Wait, so Norway isn’t going to create an expensive paranoid police-state “war on terror” apparatus that validates the persecution complex of people like the killer? Weird.
“It’s absolutely possible to have an open, democratic, inclusive society, and at the same time have security measures and not be naive,” Prime Minister Jens Stoltenberg told reporters in Oslo. “I think what we have seen is that there is going to be one Norway before and one Norway after July 22,” he said. “But I hope and also believe that the Norway we will see after will be more open, a more tolerant society than what we had before.”
Oh, come on. Surely there’s an unrelated country they could invade?
Moved On 
Quite refreshing to hear a leader talk like this.
I am swooning
[crosses fingers and hopes they invade Australia]
Sounds like he spent a lot of time in England.
Maybe they would appreciate a visiting horde of angry Nowegians?
… and apparently, Stoltenberg was NOT reading “My Pet Goat” at the time of the shootings.
A noun upon which to declare war?
I’ve got two.
1/. Islamophobia.
2/. Neo-Nazism.
That should do for now.
Cheers.
They’ve sort of done No.2 Marek… Norway’s no stranger to skinhead* violence (mostly they either treat them during their sentence, or if they’re full-on psychopaths*, keep them in the “padded room”).
In any case, the Expressen (the Swedish “News of the World”) is handling all the “Execute All Teh Moooslims!!!” press for them.
*(Disclaimer – Breivik was no skinhead. A glance at his manifesto suggests to me that he’s not mad either. He’s something else – but having never met a crusader, I don’t know what)
Meanwhile, the luminaries of the US right are finally learning the difference between analysing why a terrorist is driven to act and actually supporting that act.
There’s been an outbreak of “Brevik was a monster, but he had a great point about the Islamic war against the West” amongst the right-wing pundits. Apparently they are completely oblivious to the fact that this is the exact sort of analysis that inspires them to hysterically condemn others as “apologists” and “terrorist sympathisers” when applied to Islamic terrorism.
As usual – it’s OK when WE do it but the height of evil when THEY do it.
The longer I play in this political sandpit the more I realise that the most repulsive quality of all ideologists is their rank hypocricy.
Declaring war on nouns is not a good idea. I would like to declare war on stupidity but taking on the rest of humanity alone is a bit daunting, even for me.
As Mondo suggests it is a good idea to understand what motivates terrorists to violent action so that we might be able to lessen the risk of terrorist events. Actually Mondo used the expression ‘driven to act’ which reduces the terrorist’s responsibility for their actions. The more germane question is why they choose to act violently. This is not about particular grievances people may have. The world is full of grievances, but most of the aggrieved managed to get by without resorting to mass murder.
A more logical approach is to inquire why some people take the view that mass-murder is an appropriate way of acting on a particular grievance. The obvious candidate is religious belief so powerful it decouples the restraint most people have when it comes to killing lots of other people. Belief in a religious duty to wage violent jihad comes to mind.
The restraint most people have about killing others can fairly easily overcome by social sanction. If society authorises the killing of others in war or in the administration of justice a lot of people volunteer for the role. I suspect the problem with Breivik was that he thought he was in a war, and that he did not need the sanction of his government, which he saw as part of the problem.
A more logical approach is to inquire why some people take the view that mass-murder is an appropriate way of acting on a particular grievance. The obvious candidate is religious belief so powerful it decouples the restraint most people have when it comes to killing lots of other people.
OK – let’s assume you’re right and it’s the ideology of the murderer that should be examined by society to determine whether it is causative of the individual’s decision to commit violence.
In the present case that enquiry could lead to an uncomfortable conclusion for anyone with an affinity for the deranged polemic of the American far-Right.
It seems fairly clear that Breivik overcame his “restraint” against killing, as you put it, by becoming convinced that the threat posed by Islam is so great, and so immediate, that action against its facilitators is both moral and necessary. That the Left-wing of politics is a legitimate enemy of the State since it is actively engaged in subterfuge to assist the Islamists to destroy our way of life.
Now where would one go to hear that sort of insane rhetoric? What ideology regularly and hysterically attempts to convince its followers that the Islamic crisis is upon us, that the hordes are at the gates, and that we delay counter-action to our own great peril?
You know the answer SB.
Mondo
This is not about “ideology”. I didn’t mention the word. You raised it so you could make a sneering ideological point.
My suggestion was that where people obtain social sanction to do so, they are more than willing to kill others.
