I don’t think this terrorist attack in Norway was a jihadist conspiracy nor is this guy a secret Islamist terrorist. He is clearly right-wing and anti-Muslim, lashing out against forces (the government and Labor Party) that he holds responsible for the growing “Islamization” or multiculturalism in Norway. The evidence also indicates, by the way, that he was not motivated by Christian religious sentiment. He looks at Christianity as an outsider.
Should we argue that such people don’t exist? Should we argue that hatred of Muslims cannot provoke terrorism? Should we claim that you cannot be a “right-wing terrorist” just as one can be a “left-wing terrorist”? Of course not.
We should rather say things like — but not limited to — the following:
1. All terrorism is bad and should be denounced. People should constantly be urged not to turn to terrorist violence or to hatred of whole groups or peoples. The events in Norway mean that people who reach that kind of audience should redouble their efforts to discourage violence and irrational hatred.
2. Islam as a religion is not the problem. Radical interpretations of Islam — and people have been quite creative historically in reinterpreting seemingly bloodthirsty “authoritative” verses into something else — that now dominate in many places are the problem. A political interpretation of Islam, which we call Islamism, is the problem. At the same time, we should not hesitate to point out that a very large portion of Muslims — the numbers are widely different in various countries — accept these interpretations and support these doctrines. Equally, a very large number of Muslims are victims of these doctrines. Many Muslims oppose them and only with the support of those people can revolutionary Islamism be defeated.
3. There is no parallel movement or powerful doctrine among other contemporary religions that preaches hatred, terrorism, or the seizure of state power, although there have been in some of them at certain times in the past. These were overcome precisely by the reinterpretation of religious doctrine — a situation likely to happen in Islam in the future (unless the revolutionary Islamists take over). The question is whether this process will take several decades or several centuries
4. There have been over 10,000 Islamist terrorist attacks, many of them against Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, and others. The number of such attacks against Muslims in the West or indeed in the world is perhaps one percent of that number.
5. Any terrorist who attacks Muslims or tries to kill other people because they work for governments or belong to a left-of-center political party, as in this case in Norway, will be denounced by his entire society, apprehended, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. All of the media, all of the intellectuals, all of the government officials will denounce this person in the sharpest terms This is hardly ever true in Muslim-majority countries.
6. Terrorists like the one in Norway are isolated individuals who have no institutional or organizational support. Islamist terrorists are usually members or supporters of large organized groups that enjoy backing from a considerable portion of public opinion. These groups have defined goals that they are capable of achieving, a point that does not apply to anti-Muslim terrorists.
I don’t think you can be a right wing terrorist because I do not believe in the construct of right and left with “centrism” as some sort of ideal.
One either believes in liberty or tyranny; individual liberty, personal responsibility and the free market or some form of statism, from the soft tyranny of European socialism to full-on totalitarianism as demonstrated from Nazi Germany to Cuba to the USSR and North Korea.
The mass murderer in Norway is either psychotic and/or demented and he seemingly acted ALONE. Whatever his motivations were, to tie it to any organized political movement that opposes the things he opposes would be libelous. Am I worried about the spread of sharia, the Balkanization of our country and the wholesale destruction of our Constitutional republic and our civil society? You bet I am. But I am not willing to grab a gun and a car bomb and blow random people up as a way to express or prevent this. And my feelings are echoed by the vast, overwhelming majority of my fellow Americans who believe in the traditional values that America stands for.
The socialists, the progressives and their allies in the Islamic world will use and have used every means necessary to subjugate America and destroy western civilization as we know it. They will not stop. Unfortunately, the only way to defeat them is by informing and educating the people, and that avenue is all but lost to us as well.
There are very few socialists, progressives and their allies in the Muslim world to have any effect on America. The socialists are mainly found, though hardly exclusively, in Western Europe. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the implosion of the USSR, the only ideological traditional Left that remained standing was Communism’s other enemy–Social Democracy. The insane individual attack was against the Labor Government and the youth group of the Labor Party. J.J. has been sold a bill of goods against the Social Democrats by the extremist right-wing whose meme is “all socialists are Stalinists.”
“The socialists, the progressives and their allies in the Islamic world will use and have used every means necessary to subjugate America and destroy western civilization as we know it. They will not stop. Unfortunately, the only way to defeat them is by informing and educating the people, and that avenue is all but lost to us as well.”
I would suggest you read “The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America” by Andrew McCarthy. It is an utter refutation of your statement. Islam and leftist (there’s that word again) ideology share many things in common: hatred for western civilization, America, individual liberty and an open, civil society. Indeed, the Islamist movement and “the left” are more and more finding common cause and actually working together.
As I said, there is no left, right and center; just a sliding scale from liberty all the way down to tyranny. Statism, Socialism, Marxism, Progressivism, Fascism all occupy the other end of that scale. The only difference is what position, and at what point when socialism fails do the screws tighten?
Social Democrats dont disagree with the Communists with regards to the end game, merely the means to get there.
You have been sold a bill of goods.
That the Communists have been cruel to the Social Democrats is without question, factional fighting on the Left. Many Social Democrats formed alliance governments with the Communists in Eastern Europe, only to later be dispatched of via various means.
Get real.
It’s all a question of degrees. How much freedom must one give up for the “common good” whatever that may be. Social engineering to create paradise on earth is a lie, whether it’s the soft tyranny of socialism (which has NEVER worked anywhere it has been tried) to totalitarianism. How many more hundreds of millions have to die or have their lives ruined to prove this?
JJ:
Old line conservative hog-wash. Still can’t understand the difference between Social Democracy and Communism. Don’t understand the history of anti-communism in Europe do you. The Social Democrats were hard-line anti-USSR. It is just a fact. Willy Brandt, the late mayor of West Berlin was a Social Democrat and President of the Socialist International. Don’t give me warmed over junior high school dung.
What is interesting is the attack on “multiculturalism.”
@Lawrence
Yes, factional opposition on the Left. There were also Anti-Communist Social Democrats in the US, in some of the labor unions, who tried to purge their organizations of Communist infiltrators.
Maybe these details are a bit too nuanced for you to understand.
If you are a good boy, next Ill explain the Trotskyists to you, and how they are different from the Stalinists and the Leninists.
That’s odd. Robert Mugabe is a Socialist. Moammar Gadhafi is a Socialist. Chavez is a Socialist. The word “Nazi” is made up from the first two syllables of the name of their party, the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei or National Socialists. I could go on but you’d do better to read about it in a book entitled “Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning” by Jonah Goldberg. I highly recommend it.
I’m not saying all socialists are the same. But there seems to be a thread common to all. By default, all are happy to tell others what to do and how to live.
You could also cite Hitler as a Socialist from his Mayday speech in 1927.
Just read John Toland’s biography.
And does that sound very much like both Islam and current democratic administration?
Pairing Islam with the Left is the pinnacle of right-wing ignorance.
The core belief on the left is the disdain for religion as ALL religion is rooted in inequality, especially Islam and Christianity. Islam has Sharia while Christianity blames the fall of mankind on a woman eating an apple after talking to a snake.
The left doesn’t hate America, we hate the oligarchy America has become which has made America the 2nd LEAST socially mobile society in the industrialized world, 2nd only to the UK (http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/089533002760278712).
I wish those on the right, who worship the Founding Fathers, would acutally LISTEN to what they said:
“The riches of a country are to be valued by the quantity of labor its inhabitants are able to purchase, and not by the quantity of gold and silver they possess.” – Benjamin Franklin
I found this blog after reading “The Road to Fatima Gate” and enjoy the different prespectives.
Keep up the good work.
I think there’s some confusion about the Left and Islam. I’m confused myself, actually. What seems to be happening is: The Left embraces multiculturalism. It embraces the victims of Western imperialism. It embraces the Third World. In the West, these principles have made Muslims a protected class. Sure, they treat women badly and subscribe to a lot of superstitious twaddle. But they are VICTIMS. The Palestinians are VICTIMS. Victims of Western Imperialism and Zionism. Any jihadis in our midst are simply our Imperialist chickens coming home to roost. We must HELP them, not criticize them, in order to make up for all the evil we’ve done. And besides, Democratic Socialist multiculturalism is civilized and completely unlike what happens in evil, racist America.
Something like that, anyway. That’s the only way I can explain the Left’s failure to criticize Islam and its willingness to welcome and accept the most radical, reactionary, and dangerous Muslims into the European fold. There’s no “alliance” between the Left and radical Islam. The Left simply can’t bring itself to say a critical word about it. The “Poor Third World ‘Other’ Victim of Western Orientalism and Imperialism Card” trumps the “Superstitious Violent Reactionary Anti-Progressive Misogynistic Throwback Card” every time.
Do you have a better explanation?
Bugs
A very good explanation! I don’t think that you are confused.
While support for Communism and Stalinism is out of fashion even on the left, their same controlling attitudes have risen in the Socialists. The organized community activists in the Chicago area documented by Stanley Kurtz are evidence of it.
“The core belief on the left is the disdain for religion……”
You would never know it by the silence the Left shows when confronted with Islamic terrorism or calls for the destruction of the West by Islamic mullahs. On the other hand, anything Christian is attacked remorselessly. The “core belief” of the left is that government should be empowered to control all aspects of human life, including “social mobility”, and the destruction of religious beliefs. One of the problems with overbearing government is – who determines how much social mobility (wealth redistribution, call a spade a spade) is necessary, and which segments of society should benefit? Naturally, it would be the leftist elitist politicians and educators who would make that decision, as if they endowed with great intelligence to make those decisions for all of us. Wealth redistribution is nothing more than buying votes and class warfare.
Ben Franklin also quoted the following non-leftist quotations:
“God helps those that help themselves”. Hmmm. There’s that G word.
“Mine is better than ours”. What, Ben. You don’t think compulsory sharing is right?
“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself”. Oh, boy. There’s that nefarious Constitution again, the bane of all leftists.
“Where liberty is there is my country.” – Ben would be horrified and not promote government involvement in redistribution of wealth, even though you stealthily call it “social mobility”. Typical tactic of the left – hide and redirect.
And we don’t “worship” the Founding Fathers. We admire them. I consider your use of that word a form of mockery. And mockery has never won an argument, although Obama and the Left try hard to make it so.
“The left doesn’t hate America, we hate the oligarchy America has become which has made America the 2nd LEAST socially mobile society in the industrialized world, 2nd only to the UK”
You are sorely deluded sir. Do a thought experiment – pick ten thousand people at random from elswhere around the world and tell them they must pick a new country to move to. Any quess as to the percentage who would pick the USA? I guess they just love that lack of social mobility.
