Who is Anders Behring Breivik?
Although the police have not officially named him, it’s pretty clear that Anders Behring Breivik, a native Norwegian, is the perpetrator in the Oslo terror attacks. The left has long been expecting another Tim McVeigh-style homegrown western terrorist, and now it looks as though they’ve found one in Breivik.
But so far we know very little about Breivik and his motives. And what little we do know is largely based on words that were posted by the killer himself on a Facebook page he set up just a few days before the killings:
On the Facebook page attributed to him, Mr Breivik describes himself as a Christian and a conservative. It listed his interests as hunting, body building and freemasonry…
Police chief Svinung Sponheim said that internet posting by Breivik suggested he has “some political traits directed toward the right, and anti-Muslim views”.
We can assume that Breivik composed the page knowing it would be heavily scrutinized after the mass murders, whether he lived or died. It was meant as a message, but of what sort? Is it true? Perhaps. Intentionally misleading? Perhaps. Half and half? Perhaps. He appears to have begun both the Facebook page and a meager (single tweet) Twitter account on the same day, July 17.
A great many people had originally theorized this was an al Qaeda attack due to its modus operandi, especially the double venue. It was logical to assume so, but also logical to point out that this conclusion might be wrong: the Timothy McVeighs of the world exist, and are not just a figment of some leftist multi-culturalist’s imagination. Evil comes in many guises, although it usually follows patterns.
Speaking of patterns, Breivik does seem to somewhat resemble McVeigh, with a few European twists. The perpetrator of the Oklahoma City bombing was a paranoid survivalist, loner (although he did have accomplices), and gun fanatic who hated government with a passion and bombed a government building. And Breivik does seem to fit the “loner” pattern even more than McVeigh; the Norwegian police have found Breivik’s allegiances to be somewhat of a mystery so far:
“He just came out of nowhere,” a police official told The Associated Press.
…[H]he didn’t belong to any known factions in Norway’s small and splintered extreme right movement, and had no criminal record except for some minor offenses, the police official told AP.
“He hasn’t been on our radar, which he would have been if was active in the neo-Nazi groups in Norway,” he said. “But he still could be inspired by their ideology.”…
Neo-Nazi groups carried out a series of murders and robberies in Scandinavia in the 1990s but have since kept a low profile.
“They have a lack of leadership. We have pretty much control of those groups,” the police official said.
So he’s not an official Nazi. Plus, Breivik calls himself “Christian” on his Facebook page. But his act is resoundingly un-Christian, and in fact anti-Christian; it goes against every tenet that Christianity holds dear.
The following appears to be the best clue about Breivik’s possible motives that has so far emerged [emphasis mine]:
He was a youth and adult member of the conservative Fremskrittspartiet (FrP) or Progress Party, VG newspaper reports, remaining involved until 2007. The party’s most prominent manifesto pledge is to minimize immigration.
His membership was confirmed by a senior party member, Jonas Kallmyr, who is quoted by VG as saying that encountering Breivik was “like meeting Hitler before World War II”…
[A] post in Breivik’s name in October 2009 advises “Hans”, described as the founder of Document.no, to “develop an alternative to the violent extreme Norwegian Marxist organisations Blitz, SOS Rasisme and Rod Ungdom” — all left-wing movements in Norway.
“The conservatives dare not openly express their viewpoints in public because they know that the extreme Marxists will trump them. We cannot accept the fact that the Labour Party is subsidising these violent “Stoltenberg jugend”, who are systematically terrorising the politically conservative,” the post reads.
He is making a reference to the youth movement of Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg, who heads the Labour Party.
It’s quite a leap, though, from expressing that sort of anger in a comment on an online bulletin board to mowing down over 80 members of that youth movement in cold blood. The victims at the camp were all teenagers and young people, shot deliberately and methodically by the lone gunman:
“He first shot people on the island,” a 15-year-old camper named Elise told The Associated Press. “Afterward he started shooting people in the water.”
Those in the water were desperately trying to flee. This sort of cold-blooded behavior on the part of a perpetrator who sees and targets his victims seems less like the usual terrorist attack and more like the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in Tucson, or any number of school mass murders—such as, for example, Charles Whitman at the U. of Texas. But most of all it resembles Columbine.
People tend to forget (or never even knew in the first place) that the Columbine shooters were not hurt kids getting back at those who’d teased them, but instead had a grandiose political agenda:
…Harris and Klebold planned for a year and dreamed much bigger. The school served as means to a grander end, to terrorize the entire nation by attacking a symbol of American life. Their slaughter was aimed at students and teachers, but it was not motivated by resentment of them in particular. Students and teachers were just convenient quarry, what Timothy McVeigh described as “collateral damage.”
The killers, in fact, laughed at petty school shooters. They bragged about dwarfing the carnage of the Oklahoma City bombing and originally scheduled their bloody performance for its anniversary. Klebold boasted on video about inflicting “the most deaths in U.S. history.” Columbine was intended not primarily as a shooting at all, but as a bombing on a massive scale. If they hadn’t been so bad at wiring the timers, the propane bombs they set in the cafeteria would have wiped out 600 people. After those bombs went off, they planned to gun down fleeing survivors. An explosive third act would follow, when their cars, packed with still more bombs, would rip through still more crowds, presumably of survivors, rescue workers, and reporters. The climax would be captured on live television. It wasn’t just “fame” they were after””Agent Fuselier bristles at that trivializing term””they were gunning for devastating infamy on the historical scale of an Attila the Hun. Their vision was to create a nightmare so devastating and apocalyptic that the entire world would shudder at their power.
And, but for a few problems with the explosives, they might have succeeded in at least some of this.
I started out by comparing Breivik to McVeigh, and the parallels seem obvious. But on reflection it seems that the better analogy might be to Harris and Klebold—who in turn acknowledged themselves to have been inspired by McVeigh. Breivik can call himself whatever he wants on his Facebook page, but my strong hunch is that, in the end, his motives will turn out to be a toxic mix of the personal and political: a combination of psychopathic imbalance, grandiosity, fascination with guns, and rage at the Labour Party for its advocacy of multiculturalism.
That’s a good analysis. Every now and then some sicko with just the right talents and circumstances manages to pull off a huge atrocity. I think it still possible that Breivik is an updated and improved version of McVeigh, who was the front, the dupe, the assassins for Muslims.
This is a good opportunity to educate people about the heinous actions of our FBI in covering up the story of McVeigh’s connection to Iraqi soldiers and especially Hussain Al-Hussaini.
Use Neo’s Amazon link to buy Jayna Davis’s, “The Third Terrorist: The Middle East Connection the the Oklahoma City Bombing.”
Interests: “freemasonry”? The sound of a false note.
Thank you. Best analysis out there.
Now comes an Agence France-Press story reporting that in 2009 the perp registered with a Swedish neo-Nazi Internet forum.
If he is indeed a neo-Nazi, we might keep in mind that Naziism is not a ideology of the the Right but of the Left.
Good point, Wolla Dalbo, but the fact that Breivik killed white Nordic children, however, doesn’t fit. Nazi’s killed the English because war required it; they killed Jews and Slavs because they enjoyed it. So, the fact the the children were of a different ideology doesn’t seem enough to someone who would be a Nazi, who would target their first and true enemy, especially if that was going to be their only shot.
I wonder, as well, what church Breivek went to since it is pretty much a tenet of Christian fundamentalists to attend a church.
Before anyone accepts the MSM meme that this guy is a right wing conservative Christian note that Pamella Geller (Atlas Shrugs) is pointing out that the guys Facebook page is probably fake and has been changed. This guy also had links to Nazi parties in Norway.
There is always an enormous effort by the left whenever one of these things happens to shift blame off of themselves and onto the right. Remember JFK and Lee Harvey Oswald as the paradigm. Within a short time it was the climate of hate in Dallas, and the Hunt brothers, then Mark Lane shifted it to vast conspiracies. All of course to hide the fact that Oswald was an open Communist from the age of 14, had defected to the USSR, married a KGB Colonels daughter, come back to the US and was part of the pro-Castro Fair Play for Cuba front group.
The left doesn’t recognize morality or the concept of right and wrong. They will do anything to win and smear the right. Just look at what they’ve done to Sarah Palin and now Bachmann.
Honestly? You’re all here pontificating at great lengths about the American left vs. right in the immediate aftermath of this horrific NORWEGIAN tragedy? Do none of you see anything absurd in that?
As for the “decidedly anti-Christian” behavior of the shooter, the harsh reality is that terror and murder in the name of religion is not unique, and certainly not a monopoly of the Islamic faith. We Christians have ample blood on our own hands, all in the name of God.
Jennifer–I think most of us commenting here are somewhat struck by the imbalance in numbers; number of contemporary terrorist attacks by Christians (and particularly attacks carried out primarily for some “Christian” motive) a handful or so over the last decade or so, number of terrorist attacks by Muslims (almost always conforming to the commands of Muhammad and the Qur’an and the Ideology of Islam i.e. as Sura 9, The Sura of the Sword” says, “…kill the unbelievers wherever you find them—waylay and ambush them–and practice every stratagem of war against them”) by one count, as of this hour, 17,489 Muslim terrorist attacks world-wide, just since 9/11 (see http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/).
Jennifer, the only blood on the hands of Christians is that which each person put there himself. Do you claim that Mother Teresa was a member of a terrorist cult?
And why not characterize it as a human tragedy that happened in Norway? By putting a national label on it, you, too are politicizing the event.
If comparisons to similar events in U.S. culture/history help our understanding, let’s make them. How factions with relativist morality attempt to reject or project in the wake of evil is instructive. More so if later facts prove the initial reactions were groundless.
Evil comes in many guises, although it usually follows patterns.
Does it really matters what ideologic dogma a paranoid schizophrenic claims to have? Not much, in my view. The sad truth is that most men just love to murder, but only few would openly accept it and even much less would act on such desire without some ideology to justify murder. There were times when Christian churches blessed murders, but they are history now, and no modern Christian denomination, however fundamentalist, will give a licence for such acts. The only two ideologies that now give such licencies are Nazi and Islamist. But, again, for madmen these are only pretexts for real thing: impulse to kill.