There are always groups such as anarchists, revolutionary leftists, eco-terrorists, nationalists, neo-fascists and others who sanction violent action by their members. The specific ideology is not nearly as important as the fact that they think their cause is worth killing for. We also see the sanction of violence in religious doctrines.
In all these cases the group sanctions the individual.
Breivek seems to have acted alone. The interesting question is why.
Sadly the idiot left has taken this as an occasion to score political points, just as they did with the Giffords shooting. This is not helpful and isn’t really going to help us understand the motivations of people like Brievek.
There is a concerted attempt to gloss over an important feature of Brievek – he was no ‘loner’ and while it’s correct in the immediate sense to say he “acted alone” it’s the same attempt to distract from the take-home message; there is a group of far-right extremists who see no limits in terms of the violence they will perpetrate to incite some kind of western civil war.
You could dismiss Brieveks claims of his network of the like-minded, except for the fact that prior to recent events, we’d have dismissed his plans for cutting himself off from his social world to embark on a many years long strategy of accumulating the materials for a massive car bomb and weapons stash that would allow him to execute his “better to kill too many than too few” plan to bring about a far-right coup that would see the expulsion of the Muslim hordes.
So, it seems reasonable to believe that Brievek is just one of a group that have sanctioned such acts and that there are others who may be planning something similar.
And it is interesting to wonder why he acted, but not in the sense SB meant. For that, you just need to read his ‘compendium’ – hostility to Muslim immigration, a belief that the leftist, liberal world has betrayed it’s pure European heritage and closely aligned to that, the standard conservative utopic dream of a past golden age (that never existed).
What is interesting is how that becomes full-blown violent extremism – you don’t just wake up one day and want to shoot 60 kids.
For me the partial answer is a kind of ‘seven levels’ of intolerance – starting with general atmosphere of intolerance and vilification, one that is fairly easy to observe in media phenomena such as shock jocks who have a curious obsession with anything negative about certain groups. This kind of stuff might be something you just happen to hear ocassionally , or it might become something you actively seek out to the exclusion of all else. From there is might lead to blogs on the same topics, then blogging, then meeting other like-minded souls and then maybe this becomes the source of most social relationships. What you end up with is a self-selected group who were attracted by an increasingly strident and certain echo-chamber, and where a closed off culture of mutual self-confirmation predominates.
Police in Norway (and eslewhere) will be hoping that Breiviks claims of great caution in disposing of his hard drives with his contacts, were less effective than he’d hoped and that they will be able to track down people who he may have been in contact with.
“Sadly the idiot left has taken this as an occasion to score political points, just as they did with the Giffords shooting.”
As did the idiot right, yourself included, in response to the murder of the Fogel family.
“I bet you were down in Gaza when the celebratory sweets were being handed out. Don’t get too excited though – you have to stab a baby before they name a street after you. Paleostinians love terrorism and hate Jews. No wonder they are so popular in leftist circles!”
Splatterbottom | 18 March, 2011 at 4:48 pm |
https://anonymouslefty.wordpress.com/2011/03/13/so-were-going-to-sit-back-and-watch-gaddafi-slaughter-his-people-are-we/#comment-24075
THEN you believed that the actions of a mentally disturbed 18 year old boy were representative of “The Paleostinians” and of Islam.
THEN you believed this murder was not, as you have chosen to believe about Breivik, the actions of a single madman but was instead the result of “a culture built on jihad and Jew-hatred”
Its pretty funny to see you do a complete backflip and argue the exact opposite position when the terrorist has views than align fairly closely with your own, and when those killed were Norwegian lefties instead of Jews.
Funny you should mention all that Duncan.
Breivik said in his manifesto* (in which he frets about the coming of “Eurabia”, or the “EUSSR”) that right-wing commentators would feel compelled to simultaneously denounce his deed, and swear blind that it had no political significance at all.
But admittedly that some would say that he had a point about Eurabia.
As Pam Geller and Ed Spencer (his favourite bloggers) did.
Even if we ignore their efforts over the first day to scream “Moooslim!” and “jihadi!”
*(http://www.zerohedge.com/article/mass-killer-andrew-berwicks-aka-anders-breivik-complete-777724-word-manifesto) If you can face reading it
Sorry – Robert Spencer (of JihadWatch) (not Ed).
My suggestion was that where people obtain social sanction to do so, they are more than willing to kill others.
I don’t disagree with that at all SB.
