Why the White advocacy movement should take a principled stand against the death penalty

I always knew that if ever got to see extended footage of Crazy Abe Foxman, I’d decrypt his racket. Sure enough, the movie Hashmatsa provided the decryption key.

The whole premise of secular Jewish power is the charge that anyone who opposes them is a “potential Nazi/neo-Nazi” which means something deeper. What does it mean? It is really an accusation of murder that you haven’t committed yet. It is a claim that there is a psychopathic genocidal maniac in you, just waiting to come out! One day, you’re Joe Sixpack, the next day you’re Ralph Fiennes in a snazzy uniform with a gun that doesn’t work.

But what if you’re opposed to the death penalty on principle, in all cases, because you don’t trust the government with the power to take human life? It is the perfect counter to the censorious, “Nazi-esque” charge of “Nazi!”

We know how ubiquitous the old “Nazi” thing is. Everybody’s a Nazi, even the Tea Party people. Inevitably, any White advocate who makes a public stand will be called “Nazi,” or some variation.

“Were the Nazis in favor of the death penalty?”

“Well, of course!”

“Well, I’m not in favor of the death penalty. I don’t trust the government with the power to kill people. How could I possibly be a Nazi? Or a Communist for that matter? Or someone who is in favor of the US status quo on the death penalty. No government has a right to kill people.”

If the reporter is Jewish, you look in his eye, and say, “Are you Jewish?” He says he is, and you say,

“Well, I promise you this, if the Nazis ever come back, you can hide in my attic. But seriously, don’t you think we need to do something about the Pacific Garbage Patch?”

Why do we need to be neutral or in favor of the death penalty? Just because some Blacks get executed? Do we need to be in favor of the death penalty to feel like “tough guys?” Screw that!

I want to win. Win win win. That’s all I think about.

They have been able to hold back the White advocacy movement by charging us with being “potential mass murderers.” What a total BS accusation if there ever was one!

Of course they will say, “What about the Jews then. So you don’t want to hurt them, you’re not a Nazi, but you say this thing about a . . . what’s your term, “legitimate conflict of interest?”

Yes. Of course there is a legitimate conflict with the very influential organizations that identify themselves as Jews. It’s not like I’m making AIPAC sew a six pointed star on its jacket, that’s their logo! And anybody who is beginning to . . . PAY ATTENTION . . . knows . . . so much influence. like a voice talking in your head, from when you get up in the morning, until you GO TO SLEEP The Iraq war, such a tragic mistake it wasn’t a cakewalk like Wolfowitz said . . . let the soldiers eat cakewalk. The whole world knows, America’s dangerous because of this imbalance of influence More than anybody. It’s like when you have an argument with someone. Do they kill everyone you have an argument with? We’d all be dead. And so many people who are becoming aware of this perfectly legitimate conflict of interest, and yet they have this thought, that the TV told them. And so the more they think about it, the more it bothers you, until you can’t not think about it. You know what I’m talking about? It’s a dawning awareness that there are these people . . . on TV . . . who are called Jews . . . highly organized and have very specific agendas, but reasonable people, good people, can disagree with these agendas. We realize that we can talk about these legitimate conflicts of interest like reasonable gentlemen and gentilewomen. You know in your own minds that we are good people, you settle your differences through legal and non-violent methods, like happens in courtrooms every day . . . all the time . . . right?

Once you’ve established that you are in fact NOT a psychopathic killer in embryo, since you are opposed to the death penalty in principle, then the discussion can begin.


  1. But there’s evidence, much of it uncovered by John Lott, that the Death Penalty deters people from commiting heinous crimes.

    Plus I think when a Country gets rid of the Death Penalty, it’s a Triumph of Moral Relativism as opposed to a Triumph for Freedom.

    Look what’s happening to Geert Wilders in The Netherlands, a Country without the Death Penalty.

    A lot of good no Death Penalty in that Country does the Anti-Statist cause, when people don’t even have the freedom to breath the Truth about the Government’s Treasonous Immigration Policies.

    I understand what you’re saying though that against the Death Penalty is probably the most effective way of disarming the “Nazi” charge.

    Whether that would be worth the sacrifice though is the problem.

  2. Most convicts leave prison only to comit more crimes and be sent back again so I think that there comes a time when we must say thats enough second chances already. So I suport a mandatory minimum death sentece upon all repeat offenders with two of more previous convictions to be caried out swiftly with no appeals. As the majority of crimes are done by those with previouse convictions it would reduce crime and save on prisson expences too.

