Norwegian Tragedy And Absence Of Debate
From the desk of Lucien Oulahbib on Sun, 2011-07-24 12:55
Bitter criticism of Islam, a "grass-roots" profile, islamophobia: that's what "experts" immediately point to in the wake of the disaster created by a so-called "Christian extremist" (or, in contradiction, a freemason). Compared with the Oslo bombing and the Utøya killings, a small anti-christian killing in Egypt or elsewhere is explained simply as an act of an unbalanced lunatic, or as the effect of social tension caused by the "American-Zionist" masters of the universe. That is the iniquitous model of the bankable explanation presented to us.
Without reducing the inexcusable aspect of his acts, let's focus on the circumstances in which Anders Behring Breivik planned his crime. Was he a "lone wolf", like the Oklahoma City bomber or the failed assassin of Chirac? Is he a white knight trying to stop the supposed implosion of a derailed world by shooting at the heart of the future elite? Let's follow this hypothesis for a while, and hence reject that he was pathologically affected. His rage, fed by video games, may also have been caused by the lack of real debate on the radical changes caused by a multiculturalism.
If there were a real counter-power, symbolic or spiritual, enabling a critical debate on the role of Islam in the world without being accused as a racist, maybe this inexcusable and vile act would have taken another form? Nobody knows. But please, do not put all the blame on islamo-criticism gone wrong. This criticism is either absent in the mainstream, or demonized. The thousands and thousands of people murdered by (radical) Islam should weigh heavier than these 92 deaths.
So, let us remain rational and ask ourselves why such extreme acts are perpetrated. Don't put the blame solely on populism and its derivatives. Lacking real debate, society is forced, even raped, to the point of disappearing, dissolving the people and replacing it with another one - and whoever refuses is treated as a racist. If this continues, we should not be surprised to see other tragedies occur.
The consequence of compromises
Submitted by AC_Milan on Wed, 2011-07-27 04:35.
My deepest condolence to all desease family!
Virtually all politicians are short terms compromisers, knowingly retarded! Few (virtually none) are willing to take the unpolular steps to make things right. Yes, the academia is another major culprit.
Multiculturalism is a sweet made-belief dream that will never come true in the presence of Islam. Forced assimilation is Isalamization in action, the present day reality.
This is a typical result of the decades of negligence. Yes, we will see many more varied forms of this. Tragic! The erosion of European cultural identities and value system are their own doing. Seemingly no possibility of turning back. Tragi indeed! :(
Submitted by AC_Milan on Wed, 2011-07-27 04:46.
My heart goes with the 80 old souls.
Tragic indeed for one man to take so many away. In Islam, this is possible and can be easily justified. In the self-inflicted european democratic system, this is a tragedy. Choose your government right. A revoke is necessary, why? Take a deep look at your immediate family, your enlarged family, your immediate neighborhood, your enlarged neighborhood, friends, and many friends that you have lost touch. What had happen all these years? What had change? What do you valu most, go for it. Forget about the complex reasoning, excuses and procratination. Do the right things, do it now like the man that had kill your love ones. Change that failed government.
the "justice" system
Submitted by Souviens on Wed, 2013-12-04 21:30.
in Norway will never have this savage executed. Just like Jared Loughner was unfortunately kept alive. Not that anything can compensate for the lives that were lost and the bereavement of their families, yet the other savage was at least locked up for life.
the need for criticism without violence
Submitted by Souviens on Wed, 2013-12-04 21:58.
His rage, fed by video games, may also have been caused by the lack of real debate on the radical changes caused by a multiculturalism.
If there were a real counter-power, symbolic or spiritual, enabling a critical debate on the role of Islam in the world without being accused as a racist, maybe this inexcusable and vile act would have taken another form? Nobody knows. But please, do not put all the blame on islamo-criticism gone wrong. This criticism is either absent in the mainstream, or demonized.
Indeed. A constructive criticism of islam will ideally acheive both forever getting rid of islamist violence and preventing further atrocities similar to those committed by Breivik.
Submitted by Souviens on Wed, 2013-12-04 21:44.
I do not understand why Breivik is labelled as a Christian. Christianity is not violent just because a massacrer was motivated by an intentionally twisted interpretation of it.
Submitted by Capodistrias on Mon, 2011-07-25 15:23.
There are many sources for this man's launching of a one man civil war. Could we blame poor Kappert for Hamas terrorist acts when Kappert 'attacks' Israel's actions in the ME?
The individual is clearly out of his mind, as an increasingly large segment of our world is.
If we are to 'credit' one source as being in part responsible for his decent into madness, then should we also credit the major source he credits for his actions?
Moderate introspection is fine but limited introspection that has an assumption of culpability is disingenuous.
Submitted by vanderheyden peter on Mon, 2011-07-25 15:43.