You want so badly to be able to tell me how to live my life. I’ll take my chances with the “oligarchy”
“Do a thought experiment – pick ten thousand people at random from elswhere around the world and tell them they must pick a new country to move to. Any quess as to the percentage who would pick the USA?……”
Most folks in the world are aware of the fact much of the world’s wealth is concentrated in the U.S.A. (…..for some reason). And compared to most other nation’s, our’s is a lot less crowded than most. So yeah, who wouldn’t want to leave Mumbai for Atlanta? But why must we settle for our nation being “We the Corporation” instead of “We the People”?
Oh, well then, sit down boys and girls, and watch the parade.
You say the only avenue for dealing with the advancing hordes that are clearly, in-your-face eating the heart and soul of our country is education. However, as you say, that avenue is closed. So, there is no alternative to stopping the evil hordes… if no alternative, what is the only method?
Gee, wonder if the Patriots who had to fire on not only the Brits but their own goofy Royalist neighbors thought about those “unacceptable” actions. Even the treasured Patriot Franklin had to cut relationship with another Franklin… his own son who was a Kingster. hummmmm
Americans, be prepared to enter your tanks (voting booths) and fire on our enemies (vote), and identify and select NEW leaders. Take out the ones who have been in office two or more terms.
Voting IS war… and thanks to the DOJ’s obedience to Obama and refusal to punish the New Black Panthers, we now step into a dangerous battlefield just by walking into polling places.
The DOJ CAN’T prosecute the New Black Panthers. To do so might have a chilling effect on those who would act in a similar manner at the polls in future elections. Who wants to see, e.g., SEIU shackled? Or ACORN offshoots? Or William Ayers (though he’s getting a little long in the tooth to recreate his halcyon days and might have to rely on his proteges, like Barack)?
If you are unwilling to grab a gun and fight to maintain our present Constitutional government and white, Christian civilization, I assume we could’ve counted you out of the War of Independence, the Civil War, and the Indian Campaigns. Important conflicts in human history are resolved in one of two ways: 1) the use of violence; 2) the credible threat of violence. As someone once pointed out about the “Better Red Than Dead” folks — they’ve already admitted their treason, in that they will not support our present government/society in any conflict (Orwell: to refuse to support your country in a struggle against another state is objectively treason).
1) Terrorism is a method not an end in itself. ETA, PKK, IRA, al Qaida all use it to bring about a political goal. There are ethnically or religiously motivated terrorist groups who also hate the others. This is clearly the case in Norway.
2) Yes Islam is a religion based on Old Testament. How religions are used to legitimize political aims is a sociological matter not a subject of religious doctrine. There are Christian fundamentalists who obviously don’t speak for Jesus Christ. There are various political parties in Israel who use old testament as political manifesto. Obviously they don’t speak for Moses. There are parties which claim to have taken their cues from Koran. They dont speak for Muhammed. Some of these groups use terrorism, eg AlQaida to justify their goals. So one has to have very clear discourse when one talks about these groups. Now, whatever the aim, violence and hate speech can not be a part of civil discourse.
3) How religions will evolve over time depends very much on how people will depend over time as well. Islam’s main point of contention, this is just an sociological observation, that it is being treated as a step child not given the respect that is due.
4) Now, this just does not fly. Start with the crusades and continue with European Imperialism and end with various wars for oil.
5) Again this just begs the question, you yourself have just started excusing a mass murdering, xenophobic raving fascist. Ask yourself the question: is alQaida having a field day? You bet it is. Because this just plays into their hand of a religious war between Europe and Islam. AlQaida has nothing to sell useful in daily life. But they sell just as this nut job religious sublimation in bloodshed. Nobody wants to downplay the Jihadist danger. Butt one should not over play it either. Teror is a propaganda tool, so every time you bring it up wyou give legitimacy to those idiots who commit it. I wonder if any body knows the true extent of these terrorists.
6)Just look at 5.
7) Well you just use different measure for measuring terrorism depending on where it originates. In short when you talk so much about Al Qaida you make it something which it is not. Yes it is violent. Yes it is dangerous. But it is not a military threat. With proper combination of force and hearts and minds operation it can be reduced to a thorn in the butt.
9) Beware of those who wish to convert political competition into a clash of civilization. Most tellingly, the strife between Israel and Palestine is political not religious. Now if one starts using the good books as land registries, then who are going to call to arbitrate, God?
“4 . . . . Start with the crusades and continue with European Imperialism and end with various wars for oil.”
The crusades were a response to two or three centuries of aggressive Islam militarism where Islam took over Northern Africa (previously Roman) and Spain, and prevented free pilgrimage to the Holy Land.
European Imperialism never targeted Islam but was egalitarian. The expansion of European free trade flowed everywhere, not just into the Middle East. The leaders of Islam would have done the same if they could. Check out the Battle of Lepanto.
Wars for oil? It is a phrase that was used, but none of the wars against terrorism led by the US (Kuwait, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, Somalia, Libya) resulted in the theft of any oil from the countries involved. The west still buys its oil on the open market. Keeping the free oil markets open is not a war for oil, so where can you prove a western power took oil by military force without paying for it?
Anyway, you will get a fight always for your glib statements without proof of anything. Ticking off leftist phrases without thought simply does not support your claims once they are exposed to logic, or do you mean something else other than what these silly phrases suggest?
Bottom line. Winning wars the Western Way makes sense. Using weak terrorism targeted against innocents without the proper military, air, and naval support to achieve anything is useless, senseless and worth less than doing nothing. I think only a weak leftist like the leftist from Norway would be stupid enough to do such a thing. The people on the right have more sense than that, since that is the definition of the right, freely acting in an intelligent way without undue interference from misguided government bureacrats.
Mohammad was a war monger and self-professed terrorist. Islam deserves all the criticism it gets.
Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
“Remember all wars started in Europe.” What are you talking about? How about wars between India and Pakistan?
“Be vigilant of xenophobia, islamaphobia etc.” Worrying about islamaphobia today is like worrying about Germanophobia during the 1930s, when obviously the thing to be worried about was the rise of Nazism.
Africa has had few nasty ones too. And what about the War in the Pacific?
Islamists do speak for Muhammad.
Islamists (and, probably, many non-Islamist Muslims) claim to speak for Muhammed. Of course, they don’t – Muhammed being a prophet, not God. So they claim to speak to a “correct” interpretation of his teachings.
Which is pedantic meh …
“Be vigilant of xenophobia, islamaphobia etc.”
So how many geunine Islamophobes are there? I’m not talking about people who would be properly described as shari’aphobes, that is, people who are bothered by the honor killings, the rapes of women “inappropriately” dressed, the killings of apostates, and just the general attempt to impose shari’a on us. I’m talking about people who have a hatred of Muslims because they aren’t like us. Such people would also hate Hindus, Sikhs, animists, Buddhists, Confucians, and so on. So far, I haven’t encountered such people, either in person or in writing. I’m sure they exist, but I’d need to see proof that any particular “Islamophobe” really was an Islamophobe and not a shari’aphobe.
Is justification of one by comparison to another a fair method or merely watered down sewer soup devised to dimly avoid the common thread of them all rooted in the tumultuous emergence of their unquestionable holy book from seven separate translations edited under caliphate command followed by immediate burning of all original texts? Their methods of intimidation, taxation and forced subjugation to Sharia law have varied little except for time and circumstance in 1365 years. Their intent become undeniable when a population saturation of only five percent is reached.
Quo’ran origin can be traced only to revised Syriac trader language of Mecca using conflicting symbols with multiple meanings and only seventeen consonants based on Christian liturgical texts salvaged from their Medina Christian conquests. Translation into the emerging classic Arabic and rearrangement of chronology by sura length leaves it void of any old testament connection other than their prophet’s solo ascent from one of the often mentioned old testament rock land marks qualifying it as edited plagiarism.
However the Hadith descriptions of their Twelfth Imam definitely fits New Testament qualifications of the Anti Christ of The Tribulations and they’re as proud of him as of all other Imams.
In item (7) you seemed to avoid the highly effective use of porcine entrails in Muslim burials proven effective a hundred years back in the Philippines to squelch all their anger but the issue would totally debunk the rest of your analysis.
The effects of inbreeding is rearing it ugly head and its much easier to second guess psychotics than an idiots when they fear death rather than welcome it.
mstr said “Yes Islam is a religion based on Old Testament.”
============================================================
Wow, you really know nothing about Islam. Islam was a separate religion that is similiar to Old Testament but it is not based on the Old Testament. It was a religion created by Mohammad (not his real name anyways) after supposed revelations by Allah via the angel Gabriel.
The Quran is deemed the “Word of Allah” by all Muslims. There is no questioning anything in the Quran as its punishments are quite severe (Apostasy which results in death). Many Muslims follow the Hadiths (actions of Mohammad) and the Sunnah (practices and habits by Mohammad) since he is considered to be the “perfect man” by Muslims.
You should read the Quran…..all of it, to get an idea of what you are talking about before saying that Islam is based on the Old Testament.
Sir, I appreciate your column, you try to bring back some rationality in this debate.
But I have a major objection:
surely we can say that our common goal is to decrease violence and avoid it altogether.
Therefore we must discuss about how this can be achieved in a moment in which the West is attacked from inside (subversives, sleeper cells) and from outside (the famous “tiny minority” of islamic supremacists…some tens or hundreds of millions.)
I don’t think that we help our two goals (defending the West, decreasing violence) by discussing the actions of a psychopathic assassin.
A psycho is just a psycho, what has a psycho to do with…anything ???
I mean: are we already so deep into the new totalitarianism, that we discuss truth and right on the basis of the action of a psycho ?
A psycho is not a “terrorist”, it’s a human being who is deeply sick and has lost his reason.
We get nowhere if we keep discussing in this way.
But there is one more risk: the risk that by discussing in this way we actually increase the level of violence. Why ? Because by causing a deep confusion we help the forces of subversion and of invasion, and we abandon their victims to despair.
And despair will foster psychosis, and violence.
We need to say that this guy is a psycho. Period.
And we need to discuss about how we can peacefully defend the West against the subversives and the islamic supremacist. Period.
Sherab, I agree that this one sick man is getting way too much attention, especially from the right.
“And we need to discuss about how we can peacefully defend the West against the subversives and the Islamic supremacist. Period.”
“Peacefully,” you say? Okay, Sherab, I’m game.
How can we peacefully defend the West against the subversives and the Islamic supremacist?
