Monday, July 25, 2011

Norway and the Wages of Despair

There's probably no need to belabour the Whats or Whos of the recent attack in Norway. All of that can be gleaned from any of the many blog entries and news stories of the past few days. Suffice it to say that a Norwegian man with a concern for the demographic hegemony of he and his over Norway and for his extended group over Europe as a whole decided to strike at his enemies, and published a manifesto regarding the same weighing in a little north of 1500 pages. Is it just me, or are such manifestos getting longer?

There's a lot of professed incomprehension regarding his choice of targets. My estimation is that his choice is the classic one of those who despair of their chances of victory when they view their conflict as existential. Consider:

One of the things that draws the most burning hatred is that the left power elite, and the SWPL class in general absolutely LOVES to inflict the costs of its decisions on the rest of us, while insulating their own, not very numerous 'boutique children' from the consequences. The abject hypocrisy infuriates, and what is more, the ineffectiveness of the accusation of said hypocrisy compounds that fury beyond measure. This is because accusations of hypocrisy are generally only an effective weapon if you control the cultural battlespace, which we must assuredly do not. Perhaps as the stranglehold on the media continues to decline, we may see a state of mere adverse cultural battlespace superiority as opposed to being on the wrong end of cultural battlespace supremacy. If you doubt this, ask yourself this---what fraction of the population is aware of the fact that Hoover was, if anything, an even bigger Keynesian spendthrift than FDR, despite the fact that it is there in black and white in the government's own published statistics?

It isn't hard at all to despair under such circumstances, and despair frequently yields poor strategic decisions. I'm not going to pretend that I think that the existing order is going to capitulate without bloodshed. I'm not even going to claim that I believe that the use of violence to effect social or political change is wrong. Like the libertarian, I always recognize 'the gun in the room', but unlike said libertarian, I'm more concerned with who it is pointed at than the fact that it exists in the first place. In fact many of my suggestions are designed with the intent to raise the escalation temperature with an eye towards generating a conflict that is winnable.

Like many---hopefully most---of my fellow reactionaries, I am a parent. There is pretty much nothing in the temporal sphere that is more important to me than my children. The children in question were mostly teenagers and those in their early 20s, but that is mostly only a propaganda point---a parent's love for their children isn't conditioned on the child's age. Our Norwegian attacker understood this, as indeed he understands a great many things. My gut tells me his objective was to hurt the elite by striking that which is most dear to them. When you must fight, but despair tells you you can not win, there is little left but the desire to inflict pain in return. These are the wages of despair, and they are deadly both to the actor and the one acted upon both in body and in spirit.

Who created the despair? Frankly, mostly the power structure in Norway and Europe and its analogs in the US, especially with their incessant presentation of the Islamicization of Europe and the loss of the demographic hegemony of the native populations as inevitable. To compound its culpability, it also paints any opposition as being evil, racist, and illegitimate. Congratulations, you have conjured the monster you seek. Malcolm X would say that the chickens have come home to roost. Furthermore, it has imposed what amounts to containment on political parties seeking to advance the will of the supermajority of the people. I can scarcely conceive a more effective pressure cooker. Does this exonerate the man for his attack, or for surrendering to despair? Probably not, but we'll look to the judgment of history as to how this all works itself out, and reserve final Judgment to the One who owns it.

Do you wish to see more bloodletting? If so, do nothing but stay the course if you're the Powers that Be. Continue to raise the temperature of your foul brew and enjoy the increasing spawn of horrors that emanate from it. If you'd see even more blood spilled, double down on your efforts to thwart the population's desire to maintain its demographic hegemony. Yes, I know the attacker in question says it is about religion and culture, but let's be real. And, yes, I know it IS possible to win via doubling down, but frankly, I don't think you've got the stomach for it. If you did, one man with a rifle and assorted other implements of destruction wouldn't have exacted quite such a bitter toll from you. Your counterparts from the 60's may well have had the stomach, but you no longer do. Don't take that as an insult, because it is not, any more than saying the last leader of the USSR lacked Stalin's stomach for such things would be.
Instead you should capitulate on the issue as soon as possible. Frankly, if you do that you can probably even keep a lot of your status and prestige. Population replacement honestly doesn't fit with most of the other stuff you profess to be in favor of anyway---it sure as hell isn't good for the environment, or for organized labor, or even for public support for a social safety net. People, especially Westerners, will put up with a lot of crap indefinitely if they don't feel themselves existentially threatened.


RS said...

> My gut tells me his objective was to hurt the elite by striking that which is most dear to them. When you must fight, but despair tells you you can not win, there is little left but the desire to inflict pain in return.

Our situation is dark, but it would be highly unreasonable to think there is not, say, a 5% chance or more of a good outcome. (I would rate it higher than that; I pick this low number just because I think it is hard to disagree with.) Surely 5% is nothing negligible; not in the least. Therefore I don't see why he ought to be expected to act irrationally - unless he simply happened to have, like a fair fraction of people do, a rather irrational mind. But clearly he is in fact highly rational.

And while people's surfaces can be deceiving, and sometimes self-deceiving as well, he shows every indication of having wanted to make a rational effort; he also shows explicit awareness that the broad social response to the attack is what matters - it doesn't matter in itself.

So I really think he just has minimal psychosocial intelligence, and that is the reason kids wound up targeted. His IQ is very high, but his EQ may be below the 7th percentile or so. If it were even modestly higher, he would have targeted adults only, if anyone. I would therefore predict that he has had notably low-status friends and notably undesirable lovers, to the extent that he has had either one at all - in spite of being handsome, interesting, and probably good to his friends. The wiki bio doesn't have much information on friends/lovers so far.

Jehu said...

My estimation of the probability of a decent outcome on the demographic hegemony issue is quite a bit higher than 5%---honestly, I'd put it close to even odds, especially if things fall apart economically.
I read him as being in the 130-145 range insofar as IQ is concerned and being pretty distinctly non-neurotypical. His social intelligence on the other hand isn't actually that bad, check out his recommendations of ways to maintain his cover, they're pretty damned good and rely on the fact that the neurotypical mind, when told a fairly embarrassing secret (e.g., being a WoW addict or having homosexual leanings) will almost always shut down and decline to look any further). Also look at his insights as to human behavior---e.g., he talks about letting people always have a perceived avenue to run, so that they're less likely to go kamikaze on you defensively. This is straight out of the Art of War. He strikes me as being a very geeky non-neurotypical with a pretty decent emulation mode.

As to targetting teenagers & young adults, I'm really not certain ultimately what fruit his strategy will bear. I do know this, as a parent with dearly loved children, I'd think three or four times before joining a political party or taking a job if I thought there was a nontrivial probability of having blowback hit them, and that's if my commitment to said party or job was hardcore. If it were merely a matter of advancement, it'd become a total nonstarter. I'm really not certain as to the scale of the Norwegian political apparatus, although I've heard that the normal number of homocides in Norway is in the range of 30 or so, so his butcher's bill might well trigger my own 'estimation of nontrivial probability of blowback against my children' were I a leftist in Norway.