And yet you approach Breivek’s actions from a starting assumption that he acted alone. Despite your quite rational views about individuals obtaining permission for terrorist acts from ‘social sanction’, you have automatically assumed that Breivek is an exception to this rule.
Now why would that be SB? Could it be beacuse, as Duncan points out above, this particular terrorist’s views align fairly closely with your own? Could it be because the ‘society’ in which he was inculcated with this level of hatred, militarism and paranoid fear of imminent destruction is one that you visit occasionally?
What is that log in your eye SB, that prevents you from seeing exactly which community it was that sanctioned Breivek’s violence?
‘Gadj I like your ‘seven levels of intolerance’ analysis. Many people seem to be well down that track with ‘shock jocks’, Christian fundamentalists and Tea Baggers.
Contrary to my suggestion above, it seems we will have to wait a bit to see if Breivik acted alone. Apparently he did refer to like-minded associates and attended a meeting of a ‘Knights Templar’ group in London in 2002.
Duncan: “THEN you believed that the actions of a mentally disturbed 18 year old boy were representative of “The Paleostinians” and of Islam.”
You are quite wrong to assert that I believe his actions are representative of Islam. They are in accordance with particular religious beliefs held by some muslims, but that is a different matter entirely.
Second, my reference to ‘Paleostinians’ was to the more primitive Palestinians who support this kind of thing. When another Paleostinian, acting on his religious beliefs, murdered 8 students in a seminary, a survey suggested that in excess of 80% of the Palestinian population agreed with that action. Other polls suggest significant support for terrorism in general, but not to the same degree. Either way this is completely different to the case of Brievik, who has been universally condemned, (except by the jihadi group who tried to take credit for Brievik’s actions).
The issue I have is that the Palestinian leadership lauds its murderers in ceremony, culture, media and public honours. Not to mention encourages its children to become terrorists in kids TV programs and from the pulpit. In the case of the Fogel murders some Palestinians handed out celebratory sweets. Thus there is a real argument that the Fogel family murder was indeed the result of “a culture built on jihad and Jew-hatred”. Leftists generally refuse to even consider this argument. Obama’s terrorist buddy and esteemed academic Bill Ayers seems quite popular in leftist circles.
Lykurgus I am not going to stop reading Plato, Kant and the NYT just because Breivik mentioned them.
Mondo: “What is that log in your eye SB, that prevents you from seeing exactly which community it was that sanctioned Breivek’s violence?”
Are you serious? Are you saying you can’t tell the difference between a group that denounces violence and one that applauds it? Really?
SB – I only asked whether you are willing to identify the ‘community’ that sanctioned Breivek’s actions, as you so clearly are when it is Islamist violence being discussed.
I haven’t argued that Breivek’s community must be identical to other communities that perform the same function (such as the jihad community), and thus your response is a clear non-sequitur. As it happens I don’t believe that all such communities are equal, either in method or degree, but that doesn’t mean that they don’t all play an enabling role in this sort of violence.
Consider that Glenn Beck, showing his typical respect for victims of terrorist violence, has already said that the murdered youth-camp attendees reminded him of the “Hitler Youth”. Nobody should shed too many tears over the killing of the Hitler Youth, right? I mean – they were enemies of humanity.
And just feast your eyes on the following post-massacre insanity from Pam Geller – one of insane right-wing bloggers that Breivek referenced regularly in his manifesto:
Breivik was targeting the future leaders of the party responsible for flooding Norway with Muslims who refuse to assimilate, who commit major violence against Norwegian natives, including violent gang rapes, with impunity, and who live on the dole… all done without the consent of the Norwegians.
Yup – great stuff there. Of course these rancid hatemongers always preface their justifications with the good old “I abhor the violence he committed, but . . . “, but only a complete fool would consider that an effective disclaimer.
The communities that shape and excuse terrorism come in all different shapes and sizes SB. We’rve all been watching the birth of a new one over the past few years, one that we in the West can all call our own, and one which I guarantee will spawn more violence before it’s done.
Name calling. So Christian of you, SB.
This guy is quite nuts but this article is disturbingly lucid.
Of course, the stereotypic comment “a bit of a loner” creeps in as almost a mandatory label attached to anyone and everyone who does this sort of thing (without state sponsorship). But then, in a world that shops on-line, drives to work in an insulated, personal capsule, spends most of its leisure time in front of a television and resents friends dropping in unannounced, isn’t everyone?