“Are people who have written responsibly about Islam, Islamism, and left-wing actions responsible for this attack? No. But if anyone wants to make that argument blaming such writers, then who among them are responsible for terrorist attacks by Islamists? Are those who slander, lie, and preach hatred against Israel thus responsible for terrorism against Israel? i would say that’s worth considering, especially because those who then launch such attacks know that they will have widespread sympathy and support, along with the prospect of political gains.”
(1) there is no difference between Islam and Islamists? bullshit
(2) it isn’t worth considering? you just did.
(3) you are comparing two unlike things. Israel is not Islam.
I’m attacking you right now Mr. Rubin. This does not mean I feel you have a right to attack me back, nor does this position make me a hypocrite. Our man in Norway had a bad tactic, but Norway is the enemy… and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. How is he different then George Washington who many considered a terrorist,,, or Ben Gurion? He isn’t. I do not empathize with the victims any more then I empathize with the Germans who were bombed in Dresden during WWII. Republics are not built by co-ooperation. They are built by power and bloodshed that is inherent to humanity. Nations are not moral entities any more then nature would be. This does not mean I agree with much of what our man in Norway believes. I’m a Jew. I’m not a Christian… nor do I think he was a Christian. With Durban III coming to NYC, you will see more of this in the U.S.
WE ARE PISSED! Some people will react.
I hope your post is just a provocation against this forum and that you don’t think what you wrote.
Shooting for one hour and a half on kids ?
Only a psycho can do a thing like that, don’t you dare mention Washington, and much less Ben Gurion.
Shame on you.
PS And I post this to declare once more my absolute rejection of any “politically” or otherwise “motivated” violence.
PPS Don’t bother answering me, I consider you evil, nobody sane and with any left over of morality would have posted what you did.
I forget: Ben Gurion didn’t buy slaves from Muslims like George Washington did. I guess if I were a Muslim sympathizer I’d prefer G.W. too.
If I were an African-American, I definitely would prefer GW. As much as I abhor any form of slavery, I bet that the ancestors of those slaves living in the US today are secretly thanking God that’s what brought them here, and that they are not living in a shantytown in Africa, lining up to get water every morning from the village well. Who would the African villagers rather be – themselves, ancestors of free peoples, or African-Americans, ancestors of slaves? All peoples alive today are only in their situation because of past history they had no control over. It’s what makes us who we are. Let’s not get too carried away with the past.
Sorry, but where I say “ancestors” I meant “descendants”.
jarmo
AMEN to that. Sherab,
Sherab -
“Shooting for one hour and a half at kids?” you ask.
The youngest of these “kids” were 16 to 18, and the rest adults up to 25 years old.
See Eric R.’s reply to the Norwegian J @ 41, especially the 5th paragraph.
Based on what I heard, and I admit I can’t confirm this, the suspect is a follower of the Dominionist heresy. Dominionists deny the necessity of the Second Coming and believe that it is the duty of Christians to establish the Kingdom of God on Earth, by force or by politics. Hence, they are heretics, not Christians, even though they will claim the Name of Christ.
It was a trans-historically made disaster. Also, all of us are at fault, that’s how it usually goes. Oh, and we must not hate. Why ? Because if we hate THEY have won. Uh ?
Then there’s the underlying reasons to consider. Complications, nuance, deep thoughts and much chin rubbing.
Except none of this happened this time, curious.
The Norwegian terrorist is a sociopath before he is anything else. Sociopaths are neither “right-wing” nor “left-wing.” They are a apolitical or post-political; politics in the broadest and best sense means nothing to this terrorist.
I saw Dress Up self-portraits from the nutcase who did this, and my first impression was that he wants to dress up like a fascist, with direct lineage in the images not only from the Waffen SS but also from the Teutonic Knights and those other images of the Middle Ages that the Nazis used and tried to emulate. Fascists, being authoritarian and in favor of a strong central government and imperialism, always struck me as another version of the leftism of Stalin. So maybe this guy will turn out to be a fascist, thrilling in his imagination to the stories from Wagner, like Valhalla and the Ride of the Valkyries, involving those things Led Zeppelin was constantly singing about — Vikings, Beowulf, Long Boats out of the Mist, blood-drenched, thirsty swords, etc. If that is true, calling him a Christian rightwinger, only interested in loving and respecting his Neighbors as himself, may be rather inaccurate, but only time will tell.
The thought I had; it was like this young man was acting out some computer game scenario, dressed in full gear and hunting ‘enemies’ inside a controlled environment. While looking at some cover jackets of computer/video games, pictures and story lines, the types of weapons used to ‘win’ the game, I see similarities…just sayin’.
Of course, he could be simply nuts. Or on drugs.
A lot has been said about the shooter’s ‘views.’ Those ‘views’ seem rather strong for someone his age; (to murder dozens of innocents accomplishes *what* exactly?) maybe he’s an overgrown brat acting out in a fantasy world, desperate for fame.
The guy was a drug user, e.g., anabolic steroids.
While the Arab summer of love is going on, I find it interesting that within hours of the incident in Oslo Norway alleged jihadist groups were attempting to take credit for the massacre. Some Arab spring.
Very good analysis. What drives terrorist activity is economics, as you point out, the economics of political capital.
One could argue that no conservatives can be considered terrorist ( as distinct from ‘right wing’ ). Conservatives in the United States primarily identify their cause with the rule of law and the preservation of our constitution; a constitution which circumscribes legal procedures for dealing with problems. Anyone who steps outside those procedures and attempts to solve a problem with a bomb is abandoning conservative principles and would be disowned by the conservative movement.
Thoughtful essay, Mr. Rubin.
Regarding #8, yes, there is a distinct double standard.
Each time some guy yells Alah Akhbar before blowing himself up or murdering others we’re told not to jump to any conclusions, that authorities are puzzled as to the motives of the killer, that it was likely the actions of a ‘lone wolf’, that the incident shouldn’t be used to tar an entire religious or political group, etc., etc. Newspaper accounts often mention religious affiliation of the perpetrator, if at all, only toward the end of the report.
We’re then admonished that terrorism is rooted in ‘desperation’ and is likely the inevitable blowback from some ‘legitimate grievance’. Violence by politically-fashionable groups in support of ‘bien pensant’ causes is explained, rationalized or excused outright.
None of this is on offer here.
By contrast, the very first article I happened to see in the NYT after the assailant was identified repeatedly used the term ‘right wing’ and Christian fundamentalist’ to describe him. Similarly, politically-correct authorities ditched their usual ‘wait-until-more-is-learned’ chin-stroking.
This incident will be used, like the various blasphemy trials in Europe, to discredit any criticism of the European elite’s misguided re-shaping their societies.
I don’t understand why people call nazis, wether neo or not, rightwing. The nazis are socialists, they belong along with the communists on the side of the political spectrum that wants a large all controlling government. Much is made that he targeted a socialist youth camp. Socialist movements fight amongst other socialist groups for power and since they are on the left, they tend toward violent behavior. The 1930′ saw the fight between the socialists of the nazi party and the communists. Look up Hayek, and Mises and all the other sources especially the video on youtube embedded at Bigjournalism.com on the soviet story. It confirms how closely the nazis and marxists actually were. To say this guy is a neo-nazi and therefore a guy on the right is wrong.
Excellent point. The Crips and Bloods kill each other over drug distribution territory. Nobody tried to separate them by political nuances. They’re all violent gangsters concerned about status and money. Nazis and socialists have a long list of common traits: powerful head of state, gun control, government-sponsored genocide, slavery, attack on religion to replace God with the state, etc. The anal retentives can argue, safely tucked away in their ivory towers, until their diapers need changing. But the truth is: If it walks like a pig, talks like a pig, and smells like a pig, it’s a pig.
The Crips and Bloods are different branches of a secret army created by George Bush as part of of his vile plan to turn this nation into a Randian dystopia like in Bioshock.
I thought that was obvious.
http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/ Great 13 minute video. Give it to your left wing friends,….. if you have any.
To me it seems obvious that this guy was trying to start a civil war, first in Norway, and then all over Europe.
After all, a lot of pundits have shaken their heads over the situation in Europe, and wondered whether it would lead to (say) France and Italy becoming Muslim nations, or whether (at some point) Europeans would wake up and say, “Hey! This is where WE live!”
All we can do in the U.S. is wait and watch (and make sure we don’t wind up in the same sorry condition, where we have Islamic jihadis living off welfare, just for instance).
“To me it seems obvious that this guy was trying to start a civil war, first in Norway, and then all over Europe”
Once I read more about him, that was my conclusion, too. However, the Europeans have become too sissified to fight, they have been taught that war is evil under all circumstances, and their culture is evil and not worth fighting for (I agree with the fact that it is evil, and in a European vs. Islamic civil war, I would just root for two things – Jews get out safely, and the two parties bloody themselves badly).
Therefore, the irony is that his efforts would in fact, speed up the Islamic takeover of Europe.
As other comments have pointed out, a weakness of this post is framing politics in terms of a “left/right” dichotomy.
Fortunately, I have complained about such framing several times in the past, and I cannot be accused of doing so only when it is convenient to me.
In this particular case, the problem with the framing should be self-evident: in Europe, hostility to Islamization is by no means limited to the “right”. British Conservatives can be more accommodating to Islamism than French Socialists.
It is true that all parties making Islamization a central issue are called “far-right”; but that is simply because these parties challenge the ruling class, and nowadays everybody who challenges the ruling class is called “far-right”. By this definition, it is true that the Norwegian terrorist is “far-right”: he clearly challenged the ruling class; in fact, he tried to murder them.
Great post.
billc:
Nazi as ‘right wing’ is one of the more successful memes, kind of like FDR and the New Deal ended the Great Depression. Conflating war between the Soviets and Nazis as a conflict between opposing political ideologies is partly the result of our temporary wartime alliance with the Soviets. The rest is a case of fellow statists, collectivists and social engineers distancing themselves from Nazi atrocities. Couldn’t possibly admit he was one of their own.
After all, Lefties who had no trouble with Stalin-Ribbentrop only got behind the Allied war effort once the Russian Motherland had been betrayed.
Does it matter what motivates the terrorist? Should we not just hunt them down and kill them before they kill us whoever they are? I really don’t care if they hold similar viewpoints to me. If they are terrorists they should die. It’s not their political viewpoints that matter. It’s the idea that they think it’s OK to kill innocent civilians.
It’s definitely a new development with an anti-Islam terrorist that kills fellow westerners. Who saw that coming. I didn’t. Either way it’s something we need to pay attention to from now on. Focusing on nationalist/racist groups would be a good starting point. I think we will also find that neutralizing terror from this source is relatively easier to accomplish than terror inspired by Islam.