The BJ could state it as follows:
While the BJ denies any responsibility regarding the Norwegian tragedy, it still wishes to state clearly and without reservation that it believes only in peaceful means to advocate it’s causes and that it denounces the use of violence against any persons because of their race, religion or political views.
Submitted by vanderheyden peter on Mon, 2011-07-25 13:22.
Might I suggest some moderate form of introspection about this tragedy? The man mentions the BJ several times as a source in his manifest. Shouldn’t the BJ investigate if by any way it contributed to this catastrophe, and if so, try to find a way to avoid this in the future? Can I suggest some form of moderation or explicit warnings that condemns clearly all violence in the aim of reaching the “ideals” the BJ stands for.
A chocked citizen of Europe.
@ traveller, and also peter vanderheyden
Submitted by mpresley on Mon, 2011-07-25 14:18.
There are two issues I want to discuss, and a brief third at the end.
First, acts of individual citizens, and second, actions of the collective, or government. It is easy, but not very helpful to conflate the two. In spite of certain attempts to view the two entities as equivalent (one of the earliest being the investigation of virtue, or justice in Plato's Republic) the arguments for doing so were never convincing, and never made much of an impression within serious political philosophy.
Some have lately argued that Breivik's actions are not unusual, and really no different than a king who takes the steps of eliminating his political enemies, and their associates or family members. But this analogy is flawed. The individual, as an integral part of the polity, renounces his right to conduct autonomous policy, domestic or otherwise. If this were not so, civil society could not exist. And it is true whether we suppose that civil order (the key word is order) is an “artificial” construct (ex: the covenant of Hobbes), or a more natural order (re: Aristotle).
Breivik essentially declared war on civil society. But one-man revolutions are impossible, both logically and empirically. It is so whether or not one recognizes that anti-civilizational forces kill more than Breivik ever did, and that they continue to do so. From a practical standpoint, if revolution is to occur it must be coordinated, and have some general support (or at least happen in an environment of general apathy, in which case a vanguard or elite may possibly succeed).
Lastly, the NATO action is an engagement of states against another sovereign state. While comprised of individuals, it is not of individuals. Whether the action is “insane” depends upon the motives of the states involved, and I've not been able to clearly understand the motivation, one way or the other.
As for TBJ being complicit in the killers actions? It is like saying that Hitler was a vegetarian, therefore we must wonder what is it about vegetables that contributed to events surrounding the invasion of Poland? In any case, no one at this venue has ever suggested, even covertly, that armed revolution or individual criminal behavior are ever warranted.
Submitted by vanderheyden peter on Mon, 2011-07-25 14:46.
Hitler didn’t start killing Jews and invading Poland because they eat flesh. He did it because he was convinced of the superiority of the German race, in accordance with the eugenic views advocated by some. I don’t have to mention the views about Eurabia and leftist politicians in TBJ. They are generally known. They are explicitly mentioned by Breivik as a primary reason for his actions.
Traveller even seems to be able to come up with some “possible” reasons for his actions like, and I quote, “making war on the upcoming generation of political liberals.” Aren’t those “political liberals” the main target of TBJ? Objecting and acting peacefully against evolutions in society one doesn’t agree with is a democratic right. Stating, explicitly that violence to achieve this goals is against the views of TBJ becomes in the light of what happened a democratic obligation.
Who owes whom an apology?
Submitted by mpresley on Mon, 2011-07-25 17:09.
One should never apologize, or admit guilt/culpability unless one is indeed guilty of something. The logical conclusion of what you are asking would be for anyone, at any time, to have to distance themselves in speech from the acts of another, everytime the other did something one did not agree with. To do so would be to accept tacit blame.
And yes, to associate TBJ with the actions of the killer is really as absurd as blaming vegetables for the invasion of Poland. Yet there is something more sinister going on: the widespread association of free political thought with violence. Andrew Brown, in today's UK Guardian writes:
"Fjordman, who may be several people writing under a pseudonym, is at least one Norwegian Islamophobe who has for years been predicting civil war between Muslims and their neighbours. He is sufficiently paranoid that he refused to meet Breivik, according to these papers, but their ideas overlap so much that Fjordman was briefly and wrongly suspected of being the gunman. He has also written for the Brussels Journal, a fanatically anti-EU blog...
"Obviously these people cannot be held responsible for the use to which their ideas were put. No matter how deranged a killer's ideas..."
Brown, in a very sleazy manner, libels TBJ writers associating them indirectly to the killers actions. He also hints that the ideas in TBJ are, if not themselves "deranged," easily and reasonably interpreted by anyone to be so. This is because being "anti-EU" is a "fanatics" position. The idea is to shut down free political debate, of course.
Now, who should apologize? I think Brown owes TBJ and its writers one.
@ the previous commenters
Submitted by traveller on Mon, 2011-07-25 17:32.
I thought it was abundantly clear from my comment that I consider that murderous psychopat as a nutcase.
