Without getting into the whole left/right argument again, as I wrote back then, while the far-left espouse views that can fairly be described as extreme versions of more ‘moderate’ left-wing views, those who are labelled as ‘far-right’ (I’m not talking about apolitical anti-government types, but the ‘far-right’ as applied to Aryan Nation in the US, the BNP in Britain and similar organizations in Europe) don’t tend to be extremist proponents of, for example, lower taxes and small government.
As we learn more about Breivik (some scraps of biography are emerging), people on both the left and right will scrutinize his ideology as they did Jared Loughner’s after the Tucson, Arizona shootings. But there’s very little to scrutinize. Breivik and others who think like him are racists, pure and simple, and racism isn’t an ideology; it’s an irrational attitude that manifests itself as anything from unease to hatred, and one that isn’t exclusive to the left or the right.
After yesterday I’m a little wary of making predictions, but I’d be surprised if in the coming weeks the likes of Chris Matthews or Keith Olbermann don’t try to draw parallels between the Oslo shooter and the Tea Party; the fun has already started at HuffPo and elsewhere in the lefty blogosphere.
You only have to look to the left’s reaction to the Tucson shootings to know what to expect. While yesterday’s tragedy unfolded in a small, faraway country, the profile of the shooter is such a perfect fit for the left that it’s going to hard to resist the temptation to make merry. And it’s not unthinkable that an increasingly desperate Obama might decide to emulate Bill Clinton’s ‘Oklahoma City’ strategy.
Meanwhile, in Europe, Anders Behring Breivik’s ‘anti-immigrant’ and ‘anti-Muslim’ beliefs are being trumpeted, the better to demonize anyone who expresses alarm over uncontrolled mass immigration.
Yesterday’s attack will also be seized on by the Christiane Amanpours of the liberal-left who have long been telling us that ‘all religions are the same’ in terms of violent extremism. But while the evil on display yesterday was the equal of anything displayed by al-Qaeda or the Taliban, there’s no comparison in terms of the scale of threat.
The circumstances of yesterday’s shooting rampage – the victims were trapped on an island for more than an hour – meant the death toll was unprecedented for such an attack, but so-called right-wing terrorism remains rare, and ‘fundamentalist Christian’ terrorism even rarer, the preserve of lone fanatics or small groups with minimal support. Meanwhile tens of thousands of Islamists remain committed to violence, and hundreds of thousands more, perhaps millions, sympathize with them.
Still, we’re rightly enjoined not to hold all Muslims accountable for the actions of a minority – albeit a rather sizable minority – of extremists. I fear that in the coming months the same courtesy won’t be extended to people holding right-of-center political views.
There was nothing wrong with speculating about a jihadist origin for the attack; Islamist ire at Norway, prior plots, a claim online, and past patterns all made for a strong circumstantial case. I made the same mistake of not waiting for facts, learned a lesson from it, but don’t regret it. For every single attack by a lone sociopath, there are dozens of bloody jihad actions every year, hundreds over the past decade or more, and thousands dead. And there will be more.
Those who never stopped their vicious whispering — as well as loud — campaign about Barack Hussein Obama’s ‘Muslim’ middle name should not expect us not to refer to the Norway tragedy created by a Christian terrorist and remind ourselves and others how dangerous a fundamentalist Christian-supported Republican Party can be.
Please cite some examples.
Sociopath? Yep.
Lone? Not so much.
Six more arrested in Oslo attacks
Is it not the leftists who are ideologically driven to exploit crises, often of their own making, for political gain whenever possible? This morally bankrupt sociopath, Breivik, may have thought he was giving the Labour party and their ilk around the world a thing or two to think about but he obviously failed to realize the simple truth that two wrongs don’t make a right.
All that is left in the wake of his actions are multitudes grieving for innocent lives lost and a platform for the very people he despises to crucify their political opponents which they will now embrace with unrestrained fervor.
+1 Sir. The backlash on this is going to damage our cause and our reputations far more than whatever this lunatic thought he’d accomplish.
Said it on many forums and never got a reasonable reply other than “Teabagger” back. When exactly did believing in individual liberty, the Constitution, the rule of law, living within your means and a sound fiscal policy, and keeping most of what you earn become extreme??? How have we allowed the Progressives to paint us as far right winger and be associated with this wing nut???
The year the constitution became “extreme” was 1964.
It was the height of libeeral media power and there was a war in raging in Vietnam that Kenedy had entered into but his Vice President an old style southern Lawyer was uterly unfit to run. In addition a number of things which had been kicked down the road were becoming critical. The Panama Canal bonds were coming due and required payment in ounces of gold not in dollars. This was of import to the bond holders in Europe who were still rebuilding after WWII. LBJ defaulted on the US’s Bonds an the media made stiffing the creditors a point patriotism. The media was backing Civil Rights law that allowed troops to be sent in to inspect not only work places but the race of workers. The Great Society became the future in the media with Europe swing and patriotic Amarica becoming dangerous nuts who would Atom bomb us all if we clung to god and country.