What is happening in Europe will be happening in the USA not too far up the road. We too are sissified as one poster commented above. We too are told to hold our tongues and appease declared enemies. We too are told not to “jump to conclusions” when an insane Muslim soldier cries out to Mohammed as he guns down American soldiers. We too then see the self-same people jump to idiotic conclusions and blather erroneously against “right wing nuts” over the Arizona and Norway shootings immediately after the shooting stops and with NO SUPPORTING FACTS!
We too are suffering from the “Norwegian condition” which is really the European and Western world condition. We too will see the crazy fringes of our societies who are wrong in their actions but right in their conclusions take matters into their own hands when they see our leaders putting our heads on chopping blocks and hoping our sworn enemies won’t seize the opportunit to destroy us.
“He is clearly right-wing…”
It’s not clear to me. I haven’t seen anything explaining the alleged perpetrator’s overall political philosophy (if any).
Btw, being anti-Muslim is hardly a characteristic limited to the right wing, and definitely isn’t a defining characteristic of the right. You can ask God-hating commies about that one.
One thing is clear though…
“In a report earlier this year, Europol said there had been no rightwing terror attacks in Europe last year. But there were 45 leftwing and anarchist attacks in 2010 — a 12 percent increase from the previous year. There were also 160 separatist attacks last year, mainly in France and Spain.”–AP
…terror attacks by so-called right wingers are extremely rare.
Note: Real anarchists aren’t left wing, of course, they’re extreme right wing, but most people who CALL themselves anarchists are usually socialists/communists, not really anarchists.
Not counting Muslim terrorism (don’t know what wing they fit into) almost all political violence/terrorism in Europe comes from…the left.
Big surprise.
Muslim terrorism is essentially left wing. They hold the position that Islam is a synthesis of all facets of man’s govt and religion. The semantics are different between Islam and Statism. The actual practice is the same.
Islam and the left have in common that they want the government in control of the life of the individual. The individual human is not important, the collective is.
No, but like Baruch Goldstein, he’s the exception who proves the rule. When such incidents are this rare, they specifically show that there’s not a general problem.
This guy is not left, or right. He had no consistent ideas, he’s “anti-nazi” and “anti-racist” repeatedly in postings, admires a Norwegian Resistance fighter, and is a fan of Kafka and Orwell’s books. He’s condemned Christian cruelty pre-Enlightenment, and killings. He says he is not a real Christian, and admires his pagan Viking roots. He is pro-Israel. And he guns down a bunch of teen agers who look like him. It is like John Wilkes Booth assassinating Robert E. Lee. It doesn’t make sense, because he’s … crazy.
What he is another Beta Male Rampage. Like Cho, Sodini, Loughner, those Chinese guys killing Kindergartners in China. His target — women and kids, as usual in these cases. He’s nuts, and frustrated. He’s not even Travis Bickle, who at least in the movie provided a useful social service.
You can’t make sense of insanity. The guy was another Rogue Male on a killing rampage. No women in his life, none. Probably had a helper like John Mohammed had Lee Boyd Malvo. Or McVeigh had Fortier and Nichols. These semi-random killings by guys going berserk have no real reason to them other than frustration and insanity.
The real “reasons” for the killings is he never had any women in his life and was profoundly mentally ill. That’s it. Any rambling political views were window dressing on the real “reason” if you can call it that.
I wish you were right, Whiskey; I mean about the perpetrator being profoundly mentally ill. So far, the evidence suggests that he was very acceptable to his neighbours and acquaintances and absolutely did not stand out. What’s more to the point, rather than being mentally ill, it appears that he was functional and rather conventional. It reminds me of how my father maintained that the Nazi contingent were “monsters”. Of course they were in terms of the horrifying acts they committed but most, it appears, were good family men. Was it not Hannah Arendt who said something about the “ordinariness of evil”? And that’s the problem. It appears that the perpetrator cannot be picked out of a crowd. Were he an actual psychopath as defined by Dr. Robert Hare, there would have been evidence of thisbehaviour in his personal history, a lot of evidence. Psychopaths, incidentally, are not considered mentally ill but are considered emotionally and behaviourally deviant. No, so far the perpetrator appears to have been as sane, or at least as rational, as you and I.
We are told that Loughner is a certifiable schizophrenic. This terrorist does not seem to have been as dysfunctional as Loughner, but psychopaths come in many shapes. Many are the mass murderers who were described as quiet, good neighbors after their act.
Whatever bizarre mix of ideas he took as his starting point, I do not think he is representative of anything. If he were, we would face a sustained campaign of ideological terror similar to what the IRA or ETA or the left-wing terrorists did over decades in Europe, or to the Palestinians who killed Israeli civilians year after year. Right now there is no indication that it is anything like that.
But, but, but that is not what resident PJM Christian basher and Christian bigot Brian Macker said on a previous thread. This was the doing of Christianity.
Shoot, Brian was able to implicate all Catholics in this horrific crime because of a few pedophile priests, the Crusaders, the Inquisition, pretty much the history of Western culture.
I was waiting for Brian’s charges against the Pope Benedict, Protestants including Billy Graham, a majority the Founding Fathers minus Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson of course, and John the Baptist. Only Brian knows if Jesus is guilty as charged too.
/Sarc On
Oh, this proves Rosie O’Donnell was right. Right wing “fundies” are more dangerous than all of the Islamic world. Right Brian?
/Sarc off
Thank you Mr Rubin for your thoughtful article. I liked this paste very much,
“Equally, a very large number of Muslims are victims of these doctrines. Many Muslims oppose them and only with the support of those people can revolutionary Islamism be defeated.”
The trouble is……this won’t happen, and these key people are cowed into silence by their co-religionists, and do nothing that I can see to stop their barbarity. They remain mostly mute…..in fear of their own co-religionists.
This is a “faith” of Peace? These Muslims have nothing cogent to say. Nothing at all.
Jonathan Kay compares Breivik to previous conspiracy theorists and various terrorist groups.
Jonathan Kay on Anders Breivik and The Turner Diaries: How a 2011 Norwegian massacre echoes a 1978 American novel
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/07/24/jonathan-kay-on-breiviks-norwegian-massacre-and-the-turner-diaries-how-a-2011-crime-was-plucked-straight-from-a-1978-novel/
The question is whether this process will take several decades or several centuries — Rubin
No. The question is, do we want to fight that battle in our cities and streets, or in the Muslim majority countries.
We need a policy of containment…decades ago.
Mr. Rubin,
How did the secular perp get a gun, and make a bomb? No support?
Do you consider Muhammad to be an extremist, and Islam a religious/political system that follows Muhammad?
Thank you for your interest in these questions.
My Scandanavian friends tell me that it isn’t that hard to get a gun for someone determined to do so. Regarding the bomb, of course, that is a much better question and they are going to have to prove that he could have and did build it. Regarding Muhammad, the quotes attributed to him by Islamic texts include many radical and intolerant views and that if very significant. Does Islam follow Muhammad? Well since there are many interpretations of Islam that each say others don’t follow Muhammad one can’t say with certainty in practice whatever the theory is. What we’ve certainly seen in recent years–and of course in Islamism–is to choose the most hardline statements attributed to him and one can see elements of that in history. These are complex matters that cannot be covere in a few sentences. And–this is most important by far for us–the interpretations that dominate have grown increasingly extreme in recent I will be writing a lot more in future and have done so in the past. What I want to stress though is this: what is important is not the theory of Islam but the actual interpretations held today In other words,rather than for me to tell the Iranian or Saudi governments that their interpretation is wrong, I have to start by acknowledging what they are advocating in practice. If the Muslim Brotherhood takes over Egypt the issue is not whether or not they are practicing Islam correctly but that Islam in Egypt will be very extreme.
Anyway…the alleged killer allegedly wrote this manifesto, in case anyone is interested in delving into the guy’s politics…
http://unitednations.ispnw.org/archives/breivik-manifesto-2011.pdf
Personally, I couldn’t care less what the killer’s politics are. He killed a whole bunch of innocent people (including a bunch of kids) and he needs to be put down like the mad dog he is (not that that’s likely to happen in oh-so-civilized Europe where they prefer to coddle mass murderers instead of capping them).
According to a (mad but very articulate) poster in Byron Preston’s article on the Norwegian murders, the Norwegians have a forensic/correctional concept identified as “sikring” which, according to another poster, is roughly equivalent to Canada’s Dangerous Offender legislation. There appears to be no death penalty in Norway althouyg quisling was executed but that was a special mandate. The thinking of the first poster was that he would get twenty years and then be able to apply for parole, first at ten and then at twenty years. It doesn’t mean, apparently, that he would actually br released. In this sense, it is a sentence roughly equivalent to Canada’s Dangerous Offender legislation. At various points in the sentence a Dangerous Offender may apply for parole (see the iniquitous Clifford Olson) but the state is not obligated to release the prisoner. In fact, it might well turn out to be a life sentence. In Canada, this appears most often to be the case. Returning to the perpetrator of the mass murders in Norway, “sikring” would simply mean that the offender would be able to apply for parole but, equally, the offender might spend the rest of his natural life in prison. At least that is my present understanding. The poster went on to speculate that the perpetrator would be killed while in prison as he had murdered so many sons and daughters of the current ruling elite. Hope this clarifies.
You are claiming the Norwegians are not as “humane” as the British? Or did you foreign that the British released an even more heinous terrorist after less than 10 years in prison, recently? The Germans also have a long history of releasing terrorists from prison for no apparent reason (which usually means there is a reason, but it is embarrassing). Even the Israelis release disgusting psychopathic mass-murdering terrorists from prison. The Norwegians are hard-core, though? I have the distinctly opposite impression. Based on how rapidly they’ve capitulated on everything else when faced with the threat of Islamic violence, I don’t expect them to be standing tall for very long against the homegrown variety. I could be wrong, though. And I hope that I am.
‘According to a (mad but very articulate) poster in Byron Preston’s article on the Norwegian murders, the Norwegians have a forensic/correctional concept identified as “sikring”’
Actually what they have is a policy of sending heinous murderers to country club resorts instead of to the gallows or a real prison, and then turning them loose after a few years. The concept is usually identified as “typical leftard stupidity”.
“It was July 2006 and I was visiting Bastoey, an open prison 45 miles south of the Norwegian capital. It is home to about 115 detainees, including murderers, rapists and other felons, who enjoy activities not usually associated with prisons.”
“In summer, they can improve their backhand on the tennis court, ride a horse in the forest and hit the beach for a swim. In winter, they can go cross-country skiing or participate in the prison’s ski-jumping competition.”