  3. Kievsky,
    I think that people make the mistake of trying to engage Foxman and his crew in rational discussion. Its really not possible. To some degree, their paranoia is a mental disorder, and arguing with unbalanced people is usually futile. The film “Defamation” had some great examples, such as the Jewish people outside of Kiev thinking they could be attacked by the Kievskies at any minute. This is so pervasive, and has been going on for such a long time, there has to be some kind of genetic trait involved here. The attitude, “come on guys, Im nice, I would never hurt you, let me show you how harmless I am” will do you little good. Just by your existence, you are a potential threat to them. The threat may be very small, and they have blown it out of all proportion, but lets face it: all human groups have opposing interests. When those interests collide, it can escalate to violence. There has never been a Jewish pogrom in the US before, and Jews have thrived here like nowhere else, but its possible that things could go downhill for them (a very remote possibility that they see as something imminent looming in the future).

    The only real way to have any footing in a conversation with the Jews is to speak with them from a position of strength. For WNs, this requires a large, united, explicitly pro-White organization that seeks to pursue its ethnic interests. Appeasement or trying to show you mean no harm to opponents nearly always invites their disgust and contempt. Its an invitation to be steamrolled over. One of the reasons that we cant really have an honest dialogue with Jews is because there is only a nascent, loosely organized group of WNs. This weakness means that we have little standing to even request a conversation, much less pipe up and try to talk about our interests. Once the movement grows, and has leaders that speak for millions of people, WNs will have what Foxman can understand: strength. At that time we can lay our cards on the table and talk turkey.

    In the meantime, I stand proudly for the death penalty. Its an institution as old as man himself, and for certain heinous crimes, it is the only option for a moral society. When I think of some of the horrible murders that are committed out there by the most diabolical fiends, something inside me screams for justice, at least some measure of true justice for the family of the slain; and that means the death penalty for the perpetrator. I am not willing to sacrifice the death penalty as a price for cozening up to the Jews (a futile exercise in my opinion).

  4. Thinking about it, Andrew is right.

    The thing about Jews is that they take the attitude that even if the Whites alive today are every last one of them harmless, it doesn’t matter because they’ll have the Waffen SS spring from their Loins.

    It’s kind of the obverse of how I like it when Half Jews marry Whites.

    I like it when that happens as the children that result will have had their Jewish Identity obliterated, thereby taking us one step closer to the extinction of the Jewish Race.

    No Jews = No Second Trotsky.

  5. There can be no accommodation to the imposition of a system of thought on our people that shames them to the effect that our people would sooner accept their own death than raise a hand against those that intend our racial destruction or would risk their own lives in fighting against those of our people who would fight our racial enemies. What is being asked of us is that we find moral succor in accepting our own genocide. Never. It is nothing less than the brainwashing of a death cult. And isn’t it our enemies themselves who say that there is no measures to which we must not stoop in fighting genocide, the ultimate evil? As they judge let them be judged.

  6. I don’t think opposing the death penalty will get rid of the accusations of being “nazis.” The Holocaust is a different issue from the death penalty. The former was not officially or at least not publicly portrayed as murder. Take away the death penalty, concentration camps can still be constructed!

    The Left won’t be fooled that easily. They will still call us “nazis,” because we express anti-semitic views.

    But, I do think it’s very silly; because, many other people’s were as anti-semitic as the Germans-particularly Slavs, the French, (the British are believed to have been a little anti-semitic between the World Wars), and even the Soviet Union. With the last example, maybe they should start calling us communists.

  7. Also, by not fooling the Left: I didn’t imply anybody wants to construct concentration camps. I don’t believe any commenter here wants that.

    I was referring to the theoretical statement “One who opposes the death penalty can’t support subtle murder of Jews.”
    Of course one still can oppose the former and support the latter.

  8. Blair: US Govt Can Kill Citizens Overseas as Part of ‘Defined Policy’
    Director of National Intelligence Tells Congress Americans Can Be Killed Overseas

    In testimony before the House Intelligence Committee today, National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told representatives that American citizens can be assassinated by the US government when they are oveseas.

    Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R – MI) inquired about the procedures involved, asking what the legal framework was under which Americans could be killed by the intelligence community.

    There seems to be a chilling lack of oversight in the procedure behind these killings, however, Blair’s assurances against politically motivated assassinations aside. The US has killed Americans in overseas attacks before, but only as “collateral damage.” It has never admitted to explicitly assassinating an American citizen before, though it seems that the policy is in place and such killings are only a matter of time.