Here’s an example of a gratuitous attack I heard on NPR this morning.
Linda Werthheimer was interviewing Goran Skaalmo of the Norwegian Business Daily on on NPR Weekend Edition. They were discussing Anders Breivik, when Ms Werthheimer said:
“You know, I was reminded of the American writer, Ayn Rand, in that he talks in his manifesto about the government being too soft, too sort of politically afraid, to draw the kind of nationalist lines that he calls for.”
There was no further elaboration at any point in the discussion to support the connection between Rand and Breivik. I’d been fully prepared for some reference to xenophobic Tea Partiers or something similar, but Ayn Rand? Really? I mean WTF?
The statement occurs starting at 3:17 in the audio at the following link:
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=138653385&m=138653366
How predictable, but also entertaining for the following reason. May I just suggest that those who are actually familiar with and “reminded of the American writer, Ayn Rand” would first recall that Ayn Rand was a woman, not a man, as Linda Werthheimer mistakenly assumed and referred to her as.
Typical drivel from the LIBotomites behind the Not Progressive, Regressive bullhorn.
All of the “he”s that follow the reference to Ayn Rand refer to Breivik and not to Rand. Just sayin’.
Thank you for your kind correction sir. I was eating a meal and skipped ahead for the soundbite to avoid her nauseating tone of voice, missed a bit of the context there. As taking things out of context is the m/o of the regressives I will make more of an effort to leave that to the pros. No need to step on any toes.
Anybody who is comparing somebody who complained about gov being “too soft” or not “nationalist” enough, to Ayn Rand, either knew nothing about Rand, or is purposely lying. Rand was for dramatically SMALLER gov, and therefore would hardly support somebody who wanted gov to be “tougher” or more “nationalistic”. This NPR comentator is either a complete fool, or a liar. It sounds like the shooters idealogy was Fascist or nativist, and not Libertarian or Tea Party (although some elements of the Tea Party have nativist sentiments, but most do not. The Tea Party is mostly small gov constitutionalist). Of course to most fools on the left, anybody who does not agree with them is Fascist, despite the fact that Rand style libertarianism is in fact the direct opposite of Fascism, nativism, and Socialism.
Didn’t an al-quaeda affiliate post a claim for responsibility? Yes, it’s their habit- but we were blaming them (somehow) for the NYC blackout for at least 24 hours until they got it sorted out.
No, nobody claimed responsibility. The story originated from so called terrorist expert who appear to have invented a terrorist group just for that purpose.
Didn’t an Islamist group claim responsibility? That might make one reasonably consider that such might be the case.
Yes, but they swiftly retracted it.
A single terrorism expert posted a claim made on an Internet message board attributed to a group no one had ever heard of before. He indicated it was unconfirmed, and soon after updated to say that it had been retracted. The fact that so much of the media ran with it based on such (lack of) evidence… I’ll let you draw your own conclusions.
Anyone that would do something like this is not a Christian. If he believed in Christ and his ministry, he wouldn’t have done this. True believers of Christ try to follow his teachings, even unto death.
I’ll bet that leftists don’t let this crisis go to waste.
So when a Christian breaks any rule in the bible they automatically can be defined as a non-Christian. Get a divorce, well then, you are not a true Christian. Awful convenient.
Christians have been doing awful things ever since the religion was invented. Get used to it.
The only valid arguments to be made if he is a Christian is that well Christianity doesn’t call for such behavior. That exonerates the religion of any culpability in the act. It does however tarnish the idea that if one is a Christian you can necessarily use that as a valid indicator of behavior. Apparently the odd Christian will occasionally go berserk with a gun.
Now if I lived back in the time of the Spanish inquisition or conquest of the Americas it wouldn’t be the odd Christian that was behaving badly.
I won’t speculate as to why Christian behavior has changed.
We are none of us “true Christians” all the time, Mr. Macker. That doesn’t change the essential fact of the matter: Christ’s teachings stand in explicit contradiction to the use of violence, at least for purposes other than the defense of the innocent. He who disregards that teaching is acting in contradiction to Christianity, not in observance of it.
Persons desperate to denigrate Christianity are so happy to point out when self-nominated Christians fall short of our standards. You can almost see them capering about with glee, chanting: “See? We knew all the time! Hypocrites! Hypocrites!” I hope you get some entertainment out of it; it leaves us unmoved…except to strengthen our resolve to be better and to do better.
Ad Maiorem Dei Gloriam.
Thank you Mr. Porretto, Your insightful comment is in the minds of most Christians today. Certainly we have not heard the last of the indictment of Christianity as the focus of this madman’s crime.