I am a left of center Democrat who reads here (mostly) faithfully because I find the perspectives offered interesting, intelligent, and even, on occasion, in agreement with my own. It’s also one of the rare rational havens of differing opinions remaining for people – like me – who seek out the broad view. It often times helps me realize there actually is common ground to be had, and, when that isn’t possible, still the common decency of civility to be found.
My comments were not meant as an indictment of the people here inasmuch as they reflect my genuine disappointment in the fact that this discussion is happening across the blogosphere, and in the reality of what that means in terms of discourse, generally.
This is indeed a human tragedy. Dissecting it in terms of American experience at this early stage seems to me futile and short sighted. I’m finding the Norwegian’s reaction to their own experience – both official and not – to be more instructive and insightful, just now.
As for the Mother Theresa comment – really? No, I don’t claim her as a member of a terrorist cult, any more than I consider all Muslims to be.
It would be enlightening if we could let the facts of what transpired play out before turning this horrific event into something it is not, or shouldn’t be.
“the only blood on the hands of Christians is that which each person put there himself. ”
Can we get an “Amen” here?
Many people seem to forget that the ideological lines in Norway are not the American ideological lines: Norwegians are a quite liberal lot – so much that anything over there that can be called “right-wing” is not exactly what you think it is.
To examine this under an American-based ideology lens, and not under a psychological lens, is a mistake – a mistake that Neo-neocon does not engage in here – for which I truly commend her.
I agree with Newton. At the end of the day, 98 people lost their lives at the hands of a mentally ill individual who bears all responsibility for his actions on his own deluded shoulders. And that, in sum, was my original, indelicately made point.
No harm done, Jennifer. I can assure you we have all participated in the collective gasp and the horror of the senselessness of these deaths, particularly the children. I see that you read Annie Dilliard and Joan Didion. Did not Joan continue writing directly after her daughter’s death for “momentum.” And in fact, for many of us, opining is a continuation of momentum and writing is a clarification process.
“What does this mean for the Jews?” said often the generation after the Holocaust. And I suppose we are doing the same thing. What does this mean for us? We know the media will spin this to slander and indict conservatives. And we simply don’t like that and express it here. That is our American experience.
There is something really weird and phony about this guy, but this should not lure us to jump to conspiracy theory of any kind. All psychopaths are in a sense manufactured persons, they dissimulate a lot, imposturing somebody who they are not and rationalizing their heinous acts by one or another noble cause. So obvious inconsistences in their alleged motives only highlights how deeply troubled their psyche really are.
I don’t care what ideology might be driving such barbarism. Whether in the name of Christianity, Nazism, racism, or ??? it is WRONG! I am not going to guess as to the political fallout in Norway or here. Let us first remember what heart break and sadness this brings for far too many people. Let us pray for God’s grace and comfort for the dead and their grieving families and friends.
In good time we may have some answers and be able to make some judgments about why this man committed this heinous act. I’m willing to wait for the facts to come out. I will venture, though, that I’m quite certain it wasn’t Bush’s fault.
Ascribing the act to mental illness (even if correct) then leads to thinking that all similar acts are primarily a product of illness– Atta was not a devoutly following the teachings of some faith, he was simply a sick man. One who contemplates a vigorous response to gov’t-powered oppression must be put on medication to control his budding mental illness.
The agent earns responsibility for his acts, but the wise study the patterns which evil follows. Cataloging the patterns, and speculating responses in real time can help us respond better to whichever guise evil wears next. This is practice.
Next time the bad guys might not allow us the luxury of withdrawing into our sympathy. What if another bomb goes off tonight? Is increased caution indicated? Why?
In fact, Jennifer, on Neo’s previous thread about the subject, I quoted a poem about hope for a long life and how we take it for granted.
Mere Sunshine
Sunshine from Heaven, Fall
Be grasped by hoary limb
Until the sunlight fail
to find the mirror within.
I hope you caught the pun. And with that, I’ll leave the subject.
If there were a like button, I’d click it. Thank you, Curtis.
There is much too little known about this fellow or his motives to carry speculation too far.
The problem is that we may never really know.
There are a couple of knowns (as Rumsfeld might say) about the situation in Norway–even more than in other parts of Scandanavia and greater Europe.
Immigration from Muslim countries has been huge relative to population. The incidences of rape and sexual assault have spiraled upward; and the perps are overwhelmingly immigrant men. There is considerable tension in Norwegian society as a result of the immigration, the increase in crime, particularly of t*he sexual type, and perceived laxness of government in response. The Labour Party as the dominant party of government is considered culpable.
Regarding McVey; many people seem to forget that although McVey had inherent problems, the impetus for his action was the Waco slaughter. I suspect that some of this forgetfulness is convenient. McVey repeatedly spoke of this slaughter of women and children, “by the the government”. It seems clear that in his mind he was conducting a retaliatory strike.
Would he have committed his horrendous acts if there had been no Waco? We cannot know.
I will be curious to see if there were some real or imagined personal tragedy attributed to the actions of the Norwegian government or Labour Party that set this fellow into action.
Or maybe he was simple an evil and sick individual who needed no prodding.
Nobody asserts that Atta was a psyhopath. He was a commited ideologue of a barbaric, psychotic faith. But it was many times noticed that acts of commited ideologues often resemble those of psychopaths, and vise versa. And sometimes it is difficult to distingish one from another. Was Raskolnikov from “Crime and Punishment” a psycho or a rational follower of his materialistic and nihilist moral philosophy, which he expounded in an article in a journal? Jury is still out on this.
Sergey–The problem with all of the Muslims who commit or attempt to terrorist attacks being labeled “nuts” is the fact that while they, indeed, may be nuts, it is the ideology of Islam that intensifies and sanctifies their rage, violence, and sadism, and which points out us “unbelievers” as a legitimate, indeed, a mandatory target.
P.S. Apparently, according to the most recent reports, this perp waltzed into a store and bought six tons of nitrate fertilizer a couple of weeks ago, and no one thought to track ,or notify the police about such a large purchase of this potentially explosive material. Hopefully the Norwegians will wise up.
Some people commit acts of violence because they’re evil, i.e. pissed off at life. Others, because they’re mentally insane — brain malfunction.
And some, because they don’t get laid and have no “release valve,” and rationalize the frustration through an impossible political struggle. My hunch is that Breivik is in the third category.
Althouse linked to a fascinating article in The Atlantic a couple of weeks ago about the University of Texas gunman, Charles Whitman, who you linked to.
In the article it was revealed that Whitman left a note before going on his rampage. He said he had been having thoughts and urges about committing violence that he did not understand. He went further. He explained he loved his wife, he praised her and said he could not have asked for a better wife, but that his urge to kill her was overwhelming him. She was his first victim.
He said he hoped that researchers would study his brain to try to find out why he was thinking this way. Like the suspect in the Norway shootings, Whitman had been non-violent his whole life. Whitman had a near genius IQ, and I’ve seen at least one report that the Norway guy was of above average intelligence. Anyway, researchers did study Whitman’s brain and found a tumor the size of a nickle in the part of the brain the regulates emotion.
The article also talked about a guy who suddenly in his mid 40s began to develop an insatiable craving for sex with children. He went under the knife to have a brain tumor removed, and the urges went away — for a while. When the urges resumed several months later, it was discovered the entire tumor had not been excised and in fact had started growing again. After the second operation, the abnormal sex urges went away and have never returned.
The point is, sometimes these horrible tragedies are not acts of good vs evil or free will. Sometimes, they happen because of defective brain physiology. Because it is beyond comprehension how a man can kill nearly 100 innocent unarmed children without remorse or sense of guilt, I’d be willing to bet he also suffers from some sort of severe brain abnormality.
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1969/12/the-brain-on-trial/8520/
“Some people commit acts of violence because they’re evil, i.e. pissed off at life. Others, because they’re mentally insane – brain malfunction.”
wonder if sam perception to say about those monsters who committed Abu Ghraib crimes…. are they normal & w full brainer humans?
JHB, i think most all people with a tiny exception will kill enemies and children of enemies when conditions are bad enough to be percieved as a state of war and their survival and their families survival depends on it. We can debate differing thresholds that call for such attrocities, but we’d all go there when our threshold is reached and not be insane or evil at all.
kk just has to go for the moral equivalence canard.
Quick, KK: how many people died at Abu Ghraib? I believe the number was somewhere between none and zero. To compare that with this shows just how completely insane with liberal American self-loathing you are.
was somewhere between none and zero.?
Give your prove for your zero cells brain dude.
“.. gun fanatic who hated government with a passion… ”
Hmmm, I’ve been shooting since I was 8; I presently own 6 rifles, 2 shotguns, 2 handguns, and reload my own centerfire ammo. According to the MSM lackeys that makes me a gun fanatic so I guess I must be half way there. I do passionately distrust government, am I 3/4 the way there?
Point being, I absolutely dislike the linking together of the words fanatic and guns. Crazy, evil people are crazy, evil people. Guns, bombs, gas chambers, machetes, baseball bats, rocks, fists or feet; the means do not matter, intent and results matter.
“Regarding McVey; many people seem to forget that although McVey had inherent problems, the impetus for his action was the Waco slaughter. I suspect that some of this forgetfulness is convenient. McVey repeatedly spoke of this slaughter of women and children, “by the the government”. It seems clear that in his mind he was conducting a retaliatory strike.
Would he have committed his horrendous acts if there had been no Waco? We cannot know.”
Great question Oldflyer. I have another question. If the perpetrators (federal agents) of the carnage at Waco and Ruby Ridge had been brought to trial and convicted and punished for their crimes; would McVeigh have committed his act of terror?
Indeed, we can not know.
I am glad to see Oldflyer’s reminder of McVeigh’s self-admitted motive. Waco and the DOJ respones to it chilled my marrow. Remember that absurd AG of the Clinton admin, Janet Reno?
It seems clear the butcher in Norway had it in for the Labor Party.