  9. By attempting to fool the opposition we also succeed in fooling our people. No accommodation to the anti-White genocidalist zeitgeist, not one bit. We will replace it in toto. That means your knees don’t buckle even if Giles chews you out, or if Johnson suggests compromise. No accommodation, not one bit.

  10. CaptinChaos: But, I don’t think trying the aforementioned fooling attempt is worth the consequences of dropping the death penalty.

    People will not be fooled by this example of ‘overthinking.’

    And, do we want to risk an even higher Black-on-White homicide rate?

  11. Steve, just what in my statement would lead you to believe I support dropping the death penalty or support feigning that I do? No, clearly I meant said feigning as an example of the ‘fooling’ I council against. Black-on-White homicide? Given my way, no Black will have access to a White ever again.

    No accommodation means no compromise.

  12. Being opposed to the death penalty as a political maneuver doesn’t mean the death penalty is ended tomorrow. It’s just a tactic.

    I knew you’d all start arguing the virtues of the death penalty. It’s not about that, silly! I’m trying to teach you how to fight like Semites! You want to neutralize the “Nazi” thing, and this rhetorical sleight of hand WILL WORK. Especially if it’s accompanied with a big smile and a tone of “don’t be ridiculous, do I look like a murderer to you?” IT’S FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE NON-JEWISH AUDIENCE, TO HIGHLIGHT THE DELUSIONAL NATURE OF JEWISH PARANOIA AND MAKE THEM LAUGH. DO YOU GET IT NOW?

    I don’t see how I am advocating “accomodation” in any way. I have seen how leftists use psychology on people to break down their belief systems. Humor is a big one. You get the delusional person to laugh at their delusion. The Holocaust is a delusional belief system. If you get people to laugh at it, poof, it’s gone. It’s no longer the meme-weapon it used to be.

    Anything I suggest to say to Jews, is as much for the benefit of non-Jewish audiences as Jews themselves. Jews may very well be incurable delusionals. But if you can get Gentile observers to laugh at the Holocaust? Mission accomplished.

    What I am suggesting, is to treat Jews as delusionals. That’s what they are. The Holocaust is to be treated as a paranoid delusion. Saying, “You can hide in my basement” is NOT accomodation; it’s the proper response to the delusion. It’ll make Gentile audiences laugh.

    Nobody picked up on my second to last paragraph. I was hoping somebody would comment.

  13. Be a Happy Warrior!

    If there’s one thing I’ve learned, is that if you want to influence others, YOU GO FIRST. Someone who’s truly happy is infectious. People subconsciously think, “I want some of what he’s having.” So what you say is going to be more persuasive. And if you take it a step further by engaging in humor, they are already prepared to laugh, and feel HAPPY too!

    If you are going around focussing on how much you want revenge, how bad things are, et cetera, you won’t attract people’s positive attention, and you are unlikely to change their minds.

    You can’t approach people with intellectual arguments. Everbody who could be persuaded with intellectual arguments has already found us.

    The leftists like to break people down from Christian beliefs. They treat Christians as delusionals, and when they can get them to laugh at the Crucifixion, they’ve scored their little victory.

    So there you go. That’s how we treat the Holocaust(TM) religion too. The ideological purists here need to understand that you got to do what’s necessary to appeal on an EMOTIONAL LEVEL.

    Even if we don’t persuade people of our POV right away, we want to break down the enemy belief system.

  14. Kievsky why are you always for getting hinky like the enemy? Lying like a cheap rug to gain political traction and then suddenly revealing the real [hidden] agenda. Is this more of your idee fixe about faking Jews out with Sharia stealth (or whatever you call it)? You want to make Abe Foxman look delusional by counceling racialists to campaign for the life of cop killer Abu Mamal Jamia? Oh please! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtRq-8u-hWo

  15. Kievsky, we diverse white American peoples are a hard-headed lot. We ran into the same thing when we suggested that the over-representation of young white kids in using tobacco could be made the subject of white public remarks to city councils for failing to look after white kids. The point was to create lines of discussion that could be publicly articulated in one’s white voice in a white centric way to get and demonstrate that experience.

    But it got tangled up with a discussion about cigarette smoking as a human right! I don’t know that anyone saw it as one of the hundreds of ways we could exercise a white point of view in public display, even though that was clearly stated.

