I know that I'm going to anger some of you with the following, but here goes....
We who are anti-shari'a are going to end up owning this murderer's carnage.
We who support the Second Amendment will also end up owning the murderer's carnage.
IT WON'T MATTER THAT HE'S AS FAR FROM US IDEOLOGICALLY AS THE OPPOSITE END OF THE UNIVERSE.
We live in the world of perceptions -- not the world of realities.
This fellow's computer will be scrutinized to the nth degree.
Every site he ever visited will be investigated.
Every link on every site he ever visited will also be investigated.
As he expressed support of Geert Wilders, any and all of us who have uttered support of Wilders will also be investigated.
Get ready for the fallout. It's coming. That fallout will probably also include restricting what is said on the Internet.
Actually, for some time, I've been concerned that such an event would occur and tar us all.
Had this carnage occurred here in the United States, the fallout would suffocate us in short order.
After all, 84 children were slaughtered. That carnage shouldn't be ignored. The motivation behind that carnage shouldn't be ignored.
Midnight Rider adds:
This is going to cut far deeper than AoW states although I know she believes what I am going to say.
It is not just the counter-jihad that is going to own this in the eyes of the MSM and others.
Any one on the right will. This monster attacked a Socialist kids camp.
So if you are Tea Party they will be suspicious of you.
If you fly a Gadsden Flag they will be suspicious of you.
If you own a gun, belong to a gun club, have a license to carry, they will be suspicious of you.
If you criticize socialist policies and leanings they will be suspicious of you.
We will all be labeled right wing extremists. Militia.
Especially in light of the newest DHS see something say something video. The Missouri report of a years or so ago.
No doubt this will reinvigorate the U.N. Small Arms Treaty debate as well.
They are going to point their fingers at Oslo and Utoya and Tuscon and say "See! This is what happens when you say socialism is bad. This is what your rhetoric hath wrought."
People like Tom Harkin are already calling us a cult fringe before this. They will only use this to their advantage. While crying their crocodile tears about the poor souls lost to a madman.
Which is the real tragedy.
We may have jumped the shark in attributing this to Islam (guilty!) but at the same time it was an Islamic group who initially took credit for it.
Will that be reported? Will they ask why anyone of that certain religion would WANT to own this? Be held responsible for this?
For those of us trying to do the right thing, to open people's eyes to the perils before us, from Islam and from a country slipping away from our grasp, from a government run amuck and totally disconnected from the people they represent our job just got exponentially harder.
Because of a madman who none of us would want posting on our sites, if we knew his true mind. A madman half a world away. A madman whose views no doubt mirrored those of groups WE HERE HAVE CONDEMNED.
But the truth is the responsibilty for this belongs to one person and one person alone.
But that won't matter to the MSM and the left.
The truth never does unless it fits their agenda.
25 comments:
Perception is, indeed, reality. I'm not angered at all by what you write here. What you say could end up coming true.
Remember Tuscon, radical leftist nutjob kills a bunch of people & they blamed Sarah palin & the TEA Party. That fat lunatic at little green footballs and his trolls are already blaming the entire thing in Norway on Pamela Geller at Atlas Shrugs and even claimed that the writer known as fjordman was the shooter (he wasn't).
I still don't think the killer in Norway acted alone. Jihadis celebrated the slaughter all over the internet, how many conservatives did? (none that I'm aware of)
AoW, I would be surprised but not entirely shocked.
The Geert Wilders reference is especially aggravating. IF I were he I'd be out front shouting and screaming this AM in righteous indignation to be mentioned by a mass murdering freak
Fiancial Times:
Police now say.."connected with a neo-Nazi environment here at home "
NY DAILY NEWS - "interested in politics, violent video games and the T.V. show "Dexter."
DEXTER?
So, an anti-islamist, white nationalist, anti immigration, military experienced, connected with neo nazi violent video game nut who likes politics and serial murderer tv shows...
I can't wait to see this settle down and find the actual truth in this.
If the above is right, we should all be wondering the same things we were wondering after Columbine, and West Va.
How can we responsibly screen for such personalities?
"IT WON'T MATTER THAT HE'S AS FAR FROM US IDEOLOGICALLY AS THE OPPOSITE END OF THE UNIVERSE."
Actually his ideology seems to be very close to ours, or at least to the average IBA blogger (my ideology is somewhat more "extreme"). No offence, just sayin'. Check out this collection of Anders Breivik's comments at the Norwegian website document.no.
I would describe Breivik ideologically, based on his comments, as a pro-Israel, pro-Europe, pro-Christian, anti-racist, anti-Islamist, culturist neocon. Does anyone find his any of his comments to be particulary objectionable?
And speaking of the fat lunatic at LGF, Breivik actually uses LGF as a source in one of his comments about demographics:
Bethlehem
Source 1
1948 85% Christians[1]
2006 12% Christians[1]
Source 2
1948 - 60% Christians[2]
1983 - 20% Christians[2]
Source:
1. http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=23696_Christmas_Disappears_from_Bethlehem&only
2. http://www.danielpipes.org/1050/disappearing-christians-in-the-middle-east
Actually I find that analysis factually incorrect.