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/europe/091017/norway-open-prison
Thanks for the reference, Dave. I couldn’t get anything on the term “sikring” re sentencing and imprisonment in Norway when I googled it. Twenty-one years appears to be maximum in Norway. Whether or not Norway has something equivalent to our Dangerous or Longterm Offender sentence is, so far, undetermined. If not, then the longest sentence Breivik could serve under Norwegian law is twenty-one years. Will he actually live that long? The angry but articulate Norwegian poster already referred to seems to think not.
As to your critiques of the Norwegian prison system, the emphasis seems to be on rehabilitation, not punishment nor revenge. If the system does, in fact, work in Norway, then socially and economically there are advantages over the various American systems in which many re-offences take place. I don’t know if it works, however. By this time, there may be many Muslims in lock-up. Will such a system work for them given the ideological factors which may be at work as opposed to the non-ideological factors of the run-of-the-mill Norwegian criminals?
Incidentally, I also find it a hard pill to swallow when violent and depraved criminals are allowed such beneficial circumstances in which to improve themselves and, before I retired, I was working in a penal associated occupation. Think of the parents of all those young people slaughtered by Breivik. Will they allow him to live in such comfortable circumstances? I would imagine that the Norwegian people will have to contain their horrific distaste while Breivik resides in what must be the Norwegian equivalent of protective custody. On the other hand, Quisling was, under special circumstances, executed. Could this occur for Breivik?
Perhaps the symbolism here is that Breivik stands for the muzzled Norwegian/European man and woman who feel absolutely powerless in the face of the continued invasion of Europe with all the concommitant dangers, threats and risks.
“On the other hand, Quisling was, under special circumstances, executed. Could this occur for Breivik?”
Socialists don’t care about individual lives too much, so they don’t get all worked up about individuals being murdered.
If they saw guys like Breivik as some sort of threat to the Norwegian state (like Quisling was), they might bring back capital punishment, but they aren’t going to do it just because someone kills individuals.
If you start blasting at the cops in Norway, they’ll shoot you dead in a New York second, because that presents a threat to the state. If you rape and murder two year old girls, they won’t make that big of a deal about it, because raping and murdering two year old girls is no threat to the state.
You’ll do a bit of time in jail, and off you go in a few years, as long as you kiss the ass of the authorities while you’re in the joint.
That’s how socialist states work, and Norway’s government is way socialist.
Well, there is a KEY difference! The Nordic terrorist/killer gets several, maybe, not seventy whatever virgins, maybe, only only a handful of Nordic blonde babes in his afterlife. The Muslims get dark, hairy, ugly, quantity- instead of quality, while the Europeans get primo stuff instead of Muslim beasts.
Islam as a religion is not the problem
Excuse me buit have you bothered to actually read the Koran? Have you bothered to read a “Life of Muhammad”, ie the man every Muslim is supposed to imitate in everything even in how to clean oneself? Obviosuly the answer is no and that ùmeans you have no right to pontificate about what is a problem and what isn’t.
Precisely, with regard to Islam the religion IS the problem. Islam is basically a terror religion. It’s their lifestyle. It’s their highest aspiration. Virtually all Muslims believe terror is justified. The majority of Muslims think terrorists are heroes. And a 2 digit percentage of Muslims support terror directly with money or infrastructure. And somewhere around 1% of Muslims are actual terrorists in actual planning of terror attacks. Muslims themselves does not deny this. They think it’s awesome. It’s only the political correct Westeners that believe, it’s improper to say this out loud. Muslims themselves does not call it terror. They call it Jihad. But it’s about purposefully targeting and killing innocent civilians. So it’s the same thing.
I agree. What Mr Rubin tells is equivalent to focus on some Nazis who saved Jews (there were some even if it is highly probable they were no more by the time they did it) to tell: “Nazism as an ideology is not the problem, it is radical interpretations of it”.
Rubin wasn’t pontificating. He was peeceeing. His point number 2 destroys the utility of his article. Islam is the problem.
#24
Thanks for the link to that very important, incisive article.
Scary stuff. One hopes it is a one-off.
I liked the article too, Barry. However, I think Jonathan Kay got it wrong in some key areas when it comes to McVeigh. This, for instance:
Yet there are also important differences between Breivick and McVeigh, between the pre-9/11 era of right-wing extremism and the post-9/11 variety on tragic display in Norway. And they are worth exploring, through the lens of The Turner Diaries, which — though largely unread and unknown in mainstream Western societies — has become an immensely influential underground inspiration for two generations of white-supremacist murderers.
I have no idea who reads the Turner diaries, but as far as I know there was never any evidence put forward that Timothy McVeigh was did what he did because he was a white-supremacist. I thought it was pretty well known that he was outraged by the Federal Government’s attacks on US citizens at Ruby Ridge and Waco, and that he started planning the Oklahoma City bombing as a direct response to to Janet Reno’s statement that she had killed the children at Waco in order to save them. I remember it well, because I was outraged too.
And this:
The idea that right-wing extremists such as Pierce, McVeigh and Breivik are simply the Christian version of Osama bin Laden is entirely wrong, in other words. Islamist terrorists take (misguided) inspiration from their religious texts in the act of slaughter — explicitly linking their motivation to religion. Mass murdering terrorists with a Christian background (and this includes the IRA, incidentally) typically do no such thing, even if the religious-inspired themes of martyrdom and purification tend to animate their doctrines. Not that this makes mass murder any less hideous or destructive — but it does show it to be a different kind of animal.
There’s a more important difference, at least in regards to the US, and that’s the complete lack of public support for such violent actions targeting the innocent, no matter how much sympathy people may have for the perp’s grievances. If only Muslims ostracized their terrorists in the same way, the Islamic variety would be as rare as the western type. But that hasn’t happened, and in my opinion never will happen. That’s the difference.
And this:
In a general sense, Breivik can be seen as a Norwegian, Islamophobic version of Pierce, McVeigh and the other right-wing hatemongers that populated the fringes of American life until the Clinton administration cleaned up the Midwest’s various White Supremecist quasi-Christian militia sects in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing.
That’s not what fixed the problem. In fact, there hasn’t been another Waco since… Waco. For a while there it seemed like the feds were kicking down doors and shooting Americans on their own property on dubious grounds on a weekly basis. Congressional hearings on governmental abuse of power and television exposes on the same is what fixed the problem. Jonathan Kay is suggesting that the cure for the disease was the more of the disease. He’s completely wrong on that count.
I also think he’s wrong for trying to compare “right-wing white supremacists” in the US to those in Europe. That’s not where the US is at, at all, and it hasn’t been for quite some time. Right-Wing White Supremacists in the US may as well be space aliens from mars for all the influence they have on the American political scene, even amongst conservatives. I wish I could say the same was true for Europe, but I can’t. Both our far-right and our far-left would be considered moderate in Europe, and even our lunatic fringe (such as Noam Chomski and… sorry but I’m having trouble coming up with a right-winger as far gone as Chomski… somebody help me out here?) would be considered pretty mainstream that side of the pond. You can see that by the frequency with which Europeans refer to such people as Chomski in their politcial discourse, while virtually everyone in the US who even knows who he is (1% of population?) thinks he’s a nutter.
Until Mr Rubin reads the Quran and studies the life of Big Mo, please ask him not to return.
Point #2 is BS, fantasy, pure and simple. “Islamism” as an invention of westerners. There is Islam, and that is it. There is a spectrum of belief and devoutness amongst Moslems, from the truly lax to the dissembling devout. That doesn’t change the fact that there is one Islam. If the author can demonstrate any Islamic school (aside from persecuted minorities like the Ahmadi) who separate the political from the temporal and personal, I’m all years. She cannot, because it does not exist. Works like this, that insist on such fantasy, only harm any positive progress against the tide of Islam that is sweeping the west. This is based on a falsehood, a lie, and it only plays into the Moslems favour.
corrections: *all ears* (dunno how I managed that)
and I apologize for calling the author a female, I assumed it was a different Rubin without looking
#2. Islam is the problem and not naming the ideology of the enemy has not worked for 1400 years. The Koran calls for the dominance of non-Muslims, and allows rape and slavery. Mohammad was a rapist and a self-professed terrorist.
http://loganswarning.com/2010/03/20/islam-101-the-religion-of-rape/
Bukhari Hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
Allah’s Apostle said, “I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand.” Abu Huraira added: Allah’s Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
Mr. Rubin, please educate yourself on this issue.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8658664/Hunt-for-Britons-linked-to-Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik.html
MI5 is not currently involved in tracking down Right-wing extremists but sources admitted the attacks could force a change of tactics.
Eh… so, presumably MI5 has been in the business of “tracking down” right-wing extremists in the past? And then what? Arrest them for being right-wing extremists? Or just put them under surveillance, maybe? Until such time as it can be proven they are right-wing extremists? For one think, I wonder if MI-5 and/or the Telegraph has considered how that sentence would look if it said “Muslim extremists”? Or even, “Left-Wing Extremists” (such as communists and marxists)? For another thing, I’m wondering how it is that Great Britain is an ally of the US when they seem to be so open about their suppression of certain political views? Because, I can’t even plug that in and I’m pretty sure it’s not a translation error since English is my native tongue.
By the way, if the Brits do decide to track down all the Muslim extremists in the UK then all they need to do is ask Rupert Murdoch where they at. I heard James Bond sold him all their GPS coordinates when he got laid off. Or, they could just ask a random BBC journalist.
If Breivik acted alone as it appears I don’t know that you’d call it a terrorist attack.
It would be like calling Son of Sam a terrorist attack.
One of the big issues with terrorism as fought by Dubya’s war on terror was that it was tacitly supported by nation states and financed by wealthy individuals, and that makes a pretty big difference that a loon attacking alone.
But if you think it will be helpful for conservatives to denounce Breivik, one of the things that I have heard about this that offends me greatly is that according to Norwegian law he will likely not die in prison.
This child killer should be strapped to a gurney and put down like a dog.
He should be buried in a pig farm and his name forgotten.
Is that good enough or are more denouncements required?
I am serous, btw.
It’s semantics. If he’s crazy, then he’s a mass murderer. If he’s sane, then he’s a terrorist. I think he’s a terrorist because a) he had a political motive and a political message, b) he planned all this very carefully over a long period of time, and c) he didn’t kill himself or commit suicide-by-cop. (Actually, I’m not sure it’s even possible for a Norwegian to commit suicide-by-cop – at least in Norway.)
Mass murderers (i.e., people who kill a lot of other people all at once) tend to be distraught, personally aggrieved, irrational, and to die at the end of their adventures. There are exceptions, but generally they are people who don’t care anymore. I think the Norwegian guy still cared.