Nevertheless, It does get very tedious to be reminded constantly of the real past crimes of organized Christian churches when Islam gets a pass on everything by liberals. Forgiveness Claudia, forgiveness.
I don’t give Islam a pass, believe me. Christian critics of Islam don’t give it a pass on its history either.
I didn’t bring up the Inquisition for the purposes you imagine. Nor do you owe me an apology for which forgiveness is required. So don’t bother asking.
If you are a Catholic, who contributes to the church, you may be an unwitting accomplice in the churches ongoing and current bad behavior towards the victims of sexual predator priests. I hope you stop donations and work to correct this issue if this is true. There are levels of responsibility and now that you know this is ongoing and if you were to continue contributing without fighting this problem then you are an active not unwitting accomplice.
This isn’t all historical.
Thank you for repeating part MY point. The commenter implied that a failed Christian becomes an non-Christian. Sorry, doesn’t work that way. Evil Christians don’t get to be categorized as atheists for example.
Unfortunately Christianity isn’t so clear pacifist as you make it. It’s quite compatible with violence as has been proven by history. It is also compatible with pacifism. This is due to it’s inner contradictions.
I think it is clear however that in this case he was not motivated by Christian teachings.
The Inquisition is a different story altogether. Believing that a God has a infinite torture session waiting for some people after death can and obviously has been used as a rationale for torture in the here and now.
I think it would be more accurate to say that anyone can *say* he/she is a Christian, but not be one *at all*. The point isn’t being a “failed” Christian, but rather *not* being one in the first place.
Respectfully, I take issue with your statement. The Christian faith is not a pacifist faith. Pacifism being defined; the belief that all acts of violence are inherently immoral. This idea is not compatible with the Christian tradition. Jesus’s instruction to turn the other cheek is not applicable to a condition of life-threatening violence. Especially when large numbers of other peoples lives are at stake. Christians cannot afford to be confused about this, of course many are. For example there is nothing immoral about shooting a man that is shooting innocent children.
Exactly. Speaking as an agnostic with no great love of any organized religion, if one could summarize the most fundamental difference between Christianity and Islam, it’s that Christianity says “Love your Enemies” while Islam says “Kill your Enemies.” Twist it all you want, but nothing’s going to change that. Because this evil sicko calls himself a Christian doesn’t make it so.
It was painfully predictable how the European and American left seized upon this horrific tragedy like a pack of salivating hyenas. These are all the same hyenas who, interestingly, bayed so loudly following 9/11 about the unfairness of connecting the actions of the terrorists with the primary influence in their lives, namely the Koran. Yet they consider it perfectly reasonable to blame a reasonable and principled writer like Bruce Bawer, who has never advocated violence nor promoted hatred against anyone, for the qctions of a mass murderer just because it turns out that the murderer read and – gasp! – actually AGREED with some of Bawer’s views about Islam and immigration in Europe. This leap of logic makes as little sense as blaming the brilliant but ferocious music of Richard Wagner for the Holocaust, as Hitler and many of his Nazi cohorts apparently loved it. It’s a dangerous, stupid and self-defeating game these leftards are playing, and all thinking people need the courage to refuse to go along with it. The only proper response of people like Bawer to these accusations is, frankly, showing them them one’s figurative bare arse and inviting them, figuratively, to plant a big wet one upon it. To say, “F**k you!” Loudly, rudely, and boisterously. And then keep on telling the truth. Truth may be the first casuality of war. Don’t let it be another casualty of this horrible act which has already taken so many lives. Scum like Anders Brevik aren’t worth it.
The treatment of the history the Spanish Inquisition and the treatment of the American Indians by modern academia is rather slanted. I don’t think there is any legitimate criticism of the Christian faith to be found in either of these chapters of history.
The Spanish Inquisition should be considered an act of the Spanish government not an act of Christians.
The story of the treatment American Indians told by modern academia is very one-sided. Many of the Indians were very primitive and violent. They simply refused to live at peace with the white man and demanded that all the whites go back to Europe. Of course their were horrible things done by whites, is that surprising? I fail to see what any of this has to do with the teachings of Jesus.
The Muslim radicals that commit acts of violence are practicing the religion of Mohammed. They are true to the teachings of Islam. There are many well meaning Muslims that claim that Islam is a religion of peace. I believe they are the ones that are trying to distort the Islamic faith into something that it really is not.
I’m not sure it is fair to label Breivik as an irrational racist when we haven’t had a chance yet to peruse his 1500-page manifesto. Clearly, he doesn’t want Norway to be chock-full of foreigners, especially the ones who refuse to assimilate, but that alone doesn’t make him irrational or racist.
The big surprise is that he gunned down and blew up his own people rather than targeting immigrant Somalis, etc.
Of course I have no sympathy for the acts of violence committed by the shooter. I do understand why the shooter would shoot “his own people”.