I disgaree with Fjordman on some BASIC issues that stand to discern 'cultural' defense from racism, I beleive GoV has been tolerant of both fascism and racism in order to foster counter jihad, etc.
Thus this guy stand DISTANT from my ideas and far MORE like those who are pro Israel specifically because they actually believe what the Palestinians do... it is a MODEL for apartheid success, which is to say precisely how I view Vlamms and their ilk, who I and others here ABHOR
Norway was ultra left wing liberal, what this moron has done is turn it more left, more pro-muslim anti- Israeli. He has done more for the soft jihad than 1000 suicide bombers. In one masterstroke he has negated everything Wilder's achieved from now on he is the yardstick by which anti Islam comment will be measured.
Ciccio,
In one masterstroke he has negated everything Wilder's achieved from now on he is the yardstick by which anti Islam comment will be measured.
Not everything negated, but a lot, IMO.
Jeppo,
Actually his ideology seems to be very close to ours, or at least to the average IBA blogger...
Not when it comes to ethnic supremacy.
We "core" bloggers here have discussed this subject multiple times. See THIS that I posted here in 2007 and THIS at my own site.
If this guy was as they say, a neonazi, a right wing extremist etc than it is not just the counter jhad that need worry. Everyone who espouses Tea Party type views, who condemns Obama for being a Socialist will be targeted. ESPECIALLY on the heals of the new DHS video I posted 2 days ago.
Midnight Rider,
Everyone who espouses Tea Party type views, who condemns Obama for being a Socialist will be targeted. ESPECIALLY on the heals of the new DHS video I posted 2 days ago.
Agreed.
I just didn't cover that in my post.
Feel free to "interrupt" my post and add your thoughts in the body of the post.
Hi AOW.
I completely agree with what you say, ours is a way of informing people of what go's on around us ,pointing out the 'weakness' of our politics.But somehow we will be tied to this madman his deeds ,unlike tying Islam to Islamic extremists this 'nutcase' will be tied to every right wing leaning site.To them the right is the treath to their liberal , islamic world.
AoW -- and so I have.
MR,
Good!
I deliberately focused on just one of the deep cuts.
The reports on NBC News focused on the evil of possessing a firearm.
Most of us prize individualism and personal responsibility, the inter-dependence of free people acting in conjunction with others for our private happiness that extends circumstantially to others. We play by fair rules, and we win or lose and carry on without resort to murder and mayhem. We don't engage in vendettas, and we don't slaughter the vanquished. We pursue our own lights and live and die individually. We accept that.
The Left, on the other hand, lives collectively, as part of a continuous group of insiders in struggle against outsiders. The individual, to the collectivist, is a priori an outsider. The dissenter, the rebel, the private person, he is one who rejects consensus in favour of his own thoughts, however informed or otherwise. The collectivist has to conform all the time to all things the collective, ruled by an oligarchy of Philosopher Kings, deems correct-- for the occasion. Dissent is against the majority, against "Humanity," against The People, the General Will, and is therefore evil.
Why would we put up with that shit?
If some guy believes all the things I believe in, and he then murders close to 100 kids, it's not to do with me. That crucial difference between him and me is that no matter what we share, we don't share collective responsibility for him being a killer. That is on his head. If my beliefs are likely to lead me to kill, that's a different story; but nothing I believe in is going to motivate me to randomly murder children. Collectivists don't care about that. They only care about the collective, which is a (stupid) idea, i.e. a mental construct that doesn't exist in the world. The Left can lump us all they like as another collective like themselves, but they can lump it. I ain't no such part of nothing. Nor are any of us.
If there's more to say on this, please let me know.
Dag,
Thanks for weighing in on this.
Yes, the collective is a stupid idea. But the fact remains that way too many people have bought into it.
No logic.
Logic fallacies all over the place every single day.
And after so much "instruction" in "critical thinking."
Pffft.
All human and proto-humans, to my limited knowledge of anthropology, have been collectivist up to, and even in large part today as well, collective in detail. We might look at families and extended families, i.e. clans, and see that until only in the past 200 years people have lived as non-individuals, at members of a family, clan, or tribe and so on. That collective identity can mean tribe as religion, as well, the root of the word meaning "binding." That same sense is interesting when we look at the meaning of fascism: "binding." Religio and fasces are the same but entirely different, and thus we have ultimate confusions in this discussion. The collectivist cannot grasp the difference between solidarity of the collective and solidarity of interdependents.
To be plain, the fasces is a forced collectivism, even if freely chosen, given that there is no alternative to choosing the only choice. Islam and National Socialism and Communist working class solidarity are all collectivist identities assigned to the replaceable member. People are place-holders in the continuum of life, the person himself having no significance. This is true even of the Dutch and the English, those two cultures we look to as the original nations of individualism. Primogeniture is the give-away: any first born son is as good as another. Meritocracy breaks down the collectivist scheme by negating place-holder status. Merit is rewarded in the Modern world by money.
