niedziela, 21 sierpnia 2011

Why Anders Breivik's killing spree should surprise no one

We, people of reason, base the universal ethic of human conduct on the non-aggression principle. That is - nobody has the right to initiate force against another person. Why is that so? Because all human beings are bestowed with equal right to life and property - it is the categorical imperative on which all universal laws must be based upon to remain valid as laws qua laws. If we concede to some persons the privilege to initiate force - we create two seperate classes of beings - subhumans who are stripped of their right to life and property, and ubermenschen who have the privilege to take life and property from the underpriveledged class. This divide is completely arbitrary, regardless of the rationale we are taught to believe. It is always a breach in the natural, universal law of human conduct - the breach in non-aggression principle.
States and governments all over the world operate on this fallacy. They force upon people their vision of morality, in which government officials have this mysterious privilege to initiate force upon all others, by taxing, regulating, drafting and beating into submission, while the non-privileged majority is banned from defending itself against this obvious injustice. The official government mythology which we are forced to learn at schools and from media, states that it is an inevitable historical fact that we need this scheme of things, that is - a class of ubermenschen who can beat us into submission and tax us dry, so that we may remain free, happy and prosperous. And the rationale for modern democratic governments to initate force against us, is that they are not tyrannical like absolute monarchies, only because governments act under objective law, and are subjected to democratic control. Yeah, of course. A policeman can freely use legally sanctioned force against innocent people to ensure that they remain free, happy and prosperous, and his victims may rely on a democratic control to ensure their safety. Somehow it does not work that way, does it?
Anyway, government people may beat us, rob us, kill us - as long as they follow the law (which they wrote themselves) and wear uniforms. By this magick of written law and worn uniform, the class of ubermenschen may initiate force and we may not defend ourselves. Quite neat, huh?

Now, enter Anders Behring Breivik.
By shooting to death 69 kids, he surely transgressed the non-aggression principle. But, precisely, why do all the mainstream media, politicians and public opinion condemn him? They are not libertarians. They do not uphold non-aggression principle as an absolute axiom, as we do. Why do they think that Anders Breivik committed a crime, while soldiers in Iraq or Afghanistan, or SWAT policemen during a raid are not criminals? Huh? Why the dividing line?
It is quite baffling.
Did Anders Breivik wear a uniform? He did.
Did Anders Breivik act under objectively defined law? He did.
Well, he wrote his manifest himself - just like government who writes his own tyrannical laws.
What differentiates Anders Breivik from a murderous policeman, soldier or a tax collector?
Listen closely. NOTHING. NOTHING AT ALL. Actually, Breivik, as a private entrepreneur at initating force, was definitely more effective in dealing violence, than public counterparts.
So why all the condemnation on the behalf of aggression-tolerating hypocrites in the mainstream?
I tell you why. Breivik showed that government does not have monopoly on uniformed, legitimized killing of innocents. I repeat: By killing 69 kids on Utoya, BREIVIK SHOWED that government does not have monopoly on uniformed, legitimized killing of innocents. In other words, government is exactly the same murderous monster, using the same rationale for his actions, as Anders Breivik is. JUST THE SAME.

Either you accept non-aggression principle in its absolute - that is, nobody can have the privilege to beat, rob, and kill with impunity; or everyone is equally entitled to such actions. There is no rationale for governments to possess this magickal exceptionality. On what basis? On what morality? Definitely not on rational ethics of liberty.
Either you see this statist fallacy through - or you may one day end up with a bullet up your head, either from a government official acting under 'objective law' and 'democratic control' - or from a disgruntled, disillusioned rebel wearing a freemason uniform, and acting under his, equally 'objective law'.
There is no grey area here. Government is murder.

One more thing. People are so disgusted with these Norwegian murders, yet, probably most of them, not only accept government's privileged position as a monopolistic killer of innocents - but they also accept and tolerate such popculture icons as Che Guevera, killer of children, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, killer of children, Winston Churchill, killer of children, and Woodrow Wilson, killer of children. And they are disgusted by Breivik? Why so? Ha! Because he challenged the status quo of government killing incorporated?
Nowadays, violent thugs, like those looters in London riotings, are usually excused by media pundits and psychologists, as a product of degenerated, bourgois, capitalist society of scarcity and lack of opportunities. Especially when a given thug is a black unemployed, welfare-sucking parasite from a 'broken family'. In the eyes of the brainwashed public, he's not really guilty, because the public has been bullied into accepting its own guilt as a dysfuncional society, which breeds poor souls like these thugs.
Therefore, using this popular idiotic explanation and rationalization for crimes, this Marxist theory of human behaviour, we may as well consider Anders Behring Breivik a victim of society, not really guilty, but in fact, a terribly maimed poor soul, tormented by the same socialdemocratic, Marxist Norway which expiates horrible crimes perpetrated by immigrants on its own population.

I don't have anything else to add.
If you accept the right of government to initiate force - you accept that Anders Breivik is innocent. Therefore, you accept my right to exterminate you too. So kill yourself before I do!

Brak komentarzy:

Prześlij komentarz