The oppressive crackdown on free speech in Europe (and the US)has created an environment of frustration and anger. If a person can’t speak freely without fear of “offending” or being prosecuted, he stews until he bursts. I hope the Norwegians don’t react with repression. The situation will get worse. They call themselves peaceful and free, but what is bubbling underneath? I am afraid we just found out.
The way i see it; the Norwegian guy was SOOO sick of his government elites deliberately inviting Islamists that refuse to assimilate into his homsland; was sick of sovereignty-killing political correctness and multiculi crap that he decided to actually retaliate and put them “on notice”. The “children” he killed were apparently the sons and daughters of these same “elites” and furthermore they were being groomed for more of the same leftist leadership positions complete with anti-Semitic banners and Islam-loving rhetoric.
The shooter obviously felt helpless in that he couldn’t see an end to this Leftist crap.
Islamists carry out bombfests and massacres and hanging of children daily, with nary a word from the MSM and the cultural elites worldwide. Too bad that this “Is he a right wing nut?” stuff just plays into the fact that Islam is NEVER questioned in the same way.
The Norwegian guy is probably not a complete nutcase either; just some poor bastard that has no hope for his future or the future of his country.
In Maan News, a Palestinian news website, there is an article describing the regrets re the murdered youths by young Palestinians who, themselves, had in the recent past been invited to spend time on the Youth Island as guests of the political party in question and who associated in a social manner with young Norwegians of a similar political stance.
Barry Rubin.
I enjoy reading your insightful essays.
I just do not agree that islam as a religion is not the problem. ISLAM is the problem. even a weak interpretation of the koran is hateful and violent as well as racist. …that is without going into how it treats women.
the big problem is that those who have a voice in the debate choose not to condemn this aboration of a cult.
As an eternal optimist, I try to see the bright side. Here, the opportunity goes to the traditional US media. They will be able to trace the killer’s background, translating from the Norwegian, and evaluate EVERY contact he ever had with anyone who was or might have been a conservative. The will do with this Norwegian what they were unwilling to do with our Kenyan.
As a Norwegian I was have been reading some of these blog posts lately I am one of the people who have found this place after the tragedy in my country. As I read some of these blog posts I see a lot of hate and anger. This article I found fair enough but I have to say Bruce Bawer was a truly disturbing read. And that made me think, isn’t this just what Bin laden tried to achieve with his attack on the west? Is’t the hate and fair exactly what he wanted to achieve? I think by letting our emotions and rage being pushed to far we create a dangerous society and that was ulitmately his main objective. You may call me leftist and ignorant but I truly just want to express my concerns about the most extreme bloggers out there and how the Internet can have a profound effect when it comes to pushing people’s minds for those who search for similar minded people.
Actually, what Breivik seemed to be trying to do was to unite the Muslim in common cause against, well, us in the United States:
At least according to this pdf file attributed to him.
Below is an excerpt from page 960:
Under these circumstances, the PCCTS, Knights Templar will for the future consider working with the enemies of the EU/US hegemony such as Iran (South Korea is unlikely), al-Qaeda, al-Shabaab or the rest of the devout fractions of the Islamic Ummah with the intention for deployment of small nuclear, radiological, biological or chemical weapons in Western European capitals and other high priority locations. Justiciar Knights and other European Christian martyrs can avoid the scrutiny normally reserved for individuals of Arab descent and we can ensure successful deployment and detonation in the location of our choice.
Nevertheless, we cannot, under any circumstances, accept deployment of nuclear weapons for surface detonation above 0,2 kilotons as it would involve too many civilian casualties. However, smaller devices up to approximately 0,2 kilotons are ideal for annihilating concentrations of category A and B traitors (traitor HQs). This scenario will involve the destruction of up to 1-2 city blocks/HQs with high concentrations of traitors and therefore suits our purpose.
As for aerial detonations, we can accept more powerful devices for the purpose of deploying and detonating it in the atmosphere, with the intent to destroy the infrastructure of criminal Western European regimes through EMP damage. This can also be employed strategically, f example in the first phase of a coup in order to paralyse the defensive forces of the regime (atmospheric EMP blast will paralyze a big portion of communication in any capital city).
The obvious challenge is the fact that the Islamic Ummah, aka “International Islamic Front for Jihad against Jews and Crusaders” and PCCTS, Knights Templar (representing the International Crusader front against Jihadi imperialism) have conflicting goals. Not only are we arch enemies in a war which stretches back 1400 years to the day when the warlord, Muhammad’s, forces first started to massacre Jews and Christians in the western Jihadi front. They wish to conquer all Christian European lands and forcefully convert us while we wish to deport all Muslims from Christian territory and isolate them. Regardless of these obvious conflicts, they should understand that we are not imperialists in contrary to the US/EU globalists who seek to maintain the Islamic puppet regimes and force the European way on them. The Islamic Ummah should view our enemies; the US/EU globalists, as a greater threat than we would ever aspire to be. The reason is that we do not wish to destroy Islam but simply to isolate it primarily outside Europe.
Assuming we will ever seek common ground, which is unlikely at best, the problem will be the authentication process. How can the Ummah, the enemy of our enemy, know they are really dealing with a Justiciar Knight and not a CIA or EU agent? How can it be proved that the individual seeking to become a proxy for the deployment of nuclear/radiological/biological/chemical weapon(s) isn’t an undercover agent working for the US or a Western European country’s intelligence?
The difference between an agent and a Justiciar Knight is that the latter will be willing to make a great sacrifice for the purpose of proper validation. Now what kind of sacrifice would be great enough to remove all doubt that the candidate is not a EU/US agent? A Justiciar Knight is willing to martyr himself for the cause while a EU/US agent will not be willing to sacrifice much. The entity should demand that the alleged Justiciar Knight in question surgically remove his penis and testicles and/or execute a fixed number of civilian children. While this requirement seems morbid, absurd and unreasonable, it is perhaps the most effective method of confirming the intentions of an individual. Because why would one of the sides part with a powerful weapon which worth exceeds perhaps 100 million Euros? The party would need to make 100% sure that the proxy is trustworthy. A government agent could and would never accept these terms to maintain his cover, but a true Justiciar Knight would willingly sacrifice everything for the cause, including committing smaller atrocities as long as it served the greater good of our cause. He would also be willing to part with these body parts in order to confirm his intent in this validation process. In any case, the entity would have to provide a surgical team to safely complete the operation without risk of loss of life for the Justiciar Knight.
End note: a CIA/EU intelligence agent with a lethal/terminal disease/virus/cancer might be willing to agree to this sacrifice.
J,
You will not like what I have to say, but if you had the courage to come here, I believe you have the courage to read this.
The Norwegian Labor Party, whose youth group was attacked, is viewed (correctly) as a virulently anti-Israel and indeed anti-Semitic party. In fact, the day before the massacre, they had a rally calling for a boycott of Israel, for the crime of defending itself against your beloved Islamonazis.
You Norwegians view Israel as the source of all evil in the Middle East, never mind the fact that it is the Islamonazis who promise genocide of the Jews. Believe me, if Israel wanted to exterminate the Palestinians, she could have easily done so decades ago.
Your country is considered to be the most anti-Semitic in Europe, and given the competition you have for that honor – from Sweden, the UK, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Austria and Greece (although the last one may be changing), that says a lot about the level of fanatic anti-Semitic hatred in your country. And make NO MISTAKE, the anti-Israel venom in your country is just based on pure, genocidal Jew-hatred.
In fact, to put it bluntly, Norway is a Nazi state. Which is why it is ludicrous to accuse this murderer of being a Nazi. (And yet, I would not hesitate to give him the death penalty, by the way, it is you Norwegian leftists who decided on a penal code that would only give him 21 years.).
Pajamas Media is a website founded by a Jew (Mr. Simon) and with a large number of Jewish contributors and posters. When we see how much Norway hates the Jews, how Norwegians excused, and indeed celebrated, the blowing up of Jewish children in Israel by your beloved Islamonazi savages in Hamas, Fatah and Hezbollah, how Norway recognizes Hamas (the new Nazis, who vow to finish Hitler’s work, and whose salute is the Nazi salute), is it any wonder that we do not cry for you? You do not cry for murdered Jewish children; you celebrate their killers.
The Old Testament/Bible/Torah talks about how those who bless Israel shall be blessed, those who curse Israel shall be cursed.
Perhaps now, you will understand that Ha-shem is watching.
Eric R. @ 41–
Thank you for an excellent and much-needed post.
thank you Eric. well written and reasoned.
First of all, your generalizations does not belong in a civilized forum.
Just because I don’t share your views does not mean I support the opposite. I don’t hate Jews. I don’t hate mulsims. i am, however, skeptical to all fundamental believes, weather they are Christian, Muslim, Jewish, atheist or any other form of conviction.
I support every mans’ right to their believes but when it gets to a point where you loose the whole picture and think everyone else is a nazi or hate you in some way it has gone too far. Loose the paranoia. I agree that certain religions are more susceptible to fundametal believes and it is a very challenging issue but I still refuse to judge a whole group based on one fundamentally convinced being.
You also seem a bit confused in your reasoning by calling Norwegians both nazis and leftist in the same paragraph.
“First of all, your generalizations does not belong in a civilized forum.”
Maybe not in Norwegian Soviet Socialist Republic, where they use hate speech laws to silence anybody that does not follow the Marxist party line. However, in the USA, we have freedom of speech; a concept you leftists try to destroy at every opportunity.
“You also seem a bit confused in your reasoning by calling Norwegians both nazis and leftist in the same paragraph”
OK, you Marxists will never admit it, but the fact is (repeat after me):
THE NAZIS WERE LEFTISTS.
In fact, they were FAR leftists – big government, income redistributing totalitarians. They were called the National SOCIALIST Party, and in fact they nationalized huge portions of the German economy. Many Nazis were former Communists. They are not the opposite of Marxism, they are just a competing branch of it, just like Shia vs. Sunni in Islam and Protestant vs. Catholic in Christianity.
You can stick your little Marxist head in the sand if you want, but that is the truth.
I don’t think his marxist head is stuck in the sand …
Ok, so now I’m a leftist Marxist nazi. Look, if you want to mix and match every ideology in the book for the purpose of your intellectual stimulation that’s fine. My point is I don’t care what you call left, right up or down. I know you are smart, well spoken people and this is what frustrates me the most. I think this is a result of a paranoid movement that has been blown out of proportions by time and the fact that Internet brings together and infuses aggressive ideologies amongst the ones searching for it.
Is it wrong to ask for a bit of moderation? I am all for freedom of speech but there is a fine line between that and ideologist agrresion.
Nazis are socialists which are leftists.
It is not surprising that the left has tried to make Hitler into something other then a leftist. It is a leftist smear that Nazis were right wing.
