Skip to content

The Right to Self Defence is Sacred

A persons right to defend themselves is sacred. It is through the arbitrary magic of government that we create a set of standards that determine what a person is allowed to do in the moments of frightful violence. In Australia for example government arbitration, decides whether a person is allowed to carry something to protect themselves, this is not just limited to firearms but includes mace, knives, clubs or any item that may have the intent to be used for self defence. The individual is then made dependent on the regional monopoly, a public service that has deemed itself the sole authority when it comes to human rights in all areas. Especially the right to self defence.

Recently Australia suffered three terrible stabbing events, one tragically led to the death of six innocent people. Five women and a man, two of them being unarmed mall guards. The other was against a well-known religious figure Bishop Mar Mari Emanuel, who preaches for peace in Palestine. Fortunately he survived the attack. The third was between teenagers and has been relegated as ‘merely’ gang related violence, despite a death.

These attacks inevitably will lead to conversations about the availability of knives. Blaming the material object, discussion of prohibition always lingering in the minds of law makers. Because the attackers were male the narrative has also led to a collective blame and responsibility put upon all men. The nuance of individualism is lost in government discourse, instead demographics rule, unless it is decided otherwise. And further funding into mental health, Australia already has a huge sectory dedicated to this. The Bondi murderer was a person ‘suffering’ such an affliction, so his culpability as a human being will be swayed into a need for professionals and support workers to get paid more. Some will tell you that because of his ‘condition’ he is the real victim, the dead are symptoms of his illness. The right of the individual to self defence, including the mother and her baby who was stabbed by such a disgusting person, is sacred.

Men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of this violence and men, as a group, have to change their behaviour” – Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese in a stunning and brave generic statement after the Bondi murders.

Not only will welfare fascism reign supreme all the more, so too will the anti-terror surveillance powers that may expand. Secret laws and not so secret ones will materialise with enforcement agencies putting their hands out for more resources and funding. Government has the magical ability of rewarding those who fail with more so that they can continue to fail with more, and so on goes the cycle. It placates many in the unthinking public, ensures politicians look as though they are proactive while giving the parasite sector more “jobs” at the expense of the population that they tax into poverty and deny any rights to self defence.

The neo-liberal fascism that is the nation state of Australia will do as it does. Grow government and remove individual rights all under the guise of security and in the case of the Bondi murderer, welfare. The heroic police inspector, Amy Scott and the legally-not-allowed-to-be-armed civilian men who escorted her into the mall acted as heroes. Her a heroine with a gun. Not as a police officer, because a cop would have waited outside for back up. She happened to be on the scene, and as a heroic individual she stopped the threat. Killing him with two well placed shots. A good clean shoot from an armed person. The two unarmed mall guards, bleeding to death alongside the disarmed women nearby.

If the murderer used a firearm we know what the Australian government and wider public’s impulse would have been. “We are becoming like America!” would be the fear so more anti-gun laws to be pushed. Instead the mass murder was done in a very English manner, with a knife. Though I fear that it will only take another attack of such a nature for the response to be again very English and look at the knives as being the problem. While the welfare minded will push the mental health angle for more support. The conversation about individual rights to self defence lost in the many claws reaching for more funding.

A few years ago at a shopping centre in South Australia a man known to the police who had recently been released from jail brutally based a woman to death. He remained by her body until police arrived. He had only recently walked into the local police station informing them that he wanted to return to jail. He had been locked up for violent actions. So, one evening he murdered a mother. He got everything he wanted, an innocent woman was a prop to his ambition and desires. The state now protects him from her family and the wider community. He lives with care, food, services and entertainment away from the wider public that would have prevented him from doing what he did. Unfortunately they are not allowed to protect themselves so the very public service that enables, supports and then guards such men keeps them locked up and safe from those who would not tolerate their violence.

Such events will be viewed through the eyes of ones own philosophical, ideological and personal bias. Unfortunately people suffered. The might of the most unimaginitive and the mob of the frightened will likely sway policy and decisions into further empowering the state and creating a dependency of the individuals that it rules over. Early online meme authorities reported the attacker as being Islamic or even Jewish. Surely an immigrant. When it turned out that the 40-year old incel had more in common with them than any oriental Jew or Muslim other-worlder, they moved on to generate more memes for future incel killers to consume.