It’s the apparent ordinariness of Breivik that should come as a warning, not of endemic threats and dangers of terrorists everywhere but of the state of things we have come to accept and take for granted; the current state of a long-standing, imperceptible decay of values of western society that is creating a broader instability.”
“Yes, I agree, quite unbelievable, although I can’t help recalling the words of Madeline Albright, “we think the price is worth it” regarding the deaths of half a million under-five-year-olds in Iraq – a deliberate, calculated element of the strategy to achieve regime change and control of resources. In a society in which we allow our children to kill people on a regular basis on computer screens and yet are more offended by television images of children slaughtered in our “war of terror” than by the people and their disgusting weapons that have killed them it’s the “ordinariness” of a news report that describes the bombing of an Afghan village that was a “suspected”, insurgent enclave resulting in the deaths of several “suspected” insurgents that is the truly shocking thing.”
He then goes on to compare Bush and Blair to Breviek, and should have included Obama and his drone fetish. Not entirely convincing but still worth reading.
http://mwcnews.net/focus/analysis/12512-bush-blair-and-breivik.html
You could also go to PP and read the latest open thread where I posted a link to a study in Cardiff about the portrayal of Muslms in the media 2000 – 2008.
There have already been allegations that Pam Greller sponsored Breviek, Justin Raimondo in Counterpunch. That probably wouldn’t surprise anyone familiar with Greller’s history.
Here is an article detailing nearly 100 examples of right wing terrorism in the US since 1995.
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/publications/terror-from-the-right
Mondo: “Of course these rancid hatemongers always preface their justifications with the good old “I abhor the violence he committed, but . . . “, but only a complete fool would consider that an effective disclaimer.”
So you are saying that they support the violence? Do you think it is impossible for people to have strong views, but actually oppose violent action?
“We’rve all been watching the birth of a new one over the past few years, one that we in the West can all call our own, and one which I guarantee will spawn more violence before it’s done.”
What do you mean “spawn”? Do you mean that some people who hold similar ideas will also be violent? In that case the environmental movement has “spawned” violence as has socialism, nationalism, the anti-apartheid movement, islam and many others. Trouble is you seem to only use your “spawn” argument as a means of collective demonisation of groups you don’t like. It is a bad argument.
The ones you really need to watch out for are the ones who diminish violence perpetrated by terrorists because they are “driven” to it.
RM are you accusing me of “noun-calling”?
Jules, what is your point? There are many lists out there. Not all of them are confined to the “right”. How many people on your list are buddies of the president?
What do you mean “spawn”?
Come on SB – it’s not really that hard. What I mean is that their particular blend of hate, fear and end-of-civilisation alarmism will radicalise more people into acts of violence. You might even say that it will “drive” them to it – if that fits better into your vapid little gotcha.
in that case the environmental movement has “spawned” violence as has socialism, nationalism, the anti-apartheid movement, islam and many others.
It’s not the “movements” themselves that inspire violence SB – you’re clearly struggling to understand the point here. It’s the radicalised elements within those movements that are the problem.
What we’re witnessing right now is a creeping radicalisation of the Right, particularly in the US and Europe. This radicalisation was wrongly blamed for the Gifford shooting, but it’s smack bang between the headlights this time around.
By the way SB – what did you think of the Geller quote above? You seem borderline hysterical about my use of the word “driven”, but not so much as a peep about Geller and Beck’s far more explicit apologies for a mass murderer.
That log still stuck in your eye?
Do you think it is impossible for people to have strong views, but actually oppose violent action?
There’s a time and a place for you to air those strong views. Immediately following a massacre is not one of those times.
Maybe I need to introduce you to a little concept called “nuance”.
My point is that although you wouldn’t know it from the shock and awe expressed at the latest example in Norway or the media or your rantings, far right violence is probably more prevalent that the Islamic terror inspired sort.
And honestly I don’t see the weathermen in the same terms you do. But given the president you’re referring to makes jokes about predator drones killing kids, and to me seems more like a moderate rethuglican than a dumbocrat it makes sense he’d be mates with turrists, like his predecessor with his Cuban turrist mates.
My basic point is that by definition violence from the right is always an attack on other peoples freedom or resources and a response to a perceived loss of entitlement and violence on the left is always in self defense or as a response to persecution.
Islamic fundies are also aligned with the right. (Godwin warning) See the MB and their historical ties to Right Wing American capitalists and their mate Adolph. Or anyone that used BCCI.
“This radicalisation was wrongly blamed for the Gifford shooting, but it’s smack bang between the headlights this time around.”