What is also clear, to me at least, is how defanged, nay edentulous, the Norwegian Vikings have become. Best I can tell, only about 5% of Norwegians are licensed to own firearms, and one must have a ‘valid reason’ plus proper training to be granted one.
“Give your prove for your zero cells brain dude.”
What the hell does that mean?
Are you trying to imply people did die at Abu Ghraib? As I said, the number is between none and zero. Are you really that ignorant, or are you being deliberately dishonest? Which is it? Stupid or liar?
There was a picture of McVeigh at Waco, standing by a vehicle, trying to hand out flyers about the massacre.
Notable by their absence were the usual suspects who pester us about the rights of various folks. No liberal churches’ groups. No human rights groups.
Nobody cared except those who, if they showed they cared, were tarred with the Koresh brush.
Between lib–ultra lib–government policies and hate-speech restrictions inconceivable in this country, the crimes of immigrants against ethnic Norwegians have been swept under the rug. To put it another way, they have been seen to be swept under the rug, unsuccessfully, by the government and the chattering classes and academia. One female prof said that Norwegian women should not dress so as to inflame Muslim men.
That the ordinary Norwegian thinks he’s under siege by both the Muslim criminals and the government enabling them or not doing what ought to be done is not a surprise.
But he can’t say it.
Whether this guy is one of them is unlikely. Except that he went after the party which could be seen to be stifling both response and discussion about the Muslim issue.
IOW, there will be more of this and it will be directed at actual Muslims.
Free speech is a safety valve.
McVeigh’s anger at Waco has nothing to do with the absurdity and evil of his attempt at redress.
Most murderers have a “reason” for their actions. No small number of murders have been committed because “he dissed me” or “he looked at me funny.”
Scott: yes, I’m familiar with the fact that Whitman was found to have a brain tumor. However, although that fact may indeed have contributed to his actions on that fateful day, the question is: how much? How much free will do we have, even in a case like that? Is there evidence that everyone with that exact tumor would have gone just as crazy and become just as violent? Or that the majority of people would have? Or that 10% of people would have? What percentage of effect would be necessary to absolve him of criminal responsibility? It is actually a very complex question.
Neo:
Is it premature to assume (believe) that the Facebook page associated with Breivik is really his? That he decided to announce to the world less than a week ago that he had grievances? We’ll probably find out that it really is his, but until that is certain a little skepticism might be in order. F
Richard North has something to say:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/07/rational-act.html
But better by far than anything I have seen is this reply by one of his readers. Where can one get a more accurate take?
Billyquiz Post subject: Re: A rational actPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:36 am
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:28 am
Posts: 138
Location: Oslo I was wondering if you’d post about Anders Behring Breivik (AKA Andrew Berwick).
It seems like he was a neighbour of mine for a short period but I don’t recognise him (I was also a neighbour of Fred West in 1984 so maybe I have an effect on people!).
Basically, he was a counter-jihadist. A follower of Fjordman and Bat Ye’or and spent a lot of time on websites such as Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal. He’s well educated, articulate and has always lived on the affluent west-side of Oslo.
Although he describes himself as both conservative and christian, nothing indicates to me that he is anything like the media describes him. Titles such as “Christian Fundamentalist” and “Right-Wing Extremist” have been bandied about liberally but I don’t think he’s anything more than a frustrated Nationalist.
He’s frustrated by a political system where the major parties have continually drifted towards the middle ground and left him without any voting option to change what he sees as the wrongs in the multi-cultural society.
These were not terror attacks either (although the media insists on calling them that). He has placed the blame for Norway’s progressive immigration policy at the feet of the Arbeiderpartiet (Norwegian Labour Party) and launched a one man war against them. The bomb in Oslo was outside the Prime ministers office and the island massacre took place shortly after former Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, had addressed the annual summer gathering of the Arbeiderpartiet’s youth movement. They were targetted attacks against a political philosophy that he holds responsible for the ‘Islamification’ of Norway.
There is a right-wing populist party in Norway (Fremskritspartiet) that is immigration critical. They are the third largest party in Norway and frequently poll between 20-25% at general elections. This party, it’s politicians and it’s voters are consistently decribed as being “stupid, ignorant, drunken racists” on a daily basis. Anytime there is any kind of debate theses insults are thrown around wildly to close down the discussion.
This is my translation of what Breivik had to say about these tactics (text in square brackets is added by me for extra clarity):
You state that all Norwegians that don’t accept Gro Harlem Brundtland’s definition of what it is to be a Norwegian citizen are racists:
[Brundtland says that] “Everyone that at any time holds a Norwegian passport are full valued Norwegians”…..Which means that even the Somalian (with Norwegian passport) that chews khat all day long, beats his wife and sends half of his social security money to Al-Shabaab should be seen as a full valued Norwegian.
If anyone in this country DARES to look at this Somalian as anything other than a full valued Norwegian, they’re called racists and must be publicly branded. And you say that all that disagree with your extreme cultural-marxist world view – the utopian, world citizen definition are racists?
If that is the case then I think that you have stamped 95% of the world’s population as exactly that but you don’t really care, do you?
You are simply concerned with paralysing all debate in society, to cripple all that are not of the same opinion as you, to exercise social control along similar lines to the Conservative muslims in Gré¸nland [an area of central Oslo with high immigrant population where homosexuals have been attacked and women have been openly criticised for wearing inappropriate clothing].
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work any more. Many are becoming increasingly immune against your baiting techniques because of the massive increase in your rhetoric.
I think that the majority of Norwegians require full cultural assimilation (European culture) in order to classify someone as being a full valued Norwegian.
I think that there are hundreds of thousands of people in Norway that share many of Breivik’s views regarding the multi-cultural experiment but, fortunately, I doubt if any of them are radicalised to such an extent that they want to commit violence to make their views known. However, this could open the gates for copy-cat attacks, especially as it already appears that the politicians have learnt nothing from friday’s actions, using the guys short membership of the Fremskritspartiet as a new way to stigmatise the party regardless of the fact that he left of his own accord because they weren’t radical enough.
The worst thing (apart from the actual killings of course) is that he has shot his own cause in the foot in a very big way. This has probably guaranteed an Arbeiderpartiet led government for at least the next decade. Pillock!
PS. Here is a link to all of Breivik’s comments at document.no translated (rather poorly) via Google:
http://translate.google.com/translate?h … breivik%2F
neo.
If the nation as a whole had cared, would McVeigh have gone as far as he did trying to make it care?
I don’t know. My guess is he would still have done what he did.
Impersonal government justice is designed to replace personal vengeance. When impersonal government justice is seen to fail massively, its predecessor may show up.
However, there is a parallel here, vague though it may be. That is, a number of people see a wrong done to them and theirs and see the usual social institutions being worse than useless. An outlier, a far outlier may decide to do something. It can’t hurt to imagine what might or might not have happened had the usual social institutions not purposefully absented themselves and, indeed, opposed those who complained about the wrong.
The other issue about the absence of the usual suspects (preening, morally superior Professionally Incredibly Wonderful) at Waco afterwards is that it shows them to be hypocrites. As if we needed a refresher on that.
I tend to think it’s to early to tell, but most likely he’s a Jared Lee Loughner/Timothy McViegh hybid — meaning a bit more on the pychopathic/break-with-reality side.
“…the impetus for his action was the Waco slaughter.” That would be the creeps who kept their children in that burning building. Note, when the cops come to your door — don’t shoot.
Um, actually Koresh called the police when the ATF started their raid.
nyo
I watched the Waco/Ruby Ridge hearings. The feds stipulated to things that would make your hair curl, without much fuss and as if just to get it over with. Not likely a survivalist-neo-nazi would have the imagination to make up stuff the feds acknowledged as not even particularly noteworthy.
Oldflyer and renminbi offer some good insights. Having spent some time in Norway and with Norwegian friends, I can tell you that there are many there who are concerned about unrestrained Muslim immigration. I think it’s at least conceivable that these acts were a response, even if unacceptable. It may be that this is and was inevitable. If some citizens perceive their government will not address their concerns, some will take matters into their own hands. Imagine a reality something like the exaggerated leftist view of the Minuteman group.
Crap. What is it with this thing?
Anyway, as I said, the usual social institutions who were supposed to, 1, not do this stuff, and, 2, fix it when some of their minions did this stuff, and, 3, get outraged enough to demand 2 foregoing, if not 1 foregoing were either absent or excusing the massacres.
Once you got past the fact that the Weavers and the Davidians were pretty strange people, what was done to them, both the instigation and the execution, were inexcusable. Most of the supposedly humane types got stuck on the strange-people thing as if they deserved it.
nyomyt
Waco was deliberate political theater.
Koresh could’ve been picked up entirely without incident — he jogged solo outside the compound as part of his routine.
Most of the dead agents were found to be blue on blue — they shot each other — they’d so over committed their agents.
The cult’s primary faith was that the world would come to an end with the Feds terrorizing the population.
So, David Koresh was made to order as Reno’s patsy.
Even before it happened, I could see that the DoJ was operating more like the Gestapo. WAY too many heavy weapons, way too much TV — the whole op was stage craft for the Liberal MSM.
Based upon your post, you still buy the con.
I read on Fox’s web site that if found guilty, this guy will get up to 21 years in prison.
Are they KIDDING?
In America, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. In Norway, it’s an hour and a half.
Neo
Whitman’s autopsy showed a 2cm thalamic tumor, first described as low-grade (astrocytoma), revised by academic neuropathologists to high-grade (glioblastoma) based on their review of two slides. This was an eventually fatal tumor in either case, given the state of medicine in the 1960s, and probably still today.The brain, however was massively traumatized by gunshot wounds. It remains wholly conjectural whether the tumor could have in any way been contributory to Whitman’s behavior.
Not only is this a ‘very complex question,’ it is an unanswerable one. Let me just say that orchestrated deliberate sustained focused rage is most unlikely to be caused by such an organic lesion.
McVeigh’s rage against Waco had everything to do with his OKC bomb. That it was ‘absurd and evil’ is almost beside the point. We all know that, we all agree.