“And that made me think, isn’t this just what Bin laden tried to achieve with his attack on the west? Is’t the hate and fair exactly what he wanted to achieve? I think by letting our emotions and rage being pushed to far we create a dangerous society and that was ulitmately his main objective.”
1. No. You’re completely wrong about his main objective. He was trying to impose Islam on us, and Breivik was working to prevent that. I don’t approve of his methods, because they will unleash an enormous reaction against those of us trying to prevent the Islamification of the West, but the idea that Bin Laden was trying to get us to hate or that his main objective was to create a dangerous society here in the West is just ludicrous.
2. Bruce Bawer is on the left. So am I. I have not trusted Muslims since they butchered a bunch of leftists in Iran after the Shah was evicted. Then there was the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, and if I had had any doubts that they were the left’s enemy, there was the murder of Theo van Gogh. Wake up, please. Say to yourself every morning, “Muslims can be enemies of the left, Muslims can be enemies of the left, Muslims can be enemies of the left.” Keep saying it until you stop being so interested in destroying the left and start looking at how patriarchal and homophobic they can be.
3. You complain about the anti-Muslim rhetoric that can be found on the Internet and how it encouraged Breivik to do this. But you ignore all the anti-Western rhetoric from the left. Doesn’t this encourage Muslims to engage in their terrorist acts?
Will Breivik’s act of killing the children of leftist leaders actually work against those Europeans who see the invasion of Islam as the most imminent threat to their respective societies and/or will it open the floodgates for other non-leftists who are against the current fashion of multiculturalism and who also feel muzzled and powerless to express their frustrations, perhaps violently? Actions such as Breiviks’ can have an unpredictable effect.
The children of leftist leaders? What is this nonsense? They were children and I´m sure most of them had regular people as parents – not that it matters. It sounds a lot like blaming the victims to me and I´m not up for that.
Breivik dreamed of becoming a saviour of Europe. He advocated a Russian style authoritarian regime. Such people have killed more Europeans than Islam ever did. They are certainly not conservative in the American sense. They are fascists and so are their allies.
The Youth Camp has had groups of young Palestinian Arab guests who have expressed their condolences (see Maan News). In spite of what you are “sure” of, you are not in possession of the facts. The youth camp was a labour oriented youth camp, politically speaking. The teenagers who attended had parents who were amongst the political elite according to poster “Kristian”, a Norwegian. He wrote this in conjunction with his speculation regarding the sentence which would be handed down and the fact that the “leftist elite” will see to it that he is murdered while in prison. His angry posts can be found in the comment section of Bryan Preston’s article on this website. Having said that, it’s not that I either accuse the left nor justify the onerous murders of so many young adults but, yes, I wish to understand the event.
“Actions such as Breiviks’ can have an unpredictable effect.”
Yes, that’s true. The next few months should tell us.
I suggest that trying to guess what Bin Laden or a Brevik would want is to fall victim of a psychpaths facade. you could probably argue with either one from now until doooms day and never budge them from their final conclusion that what the world needs now is more dead people.
A couple of points. “Islam as a religion is not the problem”. Agreed. The relgious parts of Islam, which constitute around 40% of the doctrine, are of no interest to non-muslims whatsoever. The remaining 60% is about politics, specifically the politics of dealing with non-muslims. This is of great interest to non-muslims. Your contention that there are radical interpretations of this political Islam is incorrect, however. There is no such thing as radical Islam. There is only Islam. Those who are called “radical” are simply practicing islam the way it was intended in the 7th century. They are being perfectly normal, and are following the example set by Mohammed which is their duty to, as it says in the doctrine itself. They are not doing anything radical at all. There is no radical interpretation of political Islam. Islam’s idea of what is normal is completely different from the non-muslim idea of what is normal. that’s the whole point of it in the first place. non-muslims must not presume Islam is analagous with non-muslim civilization – massive error.
Mr Rubin:
You were doing fine until the opening sentence of item 2 in your list,
“2 Islam as a religion is not the problem.”
This is simply not true the Islamic Faith and the church leadership, and Sharia Law is precisely the “problem”
Islam’s take over of a government/country has inevitably resulted in the imposition of Sharia Law and a Theocracy. Secular Government and Religious leadership is combined and become one and the same in this environment.The resulting regime(s) is among the most repressive known to man in all of history.
As for “interpretation”, it takes little interpretation to understand the meaning of “Kill the Infidel” which by any measure is a central theme of the Koran in either the early or late writings of the Prophet.
Simply put, the Islamic Faith brooks no challengers. In modern parlance it is thier way or the highway aka graveyard. Sharia Law is absolute. There is no way that these concepts are compatible with western civilization.
Mohammedanism is the problem. Any objective interpretation of the actual words of the Koran support jihad, sharia law, subjugation of women, enslavement of infidels, and the rest of the historic practices of Islam everywhere. If, by some miracle, we win this war on Mohammedanism (which they have been fighting for 1300 uninterrupted years), we must destroy Islam, root and branch. It is incompatible with human civilization, freedom, and decency.
Frustratingly, we can’t destroy Islam root and branch, because it extends from North Africa throughout all of Asia to Indonesia…and even my preferred alternate, strictly rigid containment, is not attainable either, because of logistics and interferring hypocritical politicians. Simply too many sovereign nations are involved.
We have a truly malignant, metastasizing disease to fight.
So, all that can be realistically be striven for is our perpetual alertness on an individual national basis of containment to thwart Islam’s subversion and creeping “accommodation” by “lawfare’s” aim of the gradual setting of civic-secular precedents for those special accommodations they demand we provide. We must not provide Islam with these holes of opportunity.
There will of course be varying degrees of separate national application of this essential vigilance.
The American-led containment of the Soviet Empire is the applicable precedent here. That was not a rigid containment, but it was enforced by our threat of destruction. This requires a different sort of leadership here in America than that which we’re saddled with right now….hopefully that’ll be changed.
Belligerent, subversive Islam can be fought the same way as we fought belligerent, subversive Communism.
So far we haven’t applied this parallel. But, we must….and soon.
Forgive a pasted link here, but I see others doing this so I’m assuming it’s O.K. I saw this just a while ago in my email, see:
Raymond Ibraham’s “http://www.raymondibrahim.com/9966/muslim-brotherhood-impose-islamstep-by-step”
Here’s a pasted sentence from Ibrahim’s posted article:
……”The passage of time in the West has also helped the Brotherhood: Western politics have descended into idealism and fantasy—culminating today with Washington reaching out to Islamists. Would they have reached out to the Nazis?”
We have the worst possible “administration” in our White House right now to handle our dangerous situation.
Islamists etc. roost on the Koran’s later verses. I feel better calling them Later-Verse Enthusiasts. Taking heed of Allah’s stated words to “slay the idolators” is enthusiasm. That is the core. Little “ism” may be beyond that. Sitting by the road and friending Man was in the earlier verses. Allah said the later verse supersedes the earlier if in conflict as the later one is better, which is why it was given to you, and always practice Taqiyya (dissimulation to advance Islam). When they ask you to define jihad, reply with a description of itjihad.
The European-Arabian Dialogue Treaty allows unrestgricted immigration from Arab countries with political rights on arrival and in return the oil will never be cut off again. If the EC does not want to rescind the treaty, they should solicit Dhimmi immigration such as by Coptic Christians or whatever. They would have very interesting views.
Under Sharia, Muslim immigrants are de-facto colonists.
Willi Muenzenberg prefabricated political thought during his Spanish Civil War crafting of “right-wing fascist.” If the spectrum reflects control of money and property, it is accurate for Europe. Lenin is to the left. From Lenin’s view, the National Socialists and the Fascists are to the far right wing of the Socialist spectrum. Kings own everything. Ancient Persian kings owned everyone and everything, just like Lenin. Time etc. causes diffusion of power and more ability to hold onto stuff. Constitutional monarchs ended up in systems such as left-wing Democrats in the US in the 1970s. Further right is rare in Europe and does not last long. That further right is in the US, and a bit further are Libertarians. Muenzenberg’s agitprop confection works if one concentrates on where one is and where the other things are.
The Oslo killer is a right wing person in the Socialist spectrum, an ethnocentric socialist with ideas of eliminating political enemies that are more like National Socialists than Fascists. He is likely to be an Authoritarian personality in the clinical sense, and using an awful lot of deductive reasoning to support and comfort his views. Everyone should note that an element of deductive reasoning is not a finding. It is a place holder. Unless life in a dream world is desired, one must be aware that all deduction elements have blinking red lights attached warning the thinker that nothing or something else may be inside the place holder. Whether he is clinically paranoid to some degree would be revealed by more information such as a psychiatric exam. The extent of his thoughts on the subect suggest more Authoritarian to paranoid thinking rather than thoughts influenced by a tumor near the pituitary such as in other mass murderers. One wonders if any of his released writings mention the European Arabian Dialogue Treaty (EAD). I suspect the EC media and government say little about it to avoid individuals in the masses reacting with, “They did WHAT!” If the killer did not mention it, that is proof of how far removed from reality he is in working out his theories.
Strange Islamo-phobia: no one Muslim is murdered,no one mosque is blasted.
All his hate have been directed against his own people who he considers as the Muslim`s collaborators! This pervert psychology reminds the self-hating Jews` pervert psychology of replacement of hate from the enemies on his own people.
Any ideology must become perverted by irrational ill psychology of the criminal.
BREIVIK WAS ANTI-NORWEGIAN
This psychotic mass murderer in Oslo was more anti-Norwegian than anti-Moslem. His hatred for Norwegians was greater than his hatred of Moslems. If not he would have car bombed a Moslem mosque followed by a shooting spree of believers in a Moslem neighborhood.Breivik was poisoned with deadly hatred against his own people because he believes they’re dangerously asleep to a lethal enemy within hell bent on destroying Norwegian culture in particular, and Western/Christrian civilization in general. Breivik was driven to mass murdering his fellow citizens because he refused any longer to be ignored and wanted their full and undivided attention and that of the world. That I beleive sums up this terribly twisted man.
Let us belabor the point. The fact that Social Democrats are not Communists but are socialists is quite relevant. They are all points on the Socialist continuum and often end in endorsing the same policies, just the who that benefits and some of the propaganda materials change. The same holds true for fascism. Read the Austrian school economists and they are quite able to place these groups squarely in the same philosophical and economic camp. In fact Marxism was long held as a philosophy by socialists (including social democrats) well before it became an organized party. It still existed and still exists as a philosophical movement well outside organized communist party activity.