Virtually all mass killers have a history of sexual rejection by women.” @CulturalRadical on X claimed in an X (formerly known as a tweet).

The stabbing of the Christian bishop by the 15-year old attacker has been “deemed” an act of terrorism. Which means by using that word the laws surrounding the nature of the event change, the intention of the (underage) attacker and the profile of the intended victim invokes a different process. Whereas, should the murderer at the Bondi shopping centre have survived it is likely that he would be put on a generous federal government mental health policy rather than face ‘punishment.’ For the victims they remain dead regardless of how professionals in government determine the murderers validity of intention.

His incel rage mashed with whatever mental health conditions he had soiled into the decision that he would kill women. He hunted them down in a public place and acted on malicious impulse to terrorise, harm and kill them. Based on whatever memes were in his algorithmic roster, whatever perverse collectivist bunk he had been consuming beforehand and his sense of rejection at the hands of women. He revealed who he was, the rejections or wariness from women was clearly well placed. So he murdered. Former lovers have come out claiming that he was, ‘nice’. Ted Bundy was nice as well. It’s how horrible human beings thrive and survive, they know how to be nice, until it suits them to be otherwise. The victims always unarmed, in this case disarmed.

What motivated the 15-year old to attack a high profile bishop is not known at this time. His motivation being crucial to sway the states response. To some he is a kid, a boy, a child even. Others he is a fighting age male. If he was suffering mental defects, then it is likely the state would see him as being a child, mentally unable to suffer any punishment. Put him on a disability pension. If he committed his attack with political or extreme religious convictions, then he is a fighting age male, a man basically. A threat. Yet to any sane observer mental coherence and rationale thought is absent from all of the above scenarios. Most people who do violent and horrible things, do so for personal and vile reasons. The meandering need to define one as sane or not is a luxury that no victims are afforded. It is instead one that profits experts and professionals. The victims disarmed.

The other, less reported stabbing occurred in Sydney, two brothers were stabbed one of them dying. Four male teenagers have been charged. This is being treated as a criminal matter and because of the age of the killers and lack of profile of the victims, it is not a terrorist attack. Merely just a killing. Less important to any one outside of family or community that lost someone. The teenagers who were involved in the stabbing and murder will go to the local child court. In fact this murder is barely noticed because it was only one dead and because the intended target is not a public figure. Simply a normal human being

The question is asked what radicalised the killers and would be killer?

Dungeons and Dragons, Heavy Metal Music, Rap, Comic Books, Pornography, violent video games, memes? At the very least they did not go ten pin bowling before hand. The radicalisation narrative is one that always seeks prohibition and censorship. Ultimately what radicalises one to believe that violence, killing is acceptable means to accomplish ones ambitions or goals perhaps is far closer to the accepted home for most people. Bland conversation with wine in hand may meander in discussion that nearly 100,000 innocent people may be killed in Gaza by August and, inevitably in that same month we will have those celebrating the anniversary of the dropping of atom bombs on cities. Such things are not radical. The radicalism is to oppose, reject and feel disgust at the entity that would do such a thing. Any reasoning that embraces such an act, should be understood to be repulsive. Acts of mass killing on such a scale when done under the guise of policy is normal, healthy even as far as civilised discourse goes. What radicalised individuals to act in violence? They are horrible human beings that went after a disarmed populace. Some of those present stood by and watched women die. We are so used to watching murder on our screens anyhow.

In the end, the public will likely suffer further disarmament. Will be handed a bill for it all and will walk near those who could take life with such reckless violence. And all they will be allowed to do is call the police. The issue is an individual and a community one. Murder is already illegal. Murder is also understood by most social constructs as being anti-social and unwelcome. It takes government to legalise and define murder in such a manner that it becomes a policy point or a means to achieve an aim. When a man runs through a shopping mall with a knife, he is certainly deranged, but through his violence he is acting upon his own policies of arbitration, accomplishing whatever he feels he needs to. For the rest of us, he is dangerous and needs to be stopped and deterred from doing that. Disarming his potential victims is not how this is accomplished. Destroying such threats the moment the emerge is the duty of every capable individual. That is radical. Standing by and letting it happen until those allowed to be armed arrive, apparently that is the normal thing to do.


April, 2024

Published inAll Articles and EssaysCombat Sports and FightingPhilosophy, Society and Liberty