In America, where individualism comes to the fore in ways it has never done elsewhere, negates at its root the very idea of inequality of birth: All men are born equal. The second born son has the same rights and responsibilities as the first. This utterly destroys the Great Chain of Being that binds the mind of the primitive. No one "is" just because he's born 'as." We do not have hereditary titles, and thus no one is "entitled." No one is entitled because they were born into the working class, for example. No one is entitled because they were born Black or homosexual, and so on. Well, of course, until recently in America.
There is a reversion to the mean at work in the West now. The fasces that is the eternal experience on Man, that he is just a cog in the wheel, is so deeply a part of the human experience that most do not share the idea, revolutionary, American Revolutionary, that man is born free and everywhere he is unchained. The reversion to the mean is natural and acceptable, something we have to deal with as it is and that we have to destroy day by day forever.
Individualism is a revolutionary thought that most rebel against as unnatural and harmful to the meaning of life. Muslims and leftists are totally committed to the concept of collectivism as against individualism. The latter destroys any meaning life has for them. If a man is free, then so it Man. What then of the binding that holds all men as one thing, safe and secure in the face of the fact that life is a dire experience for most and that for all ends in death? Hanging together is the solution to this frightening atomism, this challenge to meaning.
The collectivist will not give it up. They have not only too much to lose, they have everything to lose. They would lose the very meaning of existence. Thus, they kill and die to preserve the illusion of collectivist solidarity in the hope of dying meaningfully, if not having lived meaningfully. They turn, if not to the freely chosen religio, the binding of individuals to a communion of souls, to a binding of a political communion of the masses, of which they are a protected and anonymous sliver. They seek the security of the herd.
The man who is outside the herd is a danger. That man who tries to break up the herd endangers the entire herd. But we are not part of a herd at all. That part is made up for the benefit of the oligarchs and the timid. That they are the vast majority today and have been the total sum until recently is not the issue. We are Modernists and individualists because it works better, even if it terrifies the timid majority.
Individualism works, and it challenges all that the collectivist holds dear. He will blow up himself and kill innocent bystanders to achieve some personal glory, his name, if not his person, living in memory, he might hope, as a martyr; but he will not live freely from fear that his death will be trivial. He needs his "place." He needs an identity beyond his lowly place in the world. He needs to be 'something" rather than someone. The someone is always less than the whole, and to be something he has a chance to be part of the collective. Sacrificing himself for that whole lends him, for a moment, some greatness. It's a binding to the whole in a significant way, a binding to the fascses rather than to the religio.
The fascist binding is a binding to the religion of the polis as oppose to the "im" as in Jerusal-em. Look at Augustine's City of God. There is the dual city, the mundane version of which is a poor imitation of the real. Binding oneself to the polis, the city on Earth, is to bind oneself to the other city as well, the polis-tics of the city being the religio. There is, then, a political religion that substitutes for the free religion of the binding of the communion of souls.
On Earth, the reflection of Heaven, has its demi-gods, Obama, a sort of god, according to the socialist editor of Newsweek Magazine, and the hagiographers of Obama generally. We are fighting religious fanatics. But the religion is not religion: it is political religion, i.e. the poligion. They are, as Eric Hoffer puts it so perfectly, True Believers. They won't stop fighting.
We can't give in just because they are fanatics.
Believe it or no, I have even more to write on this subject!
I'm leaving for Peru at the end of August, so I hope, to write five volumes that I have been working on for over two and a half years now, all of it in my indecipherable handwriting. I have to type it all now. Peru seems like a nice place to sit till that's done.
Meanwhile, I hope to have a book of memoirs published before I go. will be back with details of that when it comes out.
Yes to a small degree you are going to wear it and you in my opinion you should, from a ideological point of view. Let me explain before the shouting starts.
You stated your anti-Sharia but in fact most of you are simply anti-Islam (there is a difference). You say you support Wilders yet he is a bigot and a fascist. You are linked with contextual abuse haters like Spencer, Fitzgerald and fools like Geller.
A great many of the bloggers, commenters are simply haters, radical right-wingers whom in fact push and yes, even encourage hate.
As one sociologist pointed out, your almost exclusively to the right, your almost all exclusively partisan regardles of which country, and most absurdly most of your targets and anomosity is directed at "the left" and not actually at Islamists which have become an excuse.
I am Conservative, I believe also a realist. As you know AOW I am also in the courts and justice business. Professionally and morally, these blogs are corrupted and tainted and you need to clean up your act, your position and most of all whom you are supported.
A last comment, your original aim, the opposition of totalitarian, brutal and dangerous radical Islamists is sound, logical and correct, but like the French revolution, it produced also an ugliness and until that was purged it was not taken seriously.
D Charles QC
Barrister
Gibraltar
Damien, that was not only less than literate, it was close to incoherent, if I may be so bold.
"As one sociologist pointed out, your almost exclusively to the right...."
I'm happy to elide the problems an ESL writer has, but to refer to "one sociologist" and in the same post to claim to be rational and in the legal field? Damien, please.
Damien,
You can scold and chastise me all you like.
I know what's in my heart. I know what I have advocated and what I haven't.
Dag, I suggest you respond to the topic than try any excuse to avoid it.
Post a Comment