Right on mondo.
A more logical approach is to inquire why some people take the view that mass-murder is an appropriate way of acting on a particular grievance. The obvious candidate is religious belief so powerful it decouples the restraint most people have when it comes to killing lots of other people.
Like when God told George W Bush to go into Iraq and kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.
Do you think it is impossible for people to have strong views, but actually oppose violent action?
Do you think it’s possible for you to ever apply the same yardstick to the idiot right as to the idiot left? You’ve been given examples of the idiot right trying to point-score off this attack. In fact, most of the (attempted) point-scoring has come from the right, as usual.
My basic point is that by definition violence from the right is always an attack on other peoples freedom or resources and a response to a perceived loss of entitlement and violence on the left is always in self defense or as a response to persecution.
I don’t agree with that at all Jules. You only need to look at Breivek to see that Right-wing violence is equally born from a belief that they are being persecuted and that self-defence is required.
Breivek didn’t shoot the next generation of Norwegian Leftists because he hated their freedoms and wanted their resources – he did it out of genuine concern that they were actively working to destroy his country and subvert his way of life.
Left-wing violence is not morally superior to Right-wing violence.
Mondo: “What I mean is that their particular blend of hate, fear and end-of-civilisation alarmism will radicalise more people into acts of violence.”
This is a seriously stupid argument Mondo. I get that people who preach violence have some responsibility for the consequences. But that is not the focus of your broad-brush smear is it? You want to slime people who are explicitly against violence with the same brush. That is an utterly contemptible thing to do.
When people walk around their neighbourhoods and see signs proclaiming it a “Sahria Controlled Zone”, when there is a rise in gay-bashing and selective rape of non-muslim women, alarm and fear seem entirely warranted to me.
“It’s not the “movements” themselves that inspire violence SB – you’re clearly struggling to understand the point here. It’s the radicalised elements within those movements that are the problem.”
I was struggling because you generalised about “communities” without saying what you meant. “Radicalised elements” is hardly better. If you mean those who support violent action, I understand your point. If you mean something else, you have given no clear indication of the breadth of your smear. Am I radicalised? I think that the sharia system of law is per se a crime against humanity and say so as loudly and as often as I can. Am I responsible for Breivik’s actions?
The Geller quote appears to be her version of the motives of Breivik. It seems unexceptional for a pundit to offer up this sort of explanation, although we may have to wait to see how true it is.
RM, there is not time and no place for limiting the speech of others.
Buns: “Do you think it’s possible for you to ever apply the same yardstick to the idiot right as to the idiot left? “
That is exactly what I am trying to do here, unlike others. My point is that it is wrong to blame people for causing violence when they explicitly denounce violence. That applies equally to all sides. Tarring and feathering your political opponents for this crime when they clearly oppose violence is dishonest and disgusting.
Yeah mondo i was just speaking shite.
Specifically tho I get the impression from one side of politics that the opposite of what I said is a valid opinion. I just swapped to see how people would react. However there is more to Breviek’s crap than just self defense. I’ve read a lot of his manifesto, too much. The scariest aspect of the whole thing is his apparent normality.
There are times when violence is OK I reckon. This is one:
Hey SB if someone wants to put a sticker up saying “Sharia controlled zone” it s an infringement of free speech to stop them isn’t it. Complaining about it is complaining about someone’s free speech. I didn’t think you were into that.
SB, you started this discussion by quite reasonably stating that terrorist violence does not arise in isolation – that it is a product of “social sanction” from a community of like-minded people around them. I agreed with you about that.
Yet you then immediately contradicted yourself by asserting that Breivek’s terrorist violence lacks any element of social sanction, and now you’re smearing me as “contemptible” for pursuing your own theory!!
Obviously your logic was only meant to apply to Islam – you don’t need to explain your blatant double-standard here SB. We’ve all dealt with you for a long enough time to understand why.
The truth is that Breivek was indeed surrounded by a likeminded community of radicalised ideologues who obviously contributed to his ultimate belief that violent action was necessary. The same community whose rhetoric has been the subject of so many recent warnings about exactly this sort of potential.
The same community which is now trying to justify Breivek’s violence by smearing his victims as Little Hitlers and Anti-Semites who are somehow deserving of their fate – smears that you apparently find “unexceptional” and which you are unable to condemn.
I’m disappointed SB. I realy thought you might be able to break free from your ideological prison this time around. Maybe next time . . .
Tarring and feathering your political opponents for this crime when they clearly oppose violence is dishonest and disgusting.