I find all of the psych speculations posted here rather pointless–we (I) don’t have any clues or insights. None.
br549:
Yep, it’s yet another reason why peaceful, law-abiding people should arm themselves. This nut wandered around the island shooting people at will, and if even one other person had a gun, he or she could have put an end to it right quick.
Gates of Vienna has numerous posts and comments about this. Here’s one:
What Do We Know?
(Emphasis mine.)
The Left and the media (but I repeat myself) is already making hay with this. They couldn’t have created a better excuse to pass more gun laws or monitor and censor conservative thoughts and speech.
Or could they?
Well, rickle, there’s fast&furious.
“Note, when the cops come to your door – don’t shoot.”
And when the ‘cops’ come breaking down your door unannounced, wearing ninja suits, and spitting lead you just lay down and die?
Koresh was weird, his followers were weird for believing him. Since when is believing in weird ideas a crime? And if it is a crime when do they send in the assault teams to round up 50% of the population of California, most of congress, and the current occupants of the white house?
br549 Says:
n America, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away. In Norway, it’s an hour and a half.
I would hope even in Norway, the police response is normally pretty good. It just seems they were woefully unprepared for this scenario. Obviously, it being on an island was a big factor in their response.
Free will exists to extent a person is capable to understand his impulses and control them. If he does not, he is insane. And there is a specific kind of insanity, moral insanity, which describes malignant narcissists and other psyhopaths without conscience and empathy. In more profound terms, this is a demonic posession. It can be contagious and engulf whole peoples, like Nazi ideology made psychopaths from most of Germans.
A good analysis. As the son of a Euro immigrant who, growing up, struck me as Euro right wing… just a reminder; none of you are really right wing [by Euro standards]. Your liberals in Europe.
“described as the founder of Document. No, to “develop an alternative to the violent extreme Norwegian Marxist organizations Blitz, SOS Rasisme and Rod Ungdom” – all left-wing movements in Norway.”
The Nazis wanted to be an alternative to the left. Socialists without the class conflict.
Wolla Dalbo Says:
“If he is indeed a neo-Nazi, we might keep in mind that Naziism is not a ideology of the the Right but of the Left.”
Says who? I talked (ok, emailed) Jonah Goldberg about that topic and he said he didn’t exactly argue that. He pointed out that he defined both before saying that if his definitions / qualifications were correct it was therefore true that they were left wing.
Remember; the progressives were the ones that started calling us right wing… as an insult.
Sergey Says:
“Does it really matters what ideologic dogma a paranoid schizophrenic claims to have?”
Interesting point… but I’d argue he probably was not a schizophrenic. Rather a schizoid and since western culture tends to have been creating more of these for quite some time (turn of the century or before) it does matter. People with schizoid personality disorder are common (have been common, et cetera) and (I would argue) are prone to extremist political movements… That has something to do with the nasty nature of 20th century history.
All I know is, on the island, and regardless of their parents political points of view, dozens and dozens of defenseless teenaged children were murdered by a loon. There were adults there to chaperone the outing, being a managed facility. I simply cannot believe there was no way to protect those children when it became necessary. I had a conversation with an acquaintance the other week. He made a statement that struck me in a way I had not actually considered with much depth. He feels we are approaching a world where it will again become every man for himself.
The most informative commentary is on
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/07/rational-act.html
Look at the comments:
http://umbrellog.com/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1009546
There is a very nasty crime problem (from Moslems) in Norway,but it is politically incorrect to point this out. All major media are subsidized by the gov’t and anyone who complains is smeared by the powers that be. No surprise then, if some regard their out of touch rulers as illegitimate and take matters into their own hands, looking for revenge.
As I just wrote on FrontPage Mag:
If this is true about Breivik being a Norwegian nationalist (heaven knows you can’t believe a word the MSM says nowadays), then this is like the murder of the baby-murderer “Dr.” Tiller: An act that decent people condemn and indecent people (the Marxist rulers of the nation-states in all of the developed world) milk to the full to carry out their statist, tyrannical schemes.
There should be no problem condemning this act if those premises are found to be true, but there’s a big problem in the Left’s thinking that condemnation equals admission of collective guilt. No, but Islamic imperialism and Marxist treason don’t get off the hook even if the perpetrator of this act is a Norwegian nationalist. And the Proposition Nation is still one of the biggest mistakes of the last century and some.
No surprise then, if some regard their out of touch rulers as illegitimate and take matters into their own hands, looking for revenge.
This is nothing less than a stupid justification for terrorism and mass murder. There’s a political system that allows for change if an individual or group wants to change society. To claim that it is EVER justifiable to murder people is unforgivable. The links are more of the same of this sick rationalization.
Koresh was weird, his followers were weird for believing him. Since when is believing in weird ideas a crime?
All Koresh had to do was lay down his guns and surrender and he would have had his day in court. And a lot of folks would have lived, including Koresh.
This nut wandered around the island shooting people at will, and if even one other person had a gun, he or she could have put an end to it right quick.
You betcha.
Oldflyer and renminbi offer some good insights. Having spent some time in Norway and with Norwegian friends, I can tell you that there are many there who are concerned about unrestrained Muslim immigration. I think it’s at least conceivable that these acts were a response, even if unacceptable. It may be that this is and was inevitable. If some citizens perceive their government will not address their concerns, some will take matters into their own hands. Imagine a reality something like the exaggerated leftist view of the Minuteman group.
Terrorist apologists. They are all the same. The big, bad government MAKES the terrorists do it. It’s the government’s fault that innocents are murdered. Pure crap.
These were not terror attacks either (although the media insists on calling them that).
Close to a hundred folks dead and it was not a terror attack? I’ve seen a lot of stupid rationalizations in my time but this ranks right up there with the best.
Grackle,
Koresh’s daughter, shot in his arms when he opened the door to the ATF, would not have lived.
JHB, i think most all people with a tiny exception will kill enemies and children of enemies when conditions are bad enough to be perceived as a state of war and their survival and their families survival depends on it. We can debate differing thresholds that call for such atrocities, but we’d all go there when our threshold is reached and not be insane or evil at all.
Another vague attempt to justify terrorism. According to the commentor any individuals whose(carefully and conveniently undefined) “thresholds” are crossed are justified in committing wanton murder, to include children. And for the commentor these murderers are not “evil at all,” merely otherwise sweet folks whose feelings happened to have been badly hurt. And we would ALL go commit murder under those circumstances. Speak for yourself, terrorist apologist.
“”To claim that it is EVER justifiable to murder people is unforgivable. The links are more of the same of this sick rationalization.””
grackle
So Allied participation in WW2 was wrong? The fact of the matter is that violence and the threat of violence is solely responsible for there being a free world at all.
More and more people in the West are coming to the conclusion that their own governments are their enemies, as they throw open the doors to unlimited Third World immigration while simultaneously condemning the citizenry to debt slavery.
Just an observation, not a justification.
Todays NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/world/europe/24island.html?_r=1&hpw
Not a Todd Beamer among them.
Koresh’s daughter, shot in his arms when he opened the door to the ATF, would not have lived.
So says the commentor. Of course, no link to any documentation for this statement is provided.
So Allied participation in WW2 was wrong? The fact of the matter is that violence and the threat of violence is solely responsible for there being a free world at all.
The commentor doesn’t seem to know the difference between a soldier’s war-time duty and wanton murder. Sad.
More and more people in the West are coming to the conclusion that their own governments are their enemies, as they throw open the doors to unlimited Third World immigration while simultaneously condemning the citizenry to debt slavery.
Just an observation, not a justification.
Oh, please. Peddle your “observation” that is not a justification to someone who doesn’t know the difference — maybe to the soldiers-are-murderers commentor above.
Welcome to World Civil War I, grackle.
“”More and more people in the West are coming to the conclusion that their own governments are their enemies, as they throw open the doors to unlimited Third World immigration while simultaneously condemning the citizenry to debt slavery.””
Rickl
I’m struck by how all free world countries are similarly under attack by a bigoted ruling class who despises judeo/christian culture.
grackle,
“Terrorist apologists. They are all the same.”
You’re going to need a parachute to get down safely from a horse so high.
Once again:
The attack was unambiguously, unequivocally wrong, and the attacker deserves the maximal punishment given in law for it.
Islam is still an imperialistic religio-political ideology having a worldwide program of putting all of humankind under shariah law.
Multiculturalism is still an anti-national ideological offshoot of Marxism that threatens to rob every nation of its exclusive safety and security within its borders by giving every nation’s country to unlimited, uninvited immigration, without regard to the nation members’ opinion on the matter.
No problem condemning this attack. But this right-wing nationalist, for one, isn’t going to let the anti-nationalists feast upon the opportunity provided by this atrocity.
He is a neocon which is basically a big government supporter and liberal that also supports that foreign terror-state called “Israel.”
His opposition to multiculturalism is based on opposition to Muslims. He cited the US as an example of a multicultural success! So he was not opposed to it like the neocons are trying to spin.
Alex,
“…that foreign terror-state called ‘Israel.’ ”
And you are an Obamabot or Ron Paulite who pads every act of jihad with the justification as “blowback for Western crimes.”
Welcome to World Civil War I, grackle.
Meaning what, exactly? Is there a reader out there that can explain why terrorist apologists are frequently so vague and given to silly statements?
Here’s a hint: Vagueness = lack of a good argument to support their equivocations and empty speculations.
SteveH:
And the white race.
The policies of the European and the United States governments seem to be deliberately aimed at making white people a minority in our own countries. Sorry, but I just can’t see it any other way. It could be stupidity and shortsightedness, but I don’t think so.
“”The commentor doesn’t seem to know the difference between a soldier’s war-time duty and wanton murder. Sad.””
Grackle
I know the difference. One has some bureaucrat paper work that finally got signed for people who want government certainty to not prosecute them for wanton murder of people and their offspring.
“”It could be stupidity and shortsightedness, but I don’t think so.””
Rickl
They’re bigots. That they have control of most communication arms in the free world to spin their story in a more palpable way doesn’t change that basic fact.
The part that I don’t get is that the vast majority of the world’s elites are white. Yet they seem intent on condemning the rest of us to despised minority status in an ocean of brown and black people who have been systematically taught to hate us.
