with previous attacks — has bolstered far-right political parties’ popularity across the Continent. Many center-right politicians have also begun raising anti-immigrant policy issues in order to distract from the ongoing economic austerity measures brought about by the European economic crisis. If grassroots Islamist militants are found to be the culprits in Norway, it will simply reinforce the current European political trend that favors the far right. That said, some far-right parties, particularly in Northern Europe, could get a popularity boost sufficient to push them into the political mainstream, and possibly into government.
    If an individual, grassroots or organized domestic group with far-right or neo-Nazi leanings perpetrated the attack, the significance for the rest of Europe will not be large. It could lead to a temporary loss of popularity for the far right, but long-term repercussions for the far right are unlikely since these parties have begun tempering their platforms in order to attract a wider constituency.
    There is also the possibility that the attacks are the work of a skilled but disturbed individual with grievances against the Labor Party. This possibility would have few long-ranging repercussions beyond a reworking of domestic security procedures in Norway.
    Another scenario is that the attack was carried out by an international group which may have entered the country some time ago. Regardless of the time frame, if the culprits crossed a border to get into Norway, other European countries will feel very vulnerable; Norway is Europe’s northern terminus, and if international militants can get to Norway, they can get to anywhere in Europe. This vulnerability could severely damage the Schengen Agreement, once a symbolic pillar of Europe’s unity, which has been under attack in the last several months. The agreement allows visa-free travel between the 25 countries in the Schengen Area (most of which are EU members, but the Schengen Area does include some non-EU members like Norway and Switzerland). The agreement came under pressure when Italy threatened to allow migrants fleeing the Libyan conflict and Tunisian political unrest to gain temporary resident status in order to cross into France. It was Rome’s way of forcing the rest of Europe to help it with the influx of migrants. The solution proposed by France and Italy was to essentially establish temporary borders “under very exceptional circumstances.” Later, Denmark reimposed border controls, supposedly due to an increase in cross-border crime.
    The attack in Norway, if it involved cross-border movements, could therefore damage or even end the Schengen Agreement. Other European countries, particularly those where the far right is strong or where center-right parties have adopted an anti-immigrant message, could push for further amendments to the pact.
    A transnational militant plot against a European country in the contemporary context could also be significant for European defense policy. When the 2004 Madrid attack and 2005 London attack happened, many in Europe argued that the attacks were a result of European governments’ support for U.S. military operations in the Middle East. This is no longer really the case for Europe, although European forces are still in Afghanistan. It is much more difficult to blame Europe’s alliance with the United States for this attack. As such, Europe could very well be motivated to take ongoing efforts to increase European defense coordination seriously. Current efforts are being led by Poland, which is doing so mainly because it wants to increase security against Russia’s resurgence, not because of global militancy. The problem with Warsaw’s plan is that it has little genuine support in Western Europe, other than France. An attack on Norway could, however, provide the kind of impetus necessary for Europe to feel threatened by global events.
    The last scenario is that the attack is linked to Norway’s involvement in the campaign in Libya. If the Libyan government is somehow connected to the bombing and/or shooting, the rest of Europe will rally behind Norway and increase their efforts in Libya. This scenario would essentially close off the opening in negotiations prompted by a recent move by Paris and other European governments saying they would be open to Moammar Gadhafi’s remaining in Libya.

  13. essbro says:

    Mac: Respectfully, you talk like Europeans are some tough, hard-nosed emeffers. Even though your post seems to be well thought out, I’d be surprised if any of the European countries will rally behind anybody. Maybe in an all-out attack, but not in attacks taking place just every few years in different countries.
    I could be wrong, of course. I hope I am.

  14. eugenicist says:

    Whenever this topic comes up amongst my friends I steer the conversation to Amy Winehouse. It’s super effective!

  15. a random user name says:

    “Minds can be changed. Lost lives can never be brought back. Norway, if you do not want the latter, then you must allow the former.”
    Truth and eloquence. It is amazing how effective and eloquent someone can be when truth is on their side. Well done.

Leave a Reply

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