LOL. Oh yeah – they “clearly” oppose this sort of stuff – like those who yell “Fire” in a cinema oppose stampedes.
Sorry Mondo. I didn’t realise we were in a crowded cinema. And in this case where there are actually signs of fire you prefer to pretend there is no fire, shut up, sit still and burn.
That is exactly what I am trying to do here, unlike others.
Well, try harder. Your earlier comment was Sadly the idiot left has taken this as an occasion to score political points even though, as you must know, most of the (attempted) point-scoring has come from the idiot right.
OK looks like we’ve got a bit of work to do in getting SB to understand the significance of nuance. Right now it’s all black and white in Blatherworld.
“I denounce entirely what Breivik has done. However …”
is NOT an honest denunciation. Leave out your “howevers”, “buts” and “neverthelesses” and wait until an accurate picture of what has occurred BEFORE you start to think aloud.
Otherwise, you end up looking as stupid as those Fox journalists who were quick to jump in and say “This looks very much like an Islamist attack” (and then later changed their description of it to “Mus-LISH”, according to Steven Colbert)
Buns, maybe I hang around leftists too much, but you have this post itself and many of the comments here trying to score political points, in the same way Pliberserk was trying to do on Q&A.
RM it is not nuance I have an issue with but fuzzy thinking.
What’s the fuzzy thinking here, then:
This is not about “ideology”. I didn’t mention the word.
However, you did say:
The obvious candidate is religious belief so powerful it decouples the restraint most people have when it comes to killing lots of other people. Belief in a religious duty to wage violent jihad comes to mind.
No, you didn’t say “ideology”. But you did allude to a specific religion (not your own, obviously – most of them are too busy covering up kiddy-fiddling and assassinating popes), which comes across very much as “dog-whistling”. And that is an example of nuance.
And in this case where there are actually signs of fire you prefer to pretend there is no fire, shut up, sit still and burn.
What the hell are you talking about SB? At what point in any of my comments have I argued that we must be silent in the face of Islamic encroachment on our liberal democratic ideals?
I don’t believe that at all – I completely reject your strawman. In fact I don’t even believe that the idiot Right should be prevented from saying whatever they want to say.
You’re flailing.
RM the point I was trying to explore is independent of ideology. Irrespective of ideology people will indulge in violence if they are given permission. This is the case when the state sends soldiers to war. This also seems to be the case within close-knit fanatical groups. The particular ideology doesn’t matter – it is the sanction to kill that seems to me to be important.
People are also willing to kill if their religion permits or requires it. This goes for all religions. Christians have done a lot of killing on this basis in the past, and jihadists do a lot of it now. The fact that I mentioned jihadists, rather than muslims, is precisely because I wanted to limit my comment to those who follow a specific doctrine, not an entire religion. Of course I did not need to be so careful when speaking of Christians since doing so will not bring down the wrath of the hypocritical PC crowd on my head.
There are times when violence is OK I reckon.
I completely agree Jules. There have been times in history where violent response has been entirely justified by the gravity of the threat posed. Although like you I don’t believe that the “Islamic menace” is even close to being a grave threat, let alone justification for the taking up of arms against government.
That belief fades, however, as you travel further into the murky depths of the right-wing blogospehere.
Mondo: “What the hell are you talking about SB? At what point in any of my comments have I argued that we must be silent in the face of Islamic encroachment on our liberal democratic ideals?
The point where you smear those who do speak up.
The difference is that I draw the line at those who tolerate or encourage violence whereas you want to include some ill-defined cohort ‘radicalised ideologues’ who denounce violence in your list of guilty parties. Maybe I would have less flailing to do if you were more precise about who you mean by ‘radicalised ideologues’. How are people who propose violence ‘like-minded’ with those who oppose it?
This also seems to be the case within close-knit fanatical groups. The particular ideology doesn’t matter – it is the sanction to kill that seems to me to be important.
And yet you are so easily appeased by empty disclaimers that you remain entirely blind to the fanatical Islam-hatred that infests a certain close-knit subset of the Right-wing blogosphere.
Somehow I doubt those disclaimers would satisfy you if they were made by someone seeking to minimise an Islamic terror attack.
The point where you smear those who do speak up.
You’re really getting desperate now aren’t you SB!
I made it quite clear above that it is radicalised commentary that poses the threat here – not all commentary. Stop throwing idiotic strawmen at me.
Mondo: “And yet you are so