Meanwhile, the elites will rule safe and sound in their gated communities with their private bodyguards.
Me earlier: Terrorist apologists. They are all the same.
You’re going to need a parachute to get down safely from a horse so high.
I condemn terrorism and those who justify it and I’m on a high horse? Wow. What would constitute a ‘low’ horse to the commentor? The mind boggles.
Once again: The attack was unambiguously, unequivocally wrong, and the attacker deserves the maximal punishment given in law for it.
So far, so good.
Islam is still an imperialistic religio-political ideology having a worldwide program of putting all of humankind under shariah law.
Multiculturalism is still an anti-national ideological offshoot of Marxism that threatens to rob every nation of its exclusive safety and security within its borders by giving every nation’s country to unlimited, uninvited immigration, without regard to the nation members’ opinion on the matter.
No problem condemning this attack. But this right-wing nationalist, for one, isn’t going to let the anti-nationalists feast upon the opportunity provided by this atrocity.
Oops. Here we go with the moral equivalencies. The murders in Norway were bad BUT Islam is bad and multiculturalism is bad. And the anti-nationalists in Oslo are bad, too, because they are saying BAD things about folks. So that makes the murders understandable because the murderer was just set off by the bad “uninvited” immigrants, multiculturalists, etc. The commentor starts out pretending(perhaps even to himself) that he’s not going to do something and then goes right ahead and does it and then claims he didn’t do it after it is done.
Logical extension:
Hey, readers, I’m pretty angry at the illegal immigrants coming over the border from Mexico so I’m going to have to ask you to please remember that Islam, multiculturalism and anti-nationalists are real bad after I murder, say, a hundred people in downtown El Paso. You understand, don’t you? Remember, I’m NOT justifying my murders …
Me earlier: The commentor doesn’t seem to know the difference between a soldier’s war-time duty and wanton murder. Sad.
I know the difference[between a murderer and a soldier]. One[the solder in war-time] has some bureaucrat paper work that finally got signed for people who want government certainty to not prosecute them for wanton murder of people and their offspring.
Readers, this commentor doesn’t know the difference between Osama bin Laden and a soldier legitimately performing his war-time duty. To him they are both the same and notice that he doesn’t grudgingly admit this but states it forcefully and confidently as if he was PROUD of it. Keep that in mind when you read his comments.
Pointing out possible reasons that some few resort to terror is not the same as justifying it. Pretending they’re the same is an old, lame, stupid, transparent, idiotic rhetorical trick which fools nobody.
Neo responded to my linkage with McVeigh/Waco much earlier in this stream.
Neo I did not condone the action of McVeigh nor those of this Norwegian murderer, Brevik. On the other hand, the media has not picked up the Brevik/McVeigh comparison as their template.
You wrote a long essay on the subject. I thought that you left out some elements. Specifically, that there was a definable event that set McVeigh off. Would he have found some other justification absent Waco? Or would he have continued through life as a bomb with no fuse; like many others? We cannot know.
If the connection is to be discussed, then the question of a triggering event in the mind of Brevik should also be explored. The situation in Norway has become volatile. Neither you nor other posters had mentioned that fact. I think that the latest “profiles” are indicating that the immigration situation, and the government’s response, or lack thereof, had become paramount in Brevik’s consciousness. So, I expressed some curiosity about whether some particular event triggered him.
Of course, nothing excuses the murder of innocents. No provocation is sufficient to tip a rational mind to that extent. On the other hand, irrational behavior often has specific triggering events, does it not?
Oh shux. I meant to say the media has “now” picked up the McVeigh/Brevik comparison.
Pointing out possible reasons that some few resort to terror is not the same as justifying it. Pretending they’re the same is an old, lame, stupid, transparent, idiotic rhetorical trick which fools nobody.
Richard, I know you were in the Army. Know anyone that got killed or wounded in Vietnam? Know folks that have been wounded or killed in Iraq or Afghanistan? I sure do. To at least one commentor you and them(and me) are the same as the murderer in Oslo. In fact his statement actually implies that the Oslo murderer is SUPERIOR — because the Oslo murderer didn’t have the(to his mind, hypocritical) “bureaucrat paper work” that is required to be a soldier.
Does that comparison sit well with you? I can’t believe that it does – not after several years of reading your comments. The rhetorical tricks are all on their part. They are trying hard to imply that the murderer was somehow justified and trying to gloss that over by bringing in their pet political peeves. That’s the rhetorical trick here, not my comments. I respect you and what you stand for. We are both vets. But I will not let them get away with it. Perhaps they don’t even know what they are doing. Well, if that’s the case they need to be made to face it.
Pointing out possible reasons that some few resort to terror is not the same as justifying it. Pretending they’re the same is an old, lame, stupid, transparent, idiotic rhetorical trick which fools nobody.
Richard, I know you were in the Army. Know anyone that got killed or wounded in Vietnam? Know folks that have been wounded or killed in Iraq or Afghanistan? I sure do. To at least one commentor you and them(and me) are the same as the murderer in Oslo. In fact his statement actually implies that the Oslo murderer is SUPERIOR — because the Oslo murderer didn’t have the(to his mind, hypocritical) “bureaucrat paper work” that is required to be a soldier.
Does that comparison sit well with you? I can’t believe that it does – not after several years of reading your comments. The rhetorical tricks are all on their part. They are trying hard to imply that the murderer was somehow justified and trying to gloss that over by bringing in their pet political peeves. That’s the rhetorical trick here, not my comments. I respect you and what you stand for. We are both vets. But I will not let them get away with it. Perhaps they don’t even know what they are doing. Well, if that’s the case they need to be made to face it.
“”Readers, this commentor doesn’t know the difference between Osama bin Laden and a soldier legitimately performing his war-time duty. To him they are both the same and notice that he doesn’t grudgingly admit this but states it forcefully and confidently as if he was PROUD of it. Keep that in mind when you read his comments.””
Grackle
Please do keep it in mind. I live in and accept the world as it actually is. I don’t require an imagined world where puppies and kittens would never die if people just denounced it and expressed an appropriate amount of outrage.
Specifically, that there was a definable event that set McVeigh off. Would he have found some other justification absent Waco? Or would he have continued through life as a bomb with no fuse; like many others? We cannot know.
Readers, I don’t give a hoot in hell what sets a murderer off. Why? Because there is no justification for murder — no matter how angry something, real or imagined, makes a murderer. I blame the murderer, NEVER what set the murderer off.
Apologists for murder like to hide behind the seemingly innocent motivation of just wanting to consider some irrelevant fact, event or situation. Why? Because there is no justification for condoning murder and they know this so they have to dress up their moral equivalency with a disguise, the disguise of the ‘investigator’ of motivation.
Sometimes this is a conscious tactic, sometimes it’s not, I don’t know or care which it is – but either way I’m going to jump on it with both feet.
Of course, nothing excuses the murder of innocents. No provocation is sufficient to tip a rational mind to that extent. On the other hand, irrational behavior often has specific triggering events, does it not?
Readers, don’t we see this tactic time and time again?
They start out stating, “Now I’m not here to try to tell you the moon is made of green cheese. But really, you know the moon DOES look a little chartreuse to me on a warm summer night … And that seems to set the rats off, that green cheese-looking orb up there tempting them with its green cheese-ness. And that’s not really THEIR fault. Hell, they are just cheese-loving rats, after all. They can’t help it. And in closing, let me emphasize that I’m definitely NOT saying the moon is made of green cheese and definitely NOT justifying all the scurrying around of all the cheese-crazed rats.”
Grackle
You seem to have the view that the blame for an act like this is 100%, no more, no less. If a cop says you’re 70% at fault in an auto accident, the other party must be 30% at fault. Oops. You’re 60% at fault, so the other guy is now at 40%.
Not so. Guys like this are one hundred percent at fault. Looking for a reason they did it is not reducing that blame. Pretending it is…is lame, transparent, idiotic, etc.
It’s like trying to tell a feminist that women should be careful and then getting an earful about how we’re taking the blame off the rapist and putting it on the victim.
Taurine scatology and only a very, very few of its practitioners don’t know they’re flinging the poo.
I recall years ago when the militia movement was getting a lot of ink on account of Reagan or Halliburton or something.
Arlen Specter was quizzing a militia leader about whether he “understood” the thinking behind one awful act or another. The militia guy saw the trap. If he said he “understood”, in the dictionary definition of being able to follow the logic, Specter was going to be all over him like a train of coals for “sympathizing” with whatever awful act was the subject. It was interesting to watch him dancing around the implicit accusation while Specter tried and tried to get him to cave, not to getting the logical process of whoever did the thing, and the premises, but to actually using the word “Understand”. There can only have been one reason for this.
And now, we can speculate about, read about those who know something of the guy, or who have done a quick research of his background, without being accused of reducing the blame from 100%.
I hated to spend the time on this. I know you know this. But I wanted you to know that the rest of us do, too. Save time all around if you tried something else.
grackle sez “Readers, I don’t give a hoot in hell what sets a murderer off.”
Well, Neo does. Shrinks in their large multitudes do. The MSM does. Many of us do. US law does- see M’Naughton.
There is no rationalizing the connections a paranoid like Loughner makes. So we semi-excuse that, put him in an ‘institution’ until/if he becomes rational enough to be tried. And grant them the right to refuse their meds.
Not all murderers are paranoid; its only the nutters that we treat charitably.
Would you like to get rid of the M’Naughton Rule?
Earlier I said:
Readers, this commentor doesn’t know the difference between Osama bin Laden and a soldier legitimately performing his war-time duty. To him they are both the same and notice that he doesn’t grudgingly admit this but states it forcefully and confidently as if he was PROUD of it. Keep that in mind when you read his comments.
The commentor replies:
Please do keep it in mind. I live in and accept the world as it actually is. I don’t require an imagined world where puppies and kittens would never die if people just denounced it and expressed an appropriate amount of outrage.
