Violence and the Alien

[Laeth MacLaurie]

It continues to amuse me when neoconservatives and other "mainstream" liberals criticize European nationalist movements due to their "violent" character, as if "violence" is, ipso facto, proof that nationalism is in some way "wrong" or "evil." The hypocrisy inherent in this is, of course, quite naked given that these same people have no qualms about utilizing violence in pursuing their own ends (which of course are "moral," and is the problem in itself, as they have divorced real world actions from any judgment or analysis based in reality).

More importanly, this viewpoint ignores a salient point of history. The alien, in any society, is always an undesirable presence. This is not to pass judgment on anyone, or to moralize about the "value" of peoples. It is simply a statment of fact. In any society, the alien represents, at best, an impediment to the operation of that society, and, at worst, a naked threat to its very existence. For this reason, no healthy society tolerates the long term presence of the alien in its midst.

Some, societies, of course, are lucky, and can remove the alien threat from their midst without significant violence (for instance, by building a "security fence"). However, in societies where the alien infiltration is advanced enough and the alien presence entrenched enough, only violence is sufficient to return to a people what is rightfully theirs. Denying a people the right to take violent action against the alien in their midst is itself a form of genocide, as it is a denial of the right of that people to exist, and all intellectually honest and honorable men would behoove themselves to fight against those who would deny them their right to exist as a unique people.

 

[Kenneth R.]

only violence? how childish. violence is among the lowest forms of response.

you think that such aliens need extermination, i say they need tolerance and understanding. communication can solve much more than violence.

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

Tolerance...another word for surrender.

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

I guess we should try to understand what makes immigrants (read Muslims) rape women in Oslo, right?

Two out of three charged with rape in Norway's capital are immigrants with a non-western background according to a police study. The number of rape cases is also rising steadily.The study is the first where the crime statistics have been analyzed according to ethnic origin. Of the 111 charged with rape in Oslo last year, 72 were of non-western ethnic origin, 25 are classified as Norwegian or western and 14 are listed as unknown.

Rape charges in the capital are spiraling upwards, 40 percent higher from 1999 to 2000 and up 13 percent so far this year.

Nine out of ten cases do not make it to prosecution, most of them because police do not believe the evidence is sufficient to reach a conviction.

Police Inspector Gunnar Larsen of Oslo's Vice, Robbery and Violent crime division says the statistics are surprising - the rising number of rape cases and the link to ethnic background are both clear trends. But Larsen does not want to speculate on the reasons behind the worrying developments.

While 65 percent of those charged with rape are classed as coming from a non-western background, this segment makes up only 14.3 percent of Oslo's population. Norwegian women were the victims in 80 percent of the cases, with 20 percent being women of foreign background.

Larsen said that since this was the initial study examining ethnic make-up there were no existing figures to put the numbers into context.

"Meanwhile, it is our general experience that this is an increasing tendency. We note this by the number of time we need to use interpreters in the course of an investigation," Larsen said.

http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/article190268.ece

 

[Kenneth R.]

Tolerance...another word for surrender.

if it were the same word, mankind would not have invented two configurations of letters to signify an identical idea. surrender is not the same as tolerance. shall i look them up for you? or define them myself?

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

In this context, tolerance is surrender. To tolerate the destructive presence of aliens is ultimately to commit cultural suicide.

Fuck that.

 

[Kenneth R.]

"fuck that". how intellectual of you. for someone who claims to have a genius level IQ, i would have expected a more substancial response than that. and you've already decided that these aliens are destructive? have you even asked them what their purposes are, why they reside in your community, and what goals they have? perhaps they might willingly leave, or reach an understanding. but that's too complicated. let's just kill em all instead. fuck that.

 

[Laeth MacLaurie]

Their purposes and reasons are irrelevant, their presence itself is destructive (if not in the short term, than certainly in the long).

It would, of course, be best if aliens could be simply repatriated, but in many cases, this is impractical and wholly unlikely. Denying a people the right to remove an alien presence, by violence, if necessary, is to deny them the right to exist as a self-governing people.

And again, fuck that.

 

[The_Isle]

I agree. Aliens must be exterminated. Grab your pulse rifles, we're going for a bug-hunt.

 

[Lord SteveO]

Well what do you do when you come across a group of as you put it "aliens" whose presence is destructive only as a result of the intolerance of those native to the society in question? It can happen, and has done in many countries. A group of immigrants can be living perfectly well in a society until a few people decide they don't like it and then start to stir up trouble. This would likely cause a bad reacion from said immigrants (the destructive presence you speak of).
What do you do then, who is the real problem?

From Cambridge dictionaries online:

surrender (ACCEPT DEFEAT)
verb
1 to stop fighting and admit defeat:
They would rather die than surrender (to the invaders).