The West is under attack by Islamic fascists. The people in the West that refuse to recognize the threat for what it is, that down play the danger, etc. are a more dangerous enemy than the Islamists that espouse violence.
“Breivik and others who think like him are racists, pure and simple, and racism isn’t an ideology; it’s an irrational attitude that manifests itself as anything from unease to hatred, and one that isn’t exclusive to the left or the right.”
Where did this line of argument come from? It’s a complete non-sequitor in an otherwise excellent essay. Did he target victims of a particular race? Where is this “pure and simple” that you’re referring to? You must have something in mind to back up your accusation. Or did you just fall into the leftist mental trap of labeling everything that you disagree with as being of racist origin?
Surely you’re not referring to Breivik’s rejection of multiculturalism as being the equivalent of racism, or are you? Contemporary international affairs as well as thousands of years of history show, quite clearly, that multiculturalism is a cancer on societies. Look at how marvelously the multiculturalism of Yugoslavia worked, or Rwanda, or Sudan or India (pre-47) or present day Belgium or what used to be Czechoslovakia. There is nothing irrational about renouncing multiculturalism nor does being conversant with history mean that one’s conclusions are based on hatred of people’s due to their race.
You can certainly label Breivik as evil, or crazy, and have a solid argument to back you up but I’m just not seeing where you’re coming from with the charge of racism.
Poland agrees with you (sarcasm)! We had Jews multi-culturally infesting Poland for centuries and look at Poland now. White as snow!
Right-wing fundamentalist Christian. It’s a slam-dunk for the liberal-left;
Not just Leftists; there are many elements on the “right” who fancy themselves as being “above the fray” in their disdain and hatred for just about everyone, but who still think in terms established by the Left.
Case in point: Tyler Durden of “Zero Hedge”. And let’s not get into the commenters there
.
Clearly, he doesn’t want Norway to be chock-full of foreigners, especially the ones who refuse to assimilate, but that alone doesn’t make him irrational or racist.
Dislike of foreigners and being anti-immigration is still a form of collectivism, as is racism. They share the same (immoral) premise, and both are hostile to the American principle of individual moral sovereignty.
So yes, it definitely makes him irrational, if not technically a racist.
Dislike of foreigners and being anti-immigration is still a form of collectivism, as is racism. They share the same (immoral) premise, and both are hostile to the American principle of individual moral sovereignty.
So yes, it definitely makes him irrational, if not technically a racist.
Preference for family over non-family is also a form of collectivism (using your unique framing) so does wanting to share your individually earned resources with your family members also mean that you’re acting on an immoral premise and does it mean that you’re rejecting the “American principle of individual moral sovereignty?”
Secondly, what does a Norwegian’s view on his own society have to do with the “American principle of individual moral sovereignty?” He’s not an American so why are you judging him for violating what you think is a core characteristic of Americans? Isn’t it far better to judge him for violating the universal taboo of humanity – “Don’t kill innocent people.”
Lastly, after presenting the argument in your comment you really shouldn’t be throwing around the charge that those who reject multiculturalism are irrational. You’d be on far safer ground to charge that killing ~100 innocent people in order to get the world to pay heed to your philosophy is an irrational position.
“Dislike of foreigners and being anti-immigration is still a form of collectivism, as is racism. They share the same (immoral) premise, and both are hostile to the American principle of individual moral sovereignty.
“So yes, it definitely makes him irrational, if not technically a racist.”
These words of yours, Seerak, are not only judgemental of other cultures, but perhaps even technically racist!
Try immigrating to Japan – they won’t let you unless you’re racially Japanese! How dare you indict a country of 100 mil? China, Korea, Vietnam – all these uniracial cultures make it very difficult or impossible for racial outsiders to become insiders.
Can you join the Zulu tribe? No! The Bedouins? No! The Navajo? No!
Oh, the humanity! Will nobody stop this Seerak fellow from spewing his bile on these diverse cultures around the globe?
Collectivism is not equivalent to irrationality. In fact collectivism can be a good survival strategy in certain circumstances. Tribes and corporations come to mind.
I wonder how soon before those Aryan types will widen their malignant interest to Gypsies, Jews and homosexuals….
Maybe those who stir up frenzy of anti-Arab and anti-Muslim hate will contemplate on the law of unintended consequences.
There are two sides to the coin that you’re flipping.
The other side is that those who advocate the erasure of traditional cultures so that they can be replaced by a mishmash of multiculturalism “will contemplate on the law of unintended consequences.”
There are essentially two two broad categories which can explain the impetus for Breivik’s crime, he was inclined to be a mass murderer and any excuse would do or he was reacting to a set of circumstances. If the former condition is in play then your point is irrelevant (kind of like how all the analysis of Lockner’s motives became irrelevant when we discovered that he was mentally ill) and if the later then if the powers that be in Norway hadn’t imposed multiculturalism on people who were very happy and content with their own Norwegian culture, then there would have been no impetus for this horrific crime.