Hey readers, it’s all OK! It’s OK that the commentor believes that a soldier is the same as a terrorist. Why? Well, because the commentor is a REALIST. He sees what the rest of us in our stupidity or ignorance or something cannot see because he sees with his clearer vision. He accepts “the world as it actually is,” that soldiers are the same as terrorists and we are just silly puppy and kitten lovers who know nothing of reality.
Oldflyer: Yes, indeed, irrational behavior often does have a triggering event. In fact, I would think it usually does, although we don’t always know what it is (and sometimes the perpetrator doesn’t even know).
That said, there is a tendency for people to interpret identifying a triggering event as an attempt at justification of the act, even if it is not.
It’s like trying to tell a feminist that women should be careful and then getting an earful about how we’re taking the blame off the rapist and putting it on the victim.
Richard it’s one thing for me to tell my(hypothetical) wife to be careful when she’s walking out the door to make a grocery run, “Be careful, dear, there’s a lot of bad folks out there.”
But in the context of a discussion about the rape of my wife, if someone tells her that she should have been more careful that person is going to end up minus some teeth. And I think I know you well enough to believe you would do the same.
To take your rape analogy – what I’m doing with these apologists would be if bystanders would say after the rape:
Sure, sure, we know you were raped and that’s real bad, we wouldn’t say otherwise, but hey what about the cleavage your blouse is showing? Don’t you realize that might set a rapist off? So pull yourself together, dearie, because we are going to investigate short skirts, big boobs, fine butts, and other things that set these rapists off. Because that’s the real problem, you know. Not the rapist’s evilness, or sickness, or whatever. The real fix for the problem is to never set the rapists off in the first place.
grackle,
“I condemn terrorism and those who justify it and I’m on a high horse?”
No, you’re on a high horse because you use this instance of terrorism to further the Progressivist goal of putting curbs on right-wing thought.
“Here we go with the moral equivalencies.”
I made none. In contrast, you have made quite the leaps of logic here.
“The murders in Norway were bad BUT Islam is bad and multiculturalism is bad.”
What I meant by my comment was that you can’t use these murders to silence the opinion that Islam and multiculturalism is bad. The Marxist Left will, of course, do so, just as it milked the Tucson shooting for everything it was worth–never let a crisis go to waste, as Rahm said–but it does so with cold cynicism.
“So that makes the murders understandable…”
I didn’t say that. Stop putting words into people’s typing fingers, Progressivist rabble-rouser. You’re doing this to just about every right-winger here, and it’s time you were called off on it.
After reading through his manifesto, I don’t get the impression that Breivik was frustrated, or simmering in hate, or irrational at all. If anything, he seems too rational, cold, inflexible, planned, routine, detached, obsessive, devoid of emotion, the kind of behavior one observes in Aspies.
There is very informative post here and well said what the connection between Oslo terrorist act and Muslims.
This is must read post.
grackle
Telling women to be careful is enough to get you an earful from feminists. The other stuff is unnecessary.
If some guy gets drunk and goes swimming where a sign says “beach closed on account of sharks”, we can be sorry he’s dead, and sorry he left a family of eight with no resources, and still say he’s a freaking idiot. But it wouldn’t be polite to tell the family. Guy’s still an idiot.
Anyway, point is speculating about causes is not justification and you know it. Quit pretending it’s the same as justification and you won’t look so flaky.
Ironically, grackle, that is exactly what Mr. Breivik is saying in his writings, ‘I see the world more clearly and the rest of the Western world is blind.’
His plan was long thought out, about 9 years, with his non-production Geofarm being created a few years ago as a front for buying the materials he needed. He spent years writing his “book,” as he often called it on various forums. He wrote of his worry that his “paranoia” ( the word he used) would expose his plan and bring on the police, especially that one day when the police really were at his farm making photographs. Turned out they were following-up on a previous marijuana growing bust on the property. He was suspicious of his mother with whom he lived (apparently as a cover story: such a nice boy, takes care of his mother) because she was always around and a few weeks ago he thought she had deliberately given him a throat infection he feared would delay his attack for weeks.
Breivik was a very intelligent man who had made a small fortune on his own doing something I can’t translate from the Norwegian, but it was enough that was able to function without an income for several years while he wrote, plotted, and prepared. All the while he was commenting at on-line newspapers like Aftenposten, referencing and reading bloggers and following activists we all know to build his own internal architecture of clarity.
We want to see a crazy eyed, slobbering wild man living in a one room cabin in the far wood. Breivik is none of those things. But, he is delusional nonetheless. He truly believed, as all those before him, that the silent followers would rise up in his wake with a Europe wide resistance to multiculturalism, Islamism in particular, yet not dismissing a possible alliance with Islam – “An alliance with the Jihadists might prove beneficial to both parties but will simply be too dangerous (and might prove to be ideologically counter-productive). We both share one common goal. They want control over their own countries in the Middle East and we want control of our own countries in Western Europe. A future cultural conservative European regime will deport all Muslims from Europe and isolate the Muslim world.” For this grand act he would be remembered for all time much like we in America remember John Brown who raided the armory at Harper’s Ferry to start an armed slave revolt to end slavery in the US and acting under the imagined auspices of the Anti-Slavery Movement, but now lies mouldering in his grave. Such acts, like Bullwinkle pulling a rabbit out of his hat, almost never work.
Oops! Sorry. Got carried away like many secluded bloggers do…
Neo: That said, there is a tendency for people to interpret identifying a triggering event as an attempt at justification of the act, even if it is not.
I’m surprised and I guess I’m offended although through this numbness it’s hard to tell just how I feel. Neo didn’t identify me by name but it’s obvious who the comment is about. The “tendency” label certainly destroys what credibility I might have had. If a psychologist says something like that it more or less labels a person as someone with psychological problems.
I suppose I could carry on but there’s a couple of rules I have: Never argue with a host and never impose on a host if there’s even a hint that you’re not welcome. It has to do with self-respect. Before Neo’s comment I considered myself as a commentor promoting a viewpoint, a debater vigorously presenting arguments. If I hung around now I would be a troll.
One of ABB’s frustrations was a total inability to have his voice expressed in Norway’s significant publications.
It turns out that the government ( Labor Party ) has totally compromised all of them with funding and ‘oversight.’
In this way 35% ish of the population never sees any of their opinions expressed in print.
ABB began networking via Facebook — and apparently wiped his entries, and then reposted.
——
The ‘children’ are mostly college age. The proper term is young adults.
And these young adults were staging through a political rite of passage into the dominant Labor Party. Every young adult was being groomed to be a professional life-long politician for the Party.
ABB expressly timed his anti-Politician bomb to miss the common man. That’s why such an incredibly powerful bomb killed so few. An hour earlier it would have killed hundreds.
—–
ABB committed a devastating own-goal since everything he’s done is pure poison to his purported cause.
—–
ABB was committing mass assassination NOT random terror. His logic comes straight from the Terminator: kill your enemies before they take the stage.
—–
Europe has a severe muslim ‘problem’ which is destined to make repetitious the murderous rage of ABB.
The solution is to remove the irritant. The MSM has to provide much more balanced coverage — and governments have to STOP financing their propaganda arms. ( BBC, et. al. )
Years of listening/ reading Leftist pap warps the mind — now reaching full Orwellian scope.
However, ABB’s rampage pretty much assures us that even more repression against Nativists is dead ahead.
grackle Says:
“Readers, I don’t give a hoot in hell what sets a murderer off. Why? Because there is no justification for murder”
Some of us do so we know how to avoid it in the future. I’ve read many books about national socialism, soviet socialism, and even some Marx. I wanted to understand ‘it’; not excuse it and certainly not spread any of them.
I’ll give you; a couple comments here did not come off that way (they sounded like rationalizations). On the other hand; others here have (re: only seemed to show a desire to analyze and understand) and you seem to be sticking to your stand even with those people.
neo-neocon Says:
“Oldflyer: Yes, indeed, irrational behavior often does have a triggering event.”
Seems to work on groups too. The decedents of the Huns and Vikings don’t seem to be laying waste to anything much these days. Don’t know what the Mongols are up to these days but they are not depopulating large land masses (and effectively decimating their own population while doing so).
On the other hand; some Mexican cities that had 30 murders a year ten years ago are having 3000+ a year now. People are murdering people for target practice…
grackle: Rest assured, I was speaking very generally, not about you at all—or for that matter, about anyone in particular.
Here, by the way, is a post I wrote many years ago about the difference between explanations and excuses.
A grackle is a bird that gropes under bushes. I’m never sorry to see them fly off.
ABB was a festering nut-case; this case has simultaneous parallels with both the Beslan school massacre and Tim McVeigh ( http://www.rense.com/general11/tom.htm ), one thing we all are learning is not to be too quick to (smug) judgement. Sometime ago I made a comment here about the seemingly obvious implication of “two opportunists” encountering one another; the article below (though unrelated to this Norway episode), posted today, now tempers my “opinion”…
http://www.newsweek.com/2011/07/24/dsk-maid-tells-of-her-alleged-rape-by-strauss-kahn-exclusive.html
We kept the barbaric muslim world in check for 200 plus years by not being ashamed or inhibited to be barbaric right back at them and then some. But now we’re above all that. Which basically translates to leaders of huge western nations have become so feminised that they don’t know what the average ten year old boy knows about how aggression and dominance are dealt with.
We’re in essence stopping ugly brush fires at the cost of setting the stage for the collosal forest fire to come.
Just noticed this article of interest at Jim Hoft’s site:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/oslo-killer-plagiarized-unabombers-manifesto/
For (more Conspiracy Theory) lovers only:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2011/07/23/norway-notes/
Had Breivik killed Osama bin Laden he’d be a hero. Instead he killed like Osama bin Laden would kill, and thus, no difference between them.
None. None. None.
Neo, people who try to equate attempts at identifying the triggering event for this type of mass murder with excusing the behavior are marching to their own drummer. Are you listening Grackle?
I will say one more time. I entered this discussion after there was speculation about whether McVeigh and Brevik were similar.