    The attic gambit is priceless, and would cut off a whole bunch of crap without cost. We will use that idea a lot. It is funny, and it turns the tables without cost. Here in California, we could rent the attic out for no less than $400-$500 a month anyway! For you hard-headed guys out there, that last sentence was a joke.

    I don’t know how the diverse white American peoples are going to get an understanding of developing a public stance and witty lines to unman our adversaries. My hope is that, when 5% of us get it, there will be massive changes, but to get them to get it we have to do more than just oppose disordered categories of discourse, and then pile on our own categories.


    Well, that is a little long for a warning label, but you get the idea. Just because we “know” the ultimate truth in all its bluntness is no reason to believe it is helpful to spill it all out to the first nosy reporter or the first newbie we meet. We need to think about using the thin edge of the wedge, not the thick edge of the wedge. We need to use our white voice in white centric ways.

    The line about “getting hinky like the enemy” is hilarious, but it’s better than “getting jiggy with the enemy.” For you hard-headed guys out there, that’s a joke.

  16. Hell yeah I’m all for “getting hinky like the enemy!”

    It’s called “taking a gun to a gunfight” metaphorically speaking.

    No, I would not actively campaign for the life of Abu Jamal. If asked, I would say my line, “I am opposed to the death penalty in all cases.”

    The “tough guy pose” has gotten us nowhere for the past several decades. Maybe it’s time to try something new.

  17. I don’t know about y’all, but I would just rather that THIS government not be granted the authority to kill people.

  18. The problem us that the other side has 60 years of propaganda and probably billions and perhaps even trillions of dollars invested in making sure 99.999% of people experience a conditioned emotional reaction upon hearing words like racist and Nazi. It is very hard to overcome that, maybe impossible, though I suppose we should do what we can with rhetorical strategies like the one you are suggesting, but I will keep my expectations as low as possible that it will have any effect.

  19. But what if you’re opposed to the death penalty on principle, in all cases, because you don’t trust the government with the power to take human life? It is the perfect counter to the censorious, “Nazi-esque” charge of “Nazi!”

    I don’t agree that this is a smart tactic. By arguing like this, you’re accepting their frame that it’s reasonable to accuse you of being a genocidal maniac, and that you are obligated to refute the charge. Arguing within your enemy’s frame is always a losing strategy. In this case, if WN adopted a big anti-death penalty stance, the Jews could just come out and say: “Look, now the Nazis are trying to conceal their genocidal intent by pretending to oppose the death penalty.” You could respond to that of course, and then they could counter again, and it could go back and forth forever, and the end result is that you would be spending a lot of time talking about whether or not WNs are a bunch of homicidal psychopaths, which is counterproductive. Giving it that much attention makes it appear like a legitimate accusation. You would be playing into their hands.

    Jews are effective at debate because they are good at controlling the frame. You don’t win by “arguing” but by imposing your own frame.

  20. @Reader #20
    It’s not about convincing the Jews. It’s about convincing the third person watching the debate.

    But I have already said that several times.

  21. “21Kievsky

    @Reader #20
    It’s not about convincing the Jews. It’s about convincing the third person watching the debate.

    But I have already said that several times.”

    But “the third person watching the debate” now knows you are insincere because you are laying it all out in public. Geeeeze. Who discusses strategy in public, anyway?

  22. You don’t convince the third person watching the debate by arguing within the Jewish frame that it is reasonable to think of WNs as genocidal maniacs.

  23. Kievsky,

    I like your work here in general as you challenge us to look for solutions rather than just bitch about things. In this case you’ve gone too far in being creative. White folk at the margins are mostly supportive of proportional, consistent, and quick punishment which is what the U.S. Government does NOT do. Lining up with the ACLU types on an issue like this is a political loser as well as being immoral. The much more pertinent issue for us should be reaching the masses with the message that the U.S. Government aids and abets inter-racial prison rape against young white men.

    This is much more a an issue to raise the ire of the disaffected and to bring in a few more to our cause than feigned opposition to traditional and just Aryan punishment.

  24. I think prisoners should do honest labor, like good old hand tool farming, so they are a positive EROEI.

    All this may become moot, as the country is collapsing under our feet. I still believe in the Deus Ex Machina of peak oil doom; however, I hedge my bets and also do things in the event the status quo holds up.