So the flip side of the coin deserves just as much consideration as the argument that you’re favoring.
“I wonder how soon before those Aryan types will widen their malignant interest to Gypsies, Jews and homosexuals…”
You mean, the way Muslims already do?
Most hate-crimes against gays and Jews in Europe are committed disproportionately by Muslims.
As a gay conservative, the gay-bashing Muslims (and their enablers on the so-called “tolerant Left”) worry me as much or more than some skinhead.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/07/rational-act.html
Covers the topic and one of his readers has the best take on Breitvig. No evidence he is a Christian at all.
The reply:
Billyquiz Post subject: Re: A rational actPosted: Sun Jul 24, 2011 12:36 am
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2006 9:28 am
Posts: 138
Location: Oslo I was wondering if you’d post about Anders Behring Breivik (AKA Andrew Berwick).
It seems like he was a neighbour of mine for a short period but I don’t recognise him (I was also a neighbour of Fred West in 1984 so maybe I have an effect on people!).
Basically, he was a counter-jihadist. A follower of Fjordman and Bat Ye’or and spent a lot of time on websites such as Gates of Vienna and Brussels Journal. He’s well educated, articulate and has always lived on the affluent west-side of Oslo.
Although he describes himself as both conservative and christian, nothing indicates to me that he is anything like the media describes him. Titles such as “Christian Fundamentalist” and “Right-Wing Extremist” have been bandied about liberally but I don’t think he’s anything more than a frustrated Nationalist.
He’s frustrated by a political system where the major parties have continually drifted towards the middle ground and left him without any voting option to change what he sees as the wrongs in the multi-cultural society.
These were not terror attacks either (although the media insists on calling them that). He has placed the blame for Norway’s progressive immigration policy at the feet of the Arbeiderpartiet (Norwegian Labour Party) and launched a one man war against them. The bomb in Oslo was outside the Prime ministers office and the island massacre took place shortly after former Prime Minister, Gro Harlem Brundtland, had addressed the annual summer gathering of the Arbeiderpartiet’s youth movement. They were targetted attacks against a political philosophy that he holds responsible for the ‘Islamification’ of Norway.
There is a right-wing populist party in Norway (Fremskritspartiet) that is immigration critical. They are the third largest party in Norway and frequently poll between 20-25% at general elections. This party, it’s politicians and it’s voters are consistently decribed as being “stupid, ignorant, drunken racists” on a daily basis. Anytime there is any kind of debate theses insults are thrown around wildly to close down the discussion.
This is my translation of what Breivik had to say about these tactics (text in square brackets is added by me for extra clarity):
You state that all Norwegians that don’t accept Gro Harlem Brundtland’s definition of what it is to be a Norwegian citizen are racists:
[Brundtland says that] “Everyone that at any time holds a Norwegian passport are full valued Norwegians”…..Which means that even the Somalian (with Norwegian passport) that chews khat all day long, beats his wife and sends half of his social security money to Al-Shabaab should be seen as a full valued Norwegian.
If anyone in this country DARES to look at this Somalian as anything other than a full valued Norwegian, they’re called racists and must be publicly branded. And you say that all that disagree with your extreme cultural-marxist world view – the utopian, world citizen definition are racists?
If that is the case then I think that you have stamped 95% of the world’s population as exactly that but you don’t really care, do you?
You are simply concerned with paralysing all debate in society, to cripple all that are not of the same opinion as you, to exercise social control along similar lines to the Conservative muslims in Grønland [an area of central Oslo with high immigrant population where homosexuals have been attacked and women have been openly criticised for wearing inappropriate clothing].
I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work any more. Many are becoming increasingly immune against your baiting techniques because of the massive increase in your rhetoric.
I think that the majority of Norwegians require full cultural assimilation (European culture) in order to classify someone as being a full valued Norwegian.
I think that there are hundreds of thousands of people in Norway that share many of Breivik’s views regarding the multi-cultural experiment but, fortunately, I doubt if any of them are radicalised to such an extent that they want to commit violence to make their views known. However, this could open the gates for copy-cat attacks, especially as it already appears that the politicians have learnt nothing from friday’s actions, using the guys short membership of the Fremskritspartiet as a new way to stigmatise the party regardless of the fact that he left of his own accord because they weren’t radical enough.
The worst thing (apart from the actual killings of course) is that he has shot his own cause in the foot in a very big way. This has probably guaranteed an Arbeiderpartiet led government for at least the next decade. Pillock!
PS. Here is a link to all of Breivik’s comments at document.no translated (rather poorly) via Google:
http://translate.google.com/translate?h … breivik%2F
People are crowing over this as a blow against anti-multiculturalism, but the opposite is true, at least as it pertains to Europe.