I pointed out that McVeigh went over the edge because he blamed the government for the massacre at Waco. I then pointed out, correctly, that there are serious problems and strong emotions over the fallout from lax immigration standards, i.e. a tremendous increase in sexual crimes in Norway by immigrant men. Emotions bordering on rage have been simmering over subsequent Norwegian government kowtowing to certain ethnic and religious minorities. I suggested that this situation may have motivated, or triggered, Brevik. From subsequent reporting about Brevik’s own statements suggest that I may have surmised correctly.
Now, how anyone could extrapolate any of this into justifying, excusing or condoning the behavior of either man simply baffles me. I will go on record as saying that I do not condone their actions; I do not excuse them. I am interested in understanding what sent them so far off the deep end that people who actually had no history of violent behavior perpetrated these atrocities. I suppose that Grackle, and others of like mind, would prefer that the underlying genesis of McVeigh’s and Brivak’s hatred go unexplored.
I am not a mental health professional. I cannot explain all human behavior. The actions of the Columbine kids, for one example, seem completely inexplicable. However, it seems worthwhile to try to understand the background of these events whenever possible. Maybe we could actually learn something. Could it be that if government slaughters people, no matter how they justify it, they should anticipate retaliation? When government throws its power about, should they first consider worst case outcomes? Could it be that if government undertakes policies that throw an ordered and homogenous society into turmoil, there will be consequences? Should government be more conscious of cause and effect, and unintended consequences? If you believe that those tenets are valid, it does not mean you condone violent reaction; only that you are realistic in your assessment.
What comes around goes around. Violence is often a cycle that two factions are ramping up and escalating.
Oldflyer.
Yes, yes, we know all that. But you miss the point. Describing an inevitability, or a high probability, can be deliberately conflated with justifying the act in question and calling the describing party a big meanie in order to deflect attention from the actual question.
Also poopyhead.
This reminds me of the case when they talk about high risk behavior vs excusing rapes.
Some people believe that just the mention of how high risk behaviors on the part of women facilitate rapes, means that is making excuses for rapists.
This is often fueled by emotional reflexes not rational thinking. If people were rational, they wouldn’t react that way.
If people didn’t care at all how rapists operate, does this in fact make women safer or less safe by having them engage in activities that increase, not decrease, their risk due to lack of understanding of the criminal intent?
I’m reading the earlier comments and I notice how emotional Grackle has made himself be.
In fact, he went out of his way to become even more emotionally fired up, like it’s a drug fix for him, by talking about his wife and her fictitious rape.
I’ve seen that done, but usually when training in classes meant to deal with life threatening encounters. IT’s useful to have people artificially trigger their adrenaline shot by imagining fearful situations, like murderers, serial killers, robbers, or rapists and having to deal with them. Grackle must have had a similar effect on his non-rational and emotional brain functions by self-creating a scenario in which emotion plays a heavy part in decision making.
Then again, that wasn’t the point of SD training, to get “emotional” about life and death survival. In fact, training under adrenaline by making people realize the severity of the issue at hand is supposed to make them calmer under pressure and less emotional.
What exact reason does Grackle have to amping up his own emotions when talking about an incident that killed nobody here?
Maybe if you knew someone that got killed, you could have an excuse to get emotional. That wouldn’t be optimum, to be making judgments on emotion, but at least you’d have an excuse. What excuse does G here have other than his emotional ramp up was self inflicted?
“The rhetorical tricks are all on their part. They are trying hard to imply that the murderer was somehow justified and trying to gloss that over by bringing in their pet political peeves. That’s the rhetorical trick here, not my comments.”
Who is “they”?
Is the “they” you speak of similar to the Oslo bomber’s “they”? And is your reason to ignore the Oslo bomber because if you paid too much attention, you’d see your own paranoia in the mirror too?
Wow. I downloaded and have glanced at the manifesto. No, I haven’t read all 1500+ pages, and probably never will.
This man is in no way insane. What he did was commit a cold-blooded, conscious, premeditated act of war against the Norwegian ruling class. Those are the people who are responsible for opening the floodgates for Muslim immigration.
He deliberately targeted and exterminated the next generation of Socialist leaders of that country. That was what the “youth camp” was all about: The children of the elites were being groomed to take their “rightful place” in the leadership.
Yep, we’ll be seeing more of this sort of thing, all right. And of course the elites will crack down even harder on any kind of dissent.
World Civil War I, folks. Get used to it.
Here’s a link to a PDF of the manifesto.
There are dozens of excellent comments at Belmont Club, as usual.
Sorry. That above PDF link is acting very squirrely and is crashing my browser. It worked the first time I tried it.
Thanks, Oldflyer.
We may be talking Jefferson here: the tree of liberty needing nourishment by the blood of patriots and tyrants. Brave talk, that.
There are serious parallels between ABB, McVeigh, and the Unabomber. Motives aside (and in this PC world I must make clear I’m NOT defending their motives), the strategic error of the last two was targeting the wrong people. As I posted much earlier here, ABB had it in for the Labor Party.
It will be interesting to see the Norwegian Ruling Class response. I do not think they will flip the way Spain did after its Muslim bombings.
I don’t care what urges people’s brain chemistry gives them. Either they control their demons, or they are controlled by demons. It’s real simple. And if they are too weak to be the one in control, then we’re just going to put that rabid dog down for everyone’s good. The actual details may be complex, but the end result of how we deal with, pretty simple all in all.
“McVeigh’s anger at Waco has nothing to do with the absurdity and evil of his attempt at redress.
Most murderers have a “reason” for their actions. No small number of murders have been committed because “he dissed me” or “he looked at me funny.””
I would say it has some connection, since Waco motivated McVeigh to target a federal building in Oklahoma. Cause generates effect. If there was more inconsistency between motive and methods, then it would matter less. Say, if jihadists are motivated to seek heaven so they kill a bunch of Westerners or Jews. There’s no logical connection between motive and method here, since what they are doing won’t get them what they want, but in their world, it does. The criminal’s motive has a large effect on what methods they will choose to get what they want: their motive or goal.
This goes more into crimonology, however, and criminal psychology.
Violent actions requires a couple of components before the violence can happen. If any one of them is gone, such as intent, opportunity, resources, then the event cannot happen. The trick is to find what the real motivation behind their intent is, because often times people aren’t honest and they use justifications as excuses or a way to hide their true motivations. Thus Islamic terrorists say their deed is due to Americans occupying Muslim lands, when in reality their motivation is sexual release, redemption from sin, and Heaven.
If you remove the real motivation, the intent goes away. Assuming you can convince the perpetrator of this “new reality” that is. Some people really are crazy and won’t believe certain things just because they refuse to. But, well, that’s true of the Left as well. So nothing special there.
Through internet sources a few months ago, I had already heard of two serial killers, called Lazer Men (because they have laser scopes on their pistols for assassination) in around Norway killing people because they don’t like immigrants.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0db_1288489883
This is why when I heard about that big explosion at Norway, I was thinking “hey, maybe somebody with real planning and resources finally wants to start a real shooting war over this issue”.
Coldly, calmly, and rationally assess the situation, outline the possible motivations and factions that could be potentially responsible, and wait to see which theory is proven by the data on the ground as it comes in.
If the situation in Norway is so bad you have serial killers using it as an excuse to get their rocks off killing people, innocent and guilty, then… it’s obvious. It’s obvious it’s going to escalate the more the Norwegian government tries to suppress the “insurgents”. That’s how Mao did his insurgency. Force the occupation to “over react” and thus generate more guerilla insurgents. Instead of Norway “overreacting” against Muslims and creating Muslim sympathists, Norway instead underacted and used their power to suppress the truth about Muslims in Norway, which caused local Norwegian factions to become insurgents instead…
Cold, rational analysis isn’t playing what a lot of people play, which is the blame game. Sure, the Left plays that all the time, but then again, last time I checked I wasn’t part of the Leftist alliance. They would probably reject that membership card the same way they told Zell Miller and Juan Williams to F off. Irregardless of that, rational analysis of data is for the purpose of finding resolutions. People think with their ego and pride and monkey emotions all the time in violent confrontations, which get them hurt or killed. The idea of eliminating emotions from one’s judgment and judging a situation purely on life and death, survival or death, is very good at cutting through a lot of people’s preconceptions about self defense or fighting. Coincidentally, it’s also good when training people to analyze other violent situations that never even happened to them.
All this fluff stuff thinking with one’s emotions, does no good at all when it comes time to figure out a way to survive. Translated over, it also applies to longer termed thinking and consequences. A lot of people die because they thought “my pride refuses to allow me to take the easy way out and escape, so I’m going to fight” and then you find out they got knocked down and kicked to death cause of it.
Well… that’s what tends to happen in reality. Reality doesn’t listen to your emotions. Only you are dominated by your emotions. A person can always have one choice: whether they will be ruled by their free will or whether they will be ruled by instinct and emotions.
I do have to say, strategically, the Oslo guy tried to target the future leaders of the labour party as well as to try to kill the current ones with the bomb. But his methods… perhaps leave much to be desired. If it was total and inescapable, if he could kill EVERY single one of Norway’s enemies, then it would be effective and justified after the fact. But he didn’t and couldn’t. That raises the question of whether it was militarily justified, since this didn’t end the war at all on a decisive note. If it does little to nothing against Norway’s internal enemies, then it isn’t justified. If it produces a great cohesive effect, then it would be like the Alamo, last ditch ineffective defense, but strategically important. If it produces aid and comfort to the enemy, The Labour party or Muslims in Norway, then you could call this guy’s bomb plan well planned, but it was planned using disastrous strategy.
If there’s people you need to kill, make sure it’s worth it. To both yourself as well as to your supposed cause. Anything else is basically a waste of time and lives.
Compassion and mercy is all nice and good. For those that can afford them.
“The commentor doesn’t seem to know the difference between a soldier’s war-time duty and wanton murder.”
People who get hot blooded and all emotional, need to leave the room as this subject is for adults and those capable of making calm decisions.
That being said, Truman’s mass killing decision could only turn out two ways. 1. Mass murder and unjustified killing of a (2) city full of people for no particular reason or 2. Mass killing justified by the prevention of even more mass killing, to end a war and save more livesi n the future than it took solely because this was the best solution available.