But once you have a nutcase he will look for any excuse to execute his craziness, be it TBJ, Fjordman, the Pope or Mohamed.
That is not what upsets me, but I am really furious to see so-called intelligent politicians giving orders to kill civilian innocent populations, executed by normal level headed pilots, without the world or the pilots being upset about it.
So far they flew 16.000 sorties, 7.000 of them bombing sorties.
I was a total of 3 months under those bombs and not one, I repeat not one bombing was on military targets. The only half-way military target was a Navy Shipyard with 2 old empty missile training trucks, no missiles of course, right next to the appartments of the maintenance yard.
6 Tomahawks were launched on it and those 6 Tomahawks destroyed a complete paint warehouse with thousands of liters of paints and solvents in it. It burned for 2 days of course.
So far there are 1100 civilians killed in the Tripoli area alone and 8.000 wounded and not one single media, apart from fringe blogs like mine, have objected to it.
That lunatic has killed 92 people and the whole world is, duly so, in shock, but nobody is asking why those 1100 people were killed by "sane" people???
Am I the one who is crazy here?
Submitted by mpresley on Mon, 2011-07-25 17:43.
I don't think anyone considers you to be crazy, although your question was rhetorical. It's just that we are dealing with two different issues. As far as the whole world being shocked?, I doubt this is the case. It is a big story in Europe, understandably. In the US, for instance, the current budget talks are more interesting to more people. In Asia, it is an even smaller story, outclassed by Wendy Deng, Tiger Wife.
Submitted by traveller on Mon, 2011-07-25 18:47.
Thank you, you reassure me.-)))
@ Lucien Oulahbib & mpresley
Submitted by traveller on Sun, 2011-07-24 19:22.
I see it differently.
When our "civilized political leaders" are allowed for the sake of "democracy" and "saving civilians" to bomb the hell out of an innocent civilian Arab population and killing them by the hundreds, we shouldn't be too surprised that unhinged nutcases follow that "shining example".
As a matter of fact it was even a Norwegian pilot who bombed and killed the son and grandchildren of Gaddafi, so what does this nutcase think, it's allowed!!!
Submitted by mpresley on Sun, 2011-07-24 21:33.
Strangely, I was not too surprised. You get to the point in life that nothing is very surprising. I did not know of Norway's role in the Libyan attack.
This man's lone actions (if indeed he did them alone) are morally inexcusable. But I can somehow imagine possible reasons, twisted though they are, that he acted the way he did. Perhaps he was making war on the upcoming generation of political liberals. Perhaps he was simply a narcissist looking for attention. Maybe it was a combination of both, or maybe there were other reasons.
It is also very strange that while I can come up with some reasons why he killed so many, I cannot come up with any understandable reasons why NATO moved on Libya.
Submitted by traveller on Sun, 2011-07-24 23:52.
The NATO action against Libya is criminally insane and in my opinion more so than the insane actions of a crazy individual.
I don't even dare to repeat the reasons why Sarkozy hates Gaddafi so much, he should be locked up.
The big and the small picture
Submitted by mpresley on Sun, 2011-07-24 14:23.
This is very odd and unusual. When thinking mass terror, Scandinavians are not first on the list of usual suspects. I understand that the victims were participating in a left-political function, so one presumes that the killer's ostensible right-political intention was to wage war against the civil union. Now, the best possible outcome would be swift interrogation (to make sure he acted alone), and then immediate, public execution. I understand Norway does not sanction capital punishment, so one presumes they will henceforth have a ward of the state on their hands, at least for the next long while.
Terror bombings are not a typical Western form of anti-civil engagement. The Oklahoma act can be mentioned, but in spite of conspiracy mongers, no one has been able to prove a greater connection. The Zionist King David Hotel bombing was different, in that its intended target was a military installation, and some warning to evacuate was said to have been given. In any case, it was an organized military-style operation, and not done on Western soil, but perpetrated by and against Westerners.
Other Western sourced attacks can be cited, perhaps the most notable being the German Red Army Faction ( née Baader-Meinhof Gang), which was an organized Communist inspired group. Likewise, the SDS inspired Weather Underground formally declared war against the United States government, and in the course of their bombing were able to take out several of their own members. Mr Obama's friend, Bill Ayers, claimed that in spite of their intention to make war, they really didn't want to kill innocents. They showed the "nicer side" of terror.
Non Western bombings are usually Islamic related, hence the immediate reaction was to suspect Muslims.
Right now, the loose collection of white nationalists, immigration restrictionists, and exclusionary ethnocentrists are thinking that their cause has just been set back, while the open border multi-cults and other liberal totalitarians will use this opportunity in new and creative ways. Meanwhile, low-level anti-civilizational killing perpetuated by the usual suspects continues, but it does not rise to much of a level in our consciousness because by now we are quite immune to the small stuff. Very sad for those of us that just want to live the civilized lifestyle. Expect no good news soon.