This tragedy is just a moment in time. When the history of legacy-Europe’s struggle with its Muslim replacement population is written, it will be full of such moments. This is the Continent, after all, that ethnically cleansed each other mercilessly for a thousand years before gleefully coming together to cart the Jews to the ovens, then blamed their Nazi occupiers. They were never going to fade away without bloodshed.
It’s the lack of official support for the various heritages, cultures, and laws of Europe, not an overabundance of it, that will spawn more “far-right” violence. It is not strawmen who “stir up” anti-Muslim hate, as anonymous suggests above, but actual Muslims. You think Anders Breivik reads American newspaper columnists?
“You think Anders Breivik reads American newspaper columnists?”
Yes! He specifically called for a European Tea Party, and cited several American writers/commentators/pundits in his manifesto. I won’t claim that American conservatism “drove him” to terrorism, but he undeniably felt an affinity with it.
Yeah, like the republicans don’t stoop down to the same bs games. Just this morning I saw a post on Drudge about how another Democrat was embroiled in a sex scandal, inferring all dems are perverts. Knock this shit off already about how the GOP are above it all. Both parties are a heaping pile of shit.
Yeah, like the republicans don’t stoop down to the same bs games.
Maybe they’d like to, but the left has been firmly ion control of the US media since the early 1970s when Watergate and the whole counter-culture movement peaked out. So, the Republicans don’t really have a shot at getting their message out even if they wanted to stoop to the same level.
Anyway, I think it’d be a mistake for leftists and marxists to try to make hay out of this tragedy. That didn’t work out well when US democrats tried it with McVeigh.
** Just this morning I saw a post on Drudge about how another Democrat was embroiled in a sex scandal, inferring all dems are perverts.**
Drudge offered no such inference. That is your own construction. The only way I can see to interpret your remark is that you don’t want factual news that reflects badly on dems to be printed. Is Dem X involved in a sex scandal? No fair reporting it. If you do, you’re stooping low. However, blaming Sarah Palin for the Arizona shooting is perfectly OK.
+1 Well said sir
It took the police 90 minutes to get to the island, from the time they got a call that someone was killing all the youths at Utoya. Their story? They had to “secure” the place, first.
Yes, Oslo was a soft target. So, they’ve got a lot to be surprised about. Given that Oslo hosted Arafat for a Nobel prize … what it is about terror they did not know? Terrorists love soft targets! It has no logic! It’s a “publicity stunt.” And, at some point the police will have to “explain” how they gave a killer 90 minutes. Couldn’t you have come up with a better plan in a shorter time?
In time the usual suspects will appear. And, they won’t be Americans. Or have anything to do with Christianity. Those are just media bullet points to keep you from noticing how ill prepared Oslo was for this havoc.
“Can the Left Resist the Temptation to Exploit the Norway Attacks?”
Silly question. You may as well ask, “Can the Left open their mouths about any topic without sounding like sanctimonious twits?”
Of course they will exploit this. Every Democrat in the nation is dusting off his pet gun control scheme and scheduling a press conference. They are as predictable as the sunrise.
The only question is, how will they blame this on Sarah Palin.
In the event the Left does attempt to co-opt this event for political benefit, I would expect them to be accountable for answering the same question asked of the “rise” of terrorism and the application of their own theory as to its origins.
To remind, the Left has subscribed to an explanation which blames terrorism on its target. The West, as the model goes, has incited and essentially demanded violence be brought against it, through its exploitation, exclusion, subjugation, appropriation and insensitive indoctrination of its will over the other who rejects this representation. In the case of a radical xenophobic racist, originating historically out of progressive eugenics and socialist fascist ideologies on race, segmentation, and the authorization of the use of force to appropriate political messaging (ala Bill Ayers, Weather Underground), it would appear that the West has a lot of questions for itself.
What did Norway do to create conditions hostile for this individual and/or their associates (if more than one are involved, as one would have to suspect)? What political climate did the neoliberals in power create that is to blame for conditions where such persons didn’t feel a capacity for expression “within the system” and had to go to these means? What is the neoliberal European experiment doing that causes so many to radicalize, object to it and go extreme? Are American neoliberals equally to blame for this event? And to what degree has the inciting of violence communicated and authorized by the Obama administration, predominantly in its expressions and associations of its czars on the will-to-violence as a right for political expression (e.g. Van Jones, Eric Holder’s DoJ and its determination that minority-upon-majority intimidation and violence are not prosecutable crimes) accountable for this event in Norway? Finally, what is it about progressive ideology, unlike some of its Marxist family members, that centers so aggressively around reactionary and abnormal race constructions? Is this a consequence of the rejection of Capital’s reifying “convert everything to financial value” construction, that perhaps uses identity as an alternative reifying mechanism?