Whether it turned out ONE or TWO solely depends on reality, not on propaganda spin. Whether a military action that kills a bunch of people turns out to be good or evil, really depends on how things happen afterwards. If such sacrifices were wasted, then they died in vain. But if such deaths contributed to a great purpose, then they weren’t in vain. This could just be humanity’s way to justify all the killing it does, but it certainly has worked out quite well for us so far.
Basically, if Bush had just said “I quit, Iraq’s too hard” he would have been guilty of executing all those that had died in the Iraq war, for no particular reason other than Bush wanted a war. But by staying true to the mission and goals, he created a different reality.
Whether a bunch of people dying and getting killed is good or evil… really isn’t determined until the end. If the federal government had taken Ruby Ridge and WACO as evidence of gross injustice and purged their ranks of bureaucrats and Leftist allies, that would be one thing. A good thing out of a bad reality. But they didn’t. Because they didn’t, they created tension and resentment, which eventually turned into murderous rage, as human emotions tend to go. Violence is a cycle. You may not have been the first person to swing the hammer and crush the brains of a Jewish family, but if you were the one that instigated the matter using words or money… somebody starts the ball rolling.
History is written by the victors because it is the victors who have the most legitimacy to tell whether all the evil turned out to be as evil as they thought or whether it ended up being good. So if the victors say it is a terrorist attack, that it shall remain. But if the victors change their story… Who wins in a war, is also its own reality in a way. In that sense, human opinion can indeed change physical reality. Still, don’t believe you can fly without being on a plane.
P.S. There are a lot of justifications for killing or what the police call homicide:justified homicide. Murder is just used to mean an unjustified killing. It, by its own definition, is self-defining. To say the terrorist attack murdered people is to use one’s own statement as the source of its truth.
Don Carlos: I don’t think they will flip. They have too much invested and Spain was naturally LibProg to begin with. Aznar was an exception, not the rule.
Perfected democrat Says:
July 24th, 2011 at 6:33 pm
Just noticed this article of interest at Jim Hoft’s site:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/07/oslo-killer-plagiarized-unabombers-manifesto/
It won’t surprise me if there’s some Mein Kampf in there too.
“I do not think they will flip the way Spain did after its Muslim bombings.”
I don’t think they will “flip”, either.
In fact, I’m inclined to believe that the Labour party in Norway will remain in power for the next twenty-plus years. They will milk this massacre for all its worth, just to remind the people there that “the alternative” is not only much worse, but “murderous” as well. Mark my words.
I would not expect any less from a country whose Legislature award Nobel Peace Prizes to assorted thugs the world over without a hint of shame.
Regardless of the alleged motives for McVeigh, Breivik, even Columbine the acts were committed in isolation, by one or two people, maybe an accomplice. This also goes for abortion clinic bombers/abortion doctor murders. In stark contrast the Islamist terrorist acts going back at least to the first WTC bombing in 1993 are carried out by organized cadres who often have significant outside financial support. As horrific as either type is they are very different phenomena and it is quite obvious which one is vastly more dangerous in the long run.
Gary
As was said at Belmont Club, bombs take work, cost a lot of money and provide for the possibility of getting either busted or blown up in the prep process.
Shooting is better value for money. The bomb this guy used killed, iirc, seven. His shooting killed nearly a hundred.
The DC snipers had DC tied up for weeks. Couple of morons with a rifle.
Point is, if the bomb loses its cachet, we may see terrs of whatever side taking to the gun. Less trouble getting started. And no major financial work is necessary, no outside cadres, no trainers.
“”In fact, I’m inclined to believe that the Labour party in Norway will remain in power for the next twenty-plus years.””
Newton
It would be a mistake to think future statist politicians in Norway aren’t having second thoughts on career choices about now. We are talking after all about people who saw fit to advance muslim stature as muslim violence escalated world wide and in their own backyards. Coincidence? Hardly.
One thing eventually was fully confirmed: Enoch Powell was right. We all have seen these rivers of blood that he has warned us about. And the only possible way to prevent demographical bomb to explode is to evict all Muslims (or at least overwhelming majority of them) from Europe.
It is pretty clear, to me at least, that leaving some Muzzies behind while evicting the ‘overwhelming’ (apt adjective, that) majority, is like removing 90% of the weeds in your garden. Good luck with that.
These are not rivers, Sergey; they are mere trickles. The outcome is not really in doubt: the multiculti, diversity-worshipping power centers wil not ever just relinquish their stranglehold power in respone to the will of the people. That is the essence of the Left.
Compared to Kaczynski manifesto…
This one is different… very different…
As with anything, its the conclusions and the applications of the ideas and what one settles on as a means to an end… i guess he decided to take the history and use it to justify mass slaughter… but after 30 or so pages… his history is correct… what he choosed to do with it, thats a whole other bag of eggs.
the areas in which Islam is growing most rapidly, such as Western Europe, have been largely denuded of their religious and cultural heritage, which leaves Islam as the only vibrant ideology available to those in search of meaning. pg 101
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Other than osmosis, they are going to ahve a hard time making him out to be a racist nazi… period.
he is against totalitarianism, the destruction of the west (and judaism/christianity), against communism… and so on and so on. .
and when he addresses the same stuff the anti zionists and anti jewish groups use, he points out that its unfortunate…
and where a skin head would turn..
here is what he says..
and to the point of a “jewish conspiracy”…
thats 1371 pages in..
and yet, can find none of the classic crap
the authorities are going to be in big trouble with him… he is smart, lucid, not crazy, knows his history inside and out.. and more..
he didnt kill himself… they didnt kill him either
he can get out in a short time, despite the numbers by the laws his actions (seem) to be in protest to
he is going to get a large forum. And they are going to ahve a hard time marginalizing him as the most outrageous thing i can find so far, is is ACTUAL ACTS, not his writing (yet). ‘
kazynski was smart but nutters…
and it wasnt his actions that deemd him to be nuts!!!
muderers and such are not crazy, they seldom are incompetent to stand trial… and this man is going to be a big problem for that administration fi they cant put a mask on his head and quiet him.
that sure dont sound like a right wing nazi who hates the jews, qutie the opposite is the feeling you get from his compendium (not manifesto!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)
its not until i skimmed 1373 and farther that he starts to point out who will be targeted..
So let there be no doubt whatsoever; I would
be the first person to pull the trigger, given the opportunity, if I ever saw a Jewish category A or B traitor. But I will not kill him because he is a Jew, but rather because he is guilty of indirect/direct atrocities against Europeans just like every other cultural Marxist/multiculturalist category A and B traitor. It’s essential to judge each person individually in this regard and not according to their DNA structure.
but he is 100% national socialist of the neo neo kind…
but again.. compared to tracts i have read from others (all kinds of groups ranging from mansonite family, to insurgency pamplets in south africa), he will gain a big following…
in the quote of nasa from the space agency
“houston, we have a problem”
ie.. the leaders disrespect and push down of one set of groups to facilitate hegel, and raise up others, is ending up creating very passionate groups who will end up causing a whole bunch of issues…
issues that would not be here if we did not try to socially engineer a new society from the new society of the americas that brought so much to the world.
in such a game, the resultant monster is a monster with free capitalisms weapons arsenal.
I do not doubt that left will cling to power as long as they could. But how long this would be possible? EU looks now as Soviet Union circa 1987. It can come apart in few years.
belmont club agrees..
The End of Innocence
pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/07/24/the-end-of-innocence/
the thing is that they found material i had not foudn yet,… but will hve to look..
but then again, i skimmed and hve not read it all
most of it in the begining is a large history lesson of what is as far as i can tell, the facts.. (this makes such work more ‘dangerous’ than theodores works)
In short, if his manifesto is authentic, Breivik believes a twisted version of what many people who have opposed the Marxist and Islamic tendencies of recent years have argued to be true. He goes further than most by declaring his willingness to work with European neo-Nazis.
given its size, there will be a whole lot of stuff from it, and ther ewill even be stuff from it that is not in it.
if he sides with them, he also realizes (even if the public dont) that the skin heads and others are NOT at all nazis… ie. the final solution was not the purpose of the third reich… but was deemed a necessity, much as afer hitler the cultural destruction of the same would be necessary.
First of all, I don’t consider 70-80% of so called neo-Nazis to be actual Nazis, but rather misguided individuals. I believe many of these youngsters have made an unfortunate mistake by being drawn to the Nazi symbols due to lack of alternatives and because it is the strongest and most well known anti-Marxist banner. But I don’t believe the majority of so called neo-Nazis really support the slaughtering and genocide of all Jews, a one party state and an imperialistic policy of conquest.
I believe they are just bewildered nationalists in search for uniting factors. In their frustration they have chosen the most despicable banner available as a way of saying a big “F you” to the current establishment. But I am well aware that 20-30% of them really hates Jews and support most aspects of national-socialism.
This shouldn’t be tolerated and we shouldn’t sympathise with them whatsoever. Driven by their Jew hate, these Nazis are willing to take side with Muslims in order to accomplish their goals. They are absolutely blinded by this hate.
the big question is whether he has just started the final crusade to end all the jihads?
i will reserve my conclusions until more comes out..
its not going to be a typical situation…
he is unreasonably reasonable (for a mass murderer)
Swedish-Algerian Journalist Yahya Abu Zakariya: Mossad Responsible for Norway Attacks
Anders Behring Breivik is a product of the failed socialist system which creates warlike conditions that pit poor against rich, black against white, brown against yellow, in an eternal war of domination to see who will be the one to ascend to power and kill off the competition. It makes sense that Norwegians are unarmed. You wouldn’t want the people you will rule over armed and able to contest the winner of the ultimate power struggle. The fact that someone could kill 80 or more people without himself being killed in the process, is proof example of how the Left and their socialist utopian nations favor the power and affluent.
That’s a deconstruction of deconstructionism at least.
I can pretty much promise you one thing. If you want more Anders Behring Breivik Fun, be sure to elect the most Leftest liar in your nation to power: like Obama.
Hub pages can work really well. Knowing how to make the most of them is key in order be highly effective!
Pingback:Cheap Materials