  25. Kievsky,
    You have a ton of good ideas, and I am completely on board with the idea of using psychological warfare and clever debate tactics when appropriate. I also agree that we dont want to get too serious, activism should be enjoyable when possible. The continual barrage of bad news can have a tendency to become a burden, and its good to lighten up at times.

    On the other side of the coin, traditionalists (hey, check me out, Im using Hunter Wallace’s new word!) like me believe in certain bedrock principles that are immutable, which have always been true and always will be true. Principles need to be your foundation and anchor, which lie underneath everything else, and are not compromised (if you havent read Steven Covey’s “7 Habits of Successful People”, I recommend it for more on the topic). I am a huge fan of George Washington, who I believe represents the finest in European leadership. For me, he is a shining beacon of what WN leaders should strive to be like, an example to follow that has little room for improvement.

    What you see in Washington’s struggle is his consistent adherence to principles such as honor, faith, morality, decency, personal sacrifice and unwavering dedication to a cause. In the midst of a seemingly lost cause against the Superpower of the age, and beset with every difficulty imaginable, he plodded along surviving disaster after disaster, refusing to be beaten. That is how the WN cause will ultimately be won, through a slowly moving campaign, steadily growing in strength.

    In battle, the continental soldiers could always take heart by seeing the General behind them, astride his horse, tall in the saddle, looking indomitable. In the times ahead, the US is in for a very bumpy ride as it begins to disintegrate. Whites will be looking for an organization that has true bedrock principles, which is worthy of allegiance and support. There will be many opportunities for White advocates to use creative tactics to help the cause, which is a very good thing, and is important. But we also need to abide by our core principles, never compromising them for a short term gain.

  26. There is an org. called Assoc. in Defence of the Wrongly Convicted. In Canada, in the past approx. dozen years, their efforts have sprung several men who were doing hard time for murders they never committed. They were found not merely “not guilty”, but in most cases were actually exonerated. Now, under “traditional and just Aryan punishment” they’d have fried. In some cases the men who’d been occupying a cell for decades compliments of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II were unlovable losers, but in some other cases they were good men who had no criminal connections whatsoever.

    It is not an issue of making common cause with ACLU. In my books you should be opposing the death penalty for a variety of good reasons. Don’t be too quick to defend the death penalty. It could happen to a child or friend of yours, or even you.

  27. “It could happen to a child or friend of yours, or even you.”

    And the death penalty can deter a would-be murder of a “child or friend of yours, or even you.”

    Until the Civil Rights era, the Ku Klux Klan and ethnocentric Whites kept Black on White crime in check. With the Klan and White Nationalism not just dead, but mutilated after death-there was a loss of a major deterrent to crime. Get rid of the death penalty, and I am sure even more Ghetto Blacks will murder Whites!

  28. Stronza,

    It is wise to use a balance sheet approach in assessing the efficacy of a policy. Even in an Aryan society relatively uncorrupted by Talmudic hairsplitting and with checks and balances in place the carrying out of capital punishment cannot be perfect. There will be miscarriages albeit very rarely.

    “Don’t be too quick to defend the death penalty. It could happen to a child or friend of yours, or even you.”

    The latter sentence is true. It (an incorrect execution) could happen to a loved one. I will counter that by saying that a no-execution policy will lead to MANY more innocent people being killed, maimed, raped, and robbed because psychopaths are spared. Therefore the former sentence is indefensible if one truly wants to protect innocent loved ones.

    This is NOT a defense of ZOG’s corrupted “legal” system (where men like Matt Hale and Ernst Zudel rot because of their un-PC ideas) but a defense of the concept of proportionate punishment in an Aryan society.

  29. So, let me get this right…Torture murderers of innocents like Channon Christian and Christopher Newsom and that cocky Marxist punk Abu Jamal Mumia get housed, fed, and clothed and their legal, medical, dental, mental health and conjugal needs attended to at taxpayer expense for the rest of their natural lives because we don’t want to feed American Jewish paranoia about Nazis? Why, I rather see lynch law reinstated than keep on feeding a corrupt and bloated justice system. These shysters have figured a how to get rich blaming victims for crimes perpetrated against them by murderous ghetto tards and Wall St. sociopaths. Clarence Darrow and Perry Mason have been replaced by a demon spawn of Alan Dershowitzs who win capital cases for guilty clients and insane corporate settlements with Talmudic corkscrew logic and then go on to become senators. Rahm Emmanuel looks like he chewed through six city blocks of drywall to get to work this morning. No, I think a better way than trying to assuage Jewish paranoia with ancient Islamic psy ops is to become chefs at the Four Seasons or Spagos and just slip a little something into the Consome de Borrego that will put these virulent varmints to back to sleep for a century.