To some on the right, these questions would appear absurd. The killer is guilty and must be held to account for their crimes. The Norway citizens are responsible for creating a situation where there are no event-limiting controls, and a singularity becomes a huge incident very quickly because regular citizens have no capacity to defend against weapons declared illegal throughout the country. The police are guilty of a dismal reaction, but again, were not the primary architects of a system incapable of rapid autonomous, citizen-initiated response and defense. Norwegians are dismantled and impotent, and this event made a mockery of their foolishness and naivety.
But in the event the Left attempts to seize this as an opportunity to convert peoples deaths into political opportunity as they usually do, the questions above are absolutely appropriate for them to answer.
You have to go no further than http://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2011/07/norwegian-killer-linked-to-tea-party-and-edl/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter#comment-316091 to find the left exploiting the tragedy at the expense of the Tea Party.
You might as well ask if the right-ring will use this as an excuse to ultimately blame the killings on the left, regardless of the motivations of the gunman.
I think that question is answered sufficiently in the comments posted here.
It’s puzzling to see people debating this guy’s “rationality” when he’s obviously bonkers. As far as I can tell, his “thinking” went like this: “I don’t like foreigners in Norway. But the Labor Party does. So I’m going to blow up Labor Party offices and kill 90 of their children.”
Excuse me, but he’s a monster. It’s even creepier that he’s a rather good-looking dude — one more indication that good looks tell you nothing. For all we know, he could be the new Jack The Ripper — well, no, we already know he’s much worse than that. His idea of a meaningful act is to open fire on a group of unarmed, helpless children.
Let’s at least take a couple of days to mourn his victims and pray for them. The politics can wait.
While I wholeheartedly agree with you…the left isnt going to sit on their hands and wait…the wheels are already turning and they are rubbing their hands in anticipation. Take that to the bank.
“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.”
First sentence, fifth paragraph, incorrect use of their, should be there.
The common denominator of terrorism is still Islamist. Breivik and McVeigh represent the numerator of a vanishingly small fraction.
On the assumption that the media treats news reports with equal status will we now see them clamouring over the cause?
Following 9/11, after which Bill Clinton leapt to the public stage blaming the Crusades (of all things) for Bin Laden’s psychopathic attack, there have been many copycat atrocities followed by reams of punditry on ‘why did they do it?’
The handwringing self loathers then pursue every possible angle, no matter how obscure on a theme of Western provocation, insulting Islam, poverty, global inequality, anything, in fact to minimise and excuse.
So, following that broad brush will we now read blog after blog of similar op-ed’s on a theme of Islamic cause and effect?
Of the way Europe is being slowly pummelled into submission by alien interlopers who have not the slightest interest in fitting in, integrating or joining the societies of the countries they so love to move to?
Of the way our supine politicians are caving in to the extent, for instance that halal meat and chicken is the silent default in our supermarkets. That Christian celebration is being airbrushed into obscurity and that Shariah Law is entering our legal systems with no public mandate whatsoever?
We all know the answer. They’ve relied on our restraint, egged on by a hectoring attitude of extreme one way political correctness and so far it would seem that that combination of our passivity and their aggressive posturing has worked.
It had to break! It was approaching meltdown as simmering anger mainly confined to the blogosphere has burst it’s chains of civilisation and thus we are witnessing the unravelling of the best laid plans of our political establishments.
This has been a long time coming and only the most wishfully thinking, head in sand crazy optimist would have predicted otherwise.
There are two ways, entirely separate in purpose and emotion of looking at this catastrophe.
One is as a phenomena which requires detachment, cool heads and inscrutible impartiality.
The other is utmost, heart-wringing sympathy for the poor souls who are totally innocent victims of a political class whose hubris failed to see this coming.
Those pictures will arouse our humanistic impulses and create the realisation of the personal level in which lives are snuffed and the bereaved are now setting out on a long, dark journey of unrelenting pain and self questioning. They are the reality of what it all boils down to.
Meanwhile our leaders really do have to rise above the emotional, listen to the people (for once) and examine their own gadfly follies of immigration policy.
Failure to address this will only result in more carnage, bloodshed and eventually riots and major civil unrest.
Plenty have seen this coming. Now what?
This is similar to the Left’s kneejerk comback to Muslim terrosim of, “ya, but what about those Christian abortion clinic bombers.” The fact that there were never more than 10 deaths and nothing in the last 18 years never seems to stop the excuses for those who murder more people every day. When your completely invested in the destruction of your own culture any old excuse will do.
Ah, the dogs which haven’t barked.
We get murder and mayhem day in and day out from the religion of peace, yet 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’, the incident shouldn’t be used to tar an entire religious or political group, etc., etc.
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, authorities involved ditched their usual ‘wait-until-more-is-learned’ chin-stroking.
Notice too the absence of all the usual apologists for terrorism as a reaction or blowback to some real or perceived grievance. Violence is always explained, rationalized or excused outright when conducted by protected groups in support of ‘bien pensant’.