Anti-Bolsheviks can still be Neo-Kantian Marxists, Frankfurt school Marxists, post-modernists etc. and not just social democrats. What often seemed to motivate the anti-Soviets was seeing their precious socialism overtaken by the slavs. Can’t have that can we?
As for those who worry about islamophobia there is a simple answer. One of the legs of the jihadist step-stool is the left and its beliefs and the underlying racism that often girds those beliefs. The left is actively excusing jihadist tendencies (if not fomenting them). The left refuses to recognize that the Muslim Brotherhood grew in tandem and in alliance with Nazism. The Muslim Brotherhood specifically accepted the Germans as the master race in return for the Arabs being considered a pure race (as opposed to the mongrel Jews and Americans) It is important for the West to begin a discussion in earnest about the effect of leftism on the politics of democracies. Hopefully it will allow the world to come to the true conclusion about leftism and save lives in the future. At the very least it might mean our universities won’t export death to developing nations and they’ll avoid the Stalins, Mao’s, Castro’s, etc. etc.
Even better would be if the West becomes more educated about its philosophical past and is less prone to manipulation by those who see both the West and Islam as tools to be set against each other while they reap the rewards.
Conservative Islam is the problem. Not Radical Islam or Extremist Islam or Islamism.
Conservative Islam is Radical, Extremist, and Islamist. It’s a threat to non Muslims, women, homosexuals liberty everywhere. And it takes physical form anywhere that its agents congregate, ie Muslims. The more Muslims in an area the greater the threat, the more conflict, and the less free the society.
Period.
The Norwegian nut job most likely had a better seat as he watched the destruction of his country – as he saw it! These creeping Islamists as they spread through out the world are stirring the hackles of many and the Labor Party may as well get the brunt of the blame! If the island festivities had been a ‘a newborn baby – beauty contest’ our whaco would have been shooting three month old babes in their prams!
What is happening in the real world that can upset so many?
Here is a perspective by Dr. Peter Hammond.
Dr. Hammonds doctorate is in Theology. He was born in Capetown in 1960, grew up in Rhodesia and converted to Christianity in 1971 .
Adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism
and Islam: The Historical Roots and Contemporary Threat
Islam is not a religion, nor is it a cult. In its fullest form, it is a
complete, total, 100% system of life.
Islam has religious, legal, political, economic, social, and military
components. The religious component is a beard for all of the other
components.
Islamization begins when there are sufficient Muslims in a country to
agitate for their religious privileges.
When politically correct, tolerant, and culturally diverse societies
agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other
components tend to creep in as well..
Here’s how it works:
As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given
country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving
minority, and not as a threat to other citizens. This is
the case in:
United States — Muslim 0..6%
Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities and
disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails and among
street gangs.
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5% Norway — Muslim 1.8%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to
their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the
introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing
food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on
supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with
threats for failure to comply.
This is occurring in:
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase
lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we
are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, and
results in uprisings and threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition
to Mohammed cartoons and films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily,
particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow
them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic
Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the
entire world.
Rhodesway asks you to think on this – and weep or weapon up!
I responded to Rubin on Facebook about #2. There was small exchange, and when he could not refute my comments about Islam itself being the problem, he left me this comment and deleted me as a friend on FB.
Barry wrote: “My, my you certainly know everything, don’t you? And an article that dealt with that in one or two sentences is a failure? And do you think there is anything you say that I’m not aware of? But I sense it is a waste of time to try to discuss this with you since you already know what you think. However, I urge you that if my writing is so failed and wrong please don’t waste any more of your time on it.”
I’m glad to see so many other readers called him out on this as well. As I told him, so of us actually get it.
Mr. Logan is very truth challenged. He insults me and ignores responses to his claims. And I can easily refute your claims and have done so many times. Your claims consist of quoting something from an Islamic text and then saying that this is what everyone must always practice at all times. That’s not exactly a sophisticated argument and I have explained to him that he keeps misinterpreting my writing.
A better starting point is one of the very interesting remarks here that goes like this: “Islam’s take over of a government/country has inevitably resulted in the imposition of Sharia Law and a Theocracy.” Think about that sentence. Of course it is true. But Muslims in Egypt, for example, supported and lived under various different forms of government for many many years. How could this happen? If they are Muslims don’t they have to want a theocracy that will murder all Christians and Jews, etc?
Right now, it is quite likely that Egypt will move in that direction. Let’s remember that the al-Azhar clerics under Mubarak opposed the Brotherhood. Now they will support it. In fact, as I’ve written here, the Brotherhood is trying to replace them with its own people. Does it matter whetherTurkey is run by Ataturkists or Islamists, whether Iran or Egypt is? Of course it does. Because as the reader wrote, if Islam takes over the country the result is a theocracy. Absolutely right. So how about if Islam exists as a religion but is kept from taking over?
That’s the difference between actual history and the way societies function and ideological abstractions that are deterministic. That is why it is impossible to argue with someone who thinks that it is sufficient to quote the Koran or hadith to prove how things must be. One might as well argue with Usama bin Ladin whose worldview is parallel.
At any rate, I have written frequently about these issues in the past at greater length and a more thorough explanation. My view is that the battle among Muslims is NOT the hijacking of good Islam by bad people but a struggle over the steering wheel in which the Islamists have a good claim and might win.
Daniel Pipes has also frequently made that point among many others.
Finally, here’s a very dangerous point that cannot be ignored: If one argues that Islam and Muslims are intrinsically evil then it is “rational” to murder them and “rational” never to work with any of them. That is where the “brilliant” arguments based on agreeing with the radical Islamists that all Muslims must be bound to the most bloodthirsty verses of the Koran end up.
We must honestly face the problem so ignored in Western society today–that the radicals and revolutionaries and extremists draw on genuine elements in Islam (a point I’ve often made) but that doesn’t mean that the revolutionary Islamists are correct and that their view is the only one. The problem isn’t that they must inevitably win because they are “correct.” The problem is that they are winning, in part because they have good arguments.
At any rate, the point being made was a short paragraph and not the main theme of the article in question. And these discussions can’t be held if they are mainly conducted by insults and deafness.
well I do agree that what you say could exist, but not in the real world.
the extreme do have hold of the steering wheel and through out history they have had the steering wheel more times then not. . …eygpt was moderate because of colonialism …now unfettered the strong horse rides, and that one is on the extreme end of things.
one reason for the rise of extreme islam is there is a weak USA. Russia and China don’t care (unless it is inside their borders and it is to some extent) they are brutal enough to deal with it when they wish. WE AREN’T.
so why are we looking for a reasonable muslim to give the steering wheel to when the next nut job will just take it away from him because he is more violent?
in a way it is like saying I could tolerate living in Eygpt or Iran I have worked in both those countries) and be a second class citizen while I wait for the extreme part to fade away.
what I am saying is I think islam is the problem.
islam has no redeeming qualities.
http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonknowledge/post/?q=MzJlZTAwZjYxZTZkY2U0OGQ0MTFiMGE1MzNkODViNWE=
this seems to bolster your argument Barry, but it doesn’t change my position that islam is a net negative. …even if you are not a woman , donkey or goat.
cheers
Mr. Rubin: “is clearly right-wing and anti-Muslim”
No.
Clearly neo-Nazi socialist fascist and he admires the Islamists for successfully intimidating the Europeans.
His writings talk about working with Iran or al-Qaeda to attack the EU or US. See: http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/comment/167752/
You are correct. However, Breivik’s mental state is too incoherent and self-contradictory to say that he subscribes to any ideology.
“Crazy” is not an ideology, in any event, and that is one of the topics I explored here: Norway Killings: The story unfolds
1. There is no difference between Islam and Islamism as a philosophy. Islam is based on the same Koran and the deeds of Muhammad for everyone. The difference is between those who read these sources (‘Islamism’) and those who don’t (‘Islam’).
2. The Koran cannot be changed as its language is direct and clear, and it says of itself that it is direct and clear. The Christian reformation was a going back to the original sources, not a “change” or reworking of the texts. If you do the same to Islam, as what was done to Christianity during the Reformation, you end up with “Islamism”, not a softer nicer version of Islam. Please read this very good essay about a Chrisitan versus an Islamic reformation here:
http://markdurie.blogspot.com/2010/01/they-are-reformation.html
Tell you what, you can call me a right wing Christian extremist if I can call you a left wing liberal progressive Muslim extremist.
Quran Sura 5:
20 both the Jews and the Christians say: “we are the sons of Allah, and his beloved.” say: “why then doth he punish you for your sins? nay, ye are but men,– of the men he hath created: he forgiveth whom he pleaseth. and he punisheth whom he pleaseth: and to Allah belongeth the dominion of the heavens and the earth, and all that is between: and unto him is the final goal of all.”
21 O people of the book! now hath come unto you, making things clear unto you, our apostle, after the break in the series of our apostles, lest ye should say: “there came unto us no bringer of glad tidings and no warner from evil”: but now hath come unto you a bringer of glad tidings and a warner from evil. and Allah hath power over all things.
22 remember Moses said to his people: “O my people! call in remembrance the favor of Allah unto you, when he produced prophets among you, made you kings, and gave you what he had not given to any other among the peoples.”
23 “O my people! enter the holy land which Allah hath assigned unto you, and turn not back ignominiously, for then will ye be overthrown, to your own ruin.”
Muslims try to destroy Israel, and demand areas of Israel’s land for themselves. Muslims say that some areas of Israel belong to the Palestinians. The Quran declares that Allah has given the land of Israel for Jews, which is their holy land.
The Muslims fight against the announcement of the Quran when try to destroy Israel and take over the land of Israel. The Palestinian issue and the Middle East problems would be solved if the Muslims would believe the Quran and to allow the Israelis to live in their own land, which belongs to them. Of course, it would be best if they would believe in the Lord Jesus and the Bible, because, then they really know to whom the land of Israel belongs to. The rich Arab countries could re-colonize the Palestinian Arabs, and to give them a good home and a livelihood, because they can afford to it by many billions of oil incomes. The Arabs don’t want to do this, but they want to keep Palestinian Arabs in misery as well as a shield and an excuse against Israel.
The land of Israel is the target of ongoing Arab terrorism. Some of the attacks carried out through Palestine. That’s why Israel has to keep tight control for Palestinian Arabs. The problem would be eliminated if the Arabs would believe the Quran, which says that Allah granted the land of Israel to the Jews. Resettlement of the Palestinian Arabs back to the various Arab countries would be the solution, where they are originally from. This would be very easy to organize for Arab multi-millionaires.
Whole article: http://koti.phnet.fi/petripaavola/differencesquranbible5.html
Where can I get copyright free content to write blog on the net?