http://www.xenosystems.net/lunatic-activism/
Primary point:
If you can reliably kill an unarmed woman in the street, there is no need to do so. State your threat, which is now a promise, which will achieve compliance with your aims, without actually having to kill anyone. (On average.) Indeed carrying out the threat will be counter-productive. (On average.)
Killing people unreliably is chaos. Chaos is - get this - not order.
Do not feel sorry for this woman. She was not your friend, she was certainly not your vassal, and she was not your responsibility. Her life or death is meaningless to you and should be treated accordingly.
That the perpetrator thinks he was a neo-nazi does not make him a rightist, even if you accept nazis as right wing, which I don't. Crazy people believe crazy things. At best you'll find he was to neo-nazism as a lapsed Catholic is to Christianity. More likely it was a loud statement with little to no grounding in behaviour, taken to justify a pre-existing desire to murder someone.
I'm skeptical of the claim it's a propaganda win for anyone. Everyone who was friends with the woman, and thus likely to think badly of her killer's group was already not even relatively right-wing. As for the other side...look, humans are murderous. The idea of killing the inconvenient comes naturally to us. Nobody sympathetic to the other side is going to be beat up about her death, and thus unlikely to grow in antipathy to other side.
What I'm seeing is a massive waste of time all the way around the table.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
You're arguing semantics. Nothing more.
Do you think the Right should make a bunch of statements distancing ourselves from the killer? Will that serve our purpose?
Sounds like you're suffering from cognitive dissonance, holipopiloh.
Anon,
No, I don't. I say worrying what voters think is a waste of time. If the putative sympathizer can't tell this isn't legit without being told, they're a lost cause. Everyone encouraging or applauding this nonsense is also a lost cause, though.
I like to remind everyone that grief over her death is 99.9% fake. I would be indifferent to her life - I've lost nothing, and similarly I would have lost nothing extra if she had lived. Pragmatically it's a non-event except to her nearest kin, who I also don't know or care about.
Assuming this kind of activism is entirely wrong (not a difficult assumption to make IMO), do you think admin is still overreacting with his emphasis on how wrong it is?
I think that's a misunderstanding of his post. Of course it's wrong, but idiots are going to idiot so who cares. The alt-right, however, isn't necessarily idiotic, and shouldn't be pandering to idiots, and this is what Land has a problem with. Given his social position, I find that distaste fully justified.
On the other hand, the reason I don't have a social position like his isn't because I can't. Serenity prayer, etc.
Condemnations, or any other efforts to control this type of violence, are meaningless and impossible.
At the same time right wing activists do not need to disassociate themselves from the killer's beliefs, only their actions.
That means they admit they believe the same thing (because it's true), but are committed to non-violent forms of protest. They could even say they are somewhat inspired by Gandhi.
It would appear that it wasn't particularly counterproductive. BREXIT.
"What I'm seeing is a massive waste of time all the way around the table."
Post a Comment