I agree, this will be used, like the various blasphemy tials in Europe, to extinguish any criticism of the elite’s misguided re-shaping their societies.
But aren’t you exploiting the Norway attacks by seizing the opportunity to portray the Left as type of people who would exploit the Norway attacks?
The violence in ‘peace prize country’ – and the critical question – “is Norway ready for the real world” ?
Do the politicians or anybody in power – that might have a modicum of intelligence – exercise studies or invest in research programs that could tell them of the effect of Norway’s liberal – open door immigration standards – on the average garden variety Norwegian.
It obviously didn’t set well with Breivik – and how many Breiviks are out there?
And the expression ‘timing is everything’ takes on a whole new meaning when it comes to the power of authorities in Oslo. The nut case Breivik was shooting and killing people for over an hour in and island park setting – in an area that was expecting a visit the next day from the head of the country !
No police on the island ?
No security arrangements on the part of the event organizers ?
No body in charge keeps a gun in their office – a gun in a drawer – how about a picnic basket?
Some say it took police time to acquire weapons and surround the island before they would attempt to secure the unknown source of the shooting!
Even the cop on the street has to get a with drawl slip to check out a weapon?
“Hey Sven….. There’s a shooting down town – give me a sign out sheet for a shotgun. In triplicate – you’ve got to be kidding!”
Sojourners – stay alert – pay your taxes and apply for a concealed carry permit – the next time you go on a picnic you could save lives!
The correct response for the civilized world is NOT to forget about the Islamic terrorism; it IS to add the Christian terrorism to the list.
Of course, we the enlightened citizens of the US now have another reason to give the fundamentalist Christian-supported Republican Party a stunning defeat in the 2011 elections — and we will.
Bigot. Doesn’t really need further elucidation, does it?
I meant the 2012 elections. Sorry for the typo mistake.
Malek –
I hope you don’t live in Dearborn. And as far as a class credit for combining or adding Christians to your list of terrorist – you get a failing mark.
Adding any Christian group to your list of ‘Muslim Masters of Mayhem’ …the Islamic terrorists of the world would only cloud the issue.
In any given day – to produce realistic figures that could offer comparative numbers to the daily Islamic kill count – this Norwegian nut case would have to multiply his numbers by twenty times – and while I key this short note – Koran carrying killers will have added 50 more cases of ‘death by Islam’ to their world wide record book.
Also pray that the Communist oriented Progressives don’t get back into the White House Malek – that image only foretells of more list making!
This is a funny post. It’s almost like you’re pretending that the right extremists like yourself wouldn’t (and indeed hasn’t already before) if this had a Islamic origin.
Hypocrite.
Is anyone keeping in mind that this is political indocrination camp? The message is differant but it is organized along the same lines as the Hitler Youth Camps. The target is Chistians and tradaditional opposition to the Labor Party.
They had almost no boats, no guns or aparently bows and arrows. What do you think this cammp was for? This was the camp where they train the future labor leaders that it is good politics to give Barack Obama the Nobel Peace prize just for being the most extreme leftwing President in American history and they wanted to raise his status.
If you are an American Private sector employer then YOU have been attacked from this camp. (Ever hear of the international Labor movement?)
those that want to find a “christian” connection will and i am sure that they will be liberal types who need the change of heart that only jesus can give them.i am also sure that the man who mudered all of those people was not a christian.i will be waiting for replies from all of the tolerant,non racist,non bigoted non hating liberals out there.
I am sure that the left will be just as good at resisting the temptation this time as you have been in the past when you have been given the temptation to exploiting Islamist terrorism to spread your ideas.
Is there yet any reason to be confident that the man is a Christian and/or Conservative?
I ask, because at first I assumed the Facebook page clinched it.
Then I found out that the Facebook page was likely planted by someone else after-the-fact; that his original page was in Norwegian, and was yanked down after the attack, only to be replaced a few hours later (when the man himself was in custody) by a nearly-identical Facebook page, this time in English, with the “Christian” and “Conservative” identifiers added in.
Hardly what I’d call a reliable source.
So, apart from the suspicious Facebook page, do we have any OTHER reasons to suspect this fellow is a devout Lutheran and a Tea Partier?
(I’ll go out on a limb and say he isn’t a devout Quaker.)
“It’s all relative.”
I simply couldn’t leave your website before suggesting that I actually loved the standard information a person supply to your visitors? Is gonna be back regularly to check out new posts
Great paintings! That is the type of info that are supposed to be shared around the net. Disgrace on Google for now not positioning this post upper! Come on over and consult with my web site . Thank you =)
It is perfect time to make a few plans for the long run and it’s time to be happy. I have read this post and if I may I wish to suggest you some interesting things or suggestions. Perhaps you could write subsequent articles regarding this article. I wish to learn even more issues approximately it!