2 If you surrender to an experience or emotion, you stop trying to prevent or control it:
I finally surrendered to temptation, and ate the last remaining chocolate.

tolerance (ACCEPTANCE)
noun (FORMAL toleration)
willingness to accept behaviour and beliefs which are different from your own, although you might not agree with or approve of them:
This period in history is not noted for its religious tolerance.
Some members of the party would like to see it develop a greater tolerance of/towards contrary points of view.

Quite clearly two different things.

 

[The_Isle]

yada yada

Naw, fuck that. I'd rather remove them by violent force than be a host to a chestburster. I'm 100% with Laeth on this.

 

[Lord SteveO]

Well we can all see the idea of a sensible, mature discussion obviously mean nothing to you.

 

[kmik]

Doesn't it get boring to discuss multiculturalism all the time?

 

[RideForVengance]

I dont think this discussion is going anywhere, because like most, people are so concerned about promoting their own oppinion that they barely give any time to consider the opposition. Obviously, you cant have everyone agree with you, but most of this seems totally illogical...

 

[Dushan S]

No matter how "intellectual" or stupid technically people that see violence as a solution to any kind of situation have a common issue.

They are weak and afraid. People that are happy with themselves and their own life, people that are able to love themselves, and other people, they have no fear in them, and don’t look at any social or ethnical group as a threat to them.

People that have their own mind, and that are defined individuals, see other people as individuals too, so if someone that is born Arabian or born German kills a girl, they don't see it thru his ethnic roots, but as it is: An individual acting on his own.

Not that I am bashing someone personally in this thread, this is just basic psychology, you can find it in books easily. It is simple and true.

Not that I expect that those people will look at themselves objectively and say:"I have a serious problem, I have to work on myself to become a better human being"...

Arguing with someone about this or about violence is pointless, just like arguing with person that has some kind of phobia is it a psychiatric problem or not. Man beating his wife will not see himself as a problem in most cases. Violent people always think they are right to act like that, nothing new.

 

[A Dying Breed]

Lord SteveO, do not be so foolish as to believe that the rest of us can not see what is hidden beneath your dark exoskeleton. Your cowardly and ignoble views are tainted by the impure, acid blood which runs through your parasitic veins.

 

[no country for old wainds]

They are weak and afraid. People that are happy with themselves and their own life, people that are able to love themselves, and other people, they have no fear in them, and don’t look at any social or ethnical group as a threat to them.

It's not a case of weakness, it's a case of having one's eyes open too wide to ignore all the disgusting/perilous aspects of the modern world, and being willing to go to any means necessary to dispel such things.

People that have their own mind, and that are defined individuals, see other people as individuals too, so if someone that is born Arabian or born German kills a girl, they don't see it thru his ethnic roots, but as it is: An individual acting on his own.

This is rather basic and rather silly, taking into account that we live in a causal system within which we're made up of genetics and environmental experience and thus our ethnic roots are inherent to all our actions.

 

[The_Isle]

to go to any means necessary to dispel such things.

Well for starters, we can give them huggles and kisses

 

[RideForVengance]

This is rather basic and rather silly, taking into account that we live in a causal system within which we're made up of genetics and environmental experience and thus our ethnic roots are inherent to all our actions.

It's true that genetics and enviornmental exerience shape who we are, and through that, determine the ways in which we will react to new situations. But ethnic roots, although they are the start of this chain, and have a large influence, aren't necessarily the deciding factor. Saying that every action, every descision we make is because of our ethnic roots sounds fine in logical terms, since ethnicity is one of the few influences we will never be able to escape or change. However, the influence of ethnicity affects each individual in a different way. It just doesnt make sense to believe that all people of a certain ethnicity act / think a certain way. Why? because even if everyone had exactly the same DNA, we would all respond and think differently for any situation, because of the experiences we've been through. Unless we were able to vividly share all the experiences of our lives with each other, we would be individuals, seeing everything from our own perspective, not from the general perspective of whatever ethnicity we fall under.

Ethnicity is a physical manifestation.

 

[no country for old wainds]

I think most underestimate just how strong a part one's ethnicity plays - racial traits have after all been shaped by evolutionary processes which have spanned over thousands of years and were suited to different environments. If one looks at cultural development there are clear differences between different races (in terms of values and ideologies as well as physical attributes), as well as similarities within them. Certainly it's not the be-all end-all of who we are, but people generally understand the values, needs and other such characteristics of their own race better than any other, and mixing races together causes conflict which eventually leads to societies like this mundane, confused and ultimately-self defeating culture which is actually anything but "diverse".

Violence is certainly justified when the alternative is destroying our environment and other such things, which are indirect forms of often genocidal violence in themselves.