  30. No. In my perfect world they get hard physical labour 18 hours per day with meals of bread & water till they die. No medical care, no comforts.

  31. Post # 27, very good thinking Andrew. Psychological warfare and turning the tables on the Anti-race always needs to be included in an overall flexible strategy. Short term tactics should be used when appropriate, but basic principles and common law should be respected. We don’t want to sell our souls at the risk of mockery. Image means a lot, to most Whites.

    I do like Kievsky’s ability to improvise and think out of the play pen. We do need innovation, and lot’s of it, at this juncture. The Captain’s tactic of taking the psyops trolling war to the enemy, is another wise tactic. Fred also comes up with many good ideas about wounding the controlling inner party, with innovative words and ideas. The Jews have many chinks in their armor; look at what Yoav Shamir did to his co-ethnics with his video ‘Defamation’.

  32. Kievsky,

    I really liked the second to last paragraph, it was like a work of art or something.

    Interesting how it seemed designed to implant the memory of having been brainwashed by Jews on Television, or at least to frame Television as a force for brainwashing by Jews.

    Are the listeners intended to be aware of transposition from gentlewomen to gentilewomen?

  33. Reginald,

    I have studied hypnotic language though I am no hypnotist. I can sneak some NLP in a conversation to people.

    The second to last paragraph used hypnotic language such as the changing of pronouns and embedded commands “GO TO SLEEP” and such.

  34. I thought that was what you were going for.

    I especially like:

    “…like a voice talking in your head…”

    Because of course that’s just what Hypnosis is, the subject stops hearing the voice as coming from outside him, and instead as a voice talking in his own head that hijacks the command center of the mind.

  35. The death penalty saves lives.
    Scenario 1 : John Gotti (RIP) or someone of that ilk is jailed for life instead of being executed. He orders a hit on a rival (or anyone else for that matter) thus committing murder yet again. A life is needlessly lost. What is the correct and condign punishment for that piece of work?

    Scenario 2 : Convicted murderer serves his sentence, is released and kills again. A thoroughly preventable loss of life.

    Scenario 3 : Convicted murderer escapes and, while on the run, he kills again. Another eminently preventable loss of life.

    Support the Death Penalty. You know it makes sense.

  36. I’m sure y’all will happily accept your own execution for a crime you never committed because the death penalty, overall, is good for your fellow man.

    You will, won’t you?

  37. Stronza,

    That is stupid. There’s a far great probability of you being killed by a Murderer than being executed by the State for a crime you didn’t commit.

    The only group executed enough by the State to make wasting time thinking about the possibility a rational way of spending time is Murderers.

  38. We can’t keep getting boggled between theory and practice.

    In theory, government power can be a pivotal force for progress.
    In practice, we’re allied with libertarians in seeking to disempower this regime.

    In theory, there are people who ought to die for their crimes.
    In practice, I don’t trust this regime to make that determination.

    Because we’re White males, we’re compelled by instinct to try to distill our political positions into a coherent, systematized, and predictable system of thought. It’s in our nature to attempt to design systems, as surely as a Border Collie will attempt to herd sheep. That’s why we’ll have to suffer through a transitional phase of libertarianism in which the Tea Party movement systematizes their dissatisfaction with the government into an abstract “anti-government” system of beliefs.

    The important thing for us is to recognize this process and patiently balance the need to infuse the movement with our discourse with the need to avoid getting purged from the movement. That part’s an art, not a science. But we can’t allow ourselves to get confused into buying into the flimsy libertarian rhetoric going around.

  39. Further to what Al said, the death penalty is eugenic, preventing these people from ever passing on whatever genes may have predisposed them to such behaviour. Even if some might argue that this isn’t necessarily eugenic in the case of general murder (I would not make this argument), I think everyone who’s not degenerate could agree in the case of child murderers. I realize Kievsky is speaking in terms of strategic deception, but there are downsides to this approach. One is that people saying it actually start to believe it. Another is that the issue resonates with our natural constituency, and to oppose the death penalty confuses or alienates them. I think child murderers should be executed in unpleasant fashion. I suspect most of you do too.

  40. “Another is that the issue resonates with our natural constituency, and to oppose the death penalty confuses or alienates them.”

    That’s a key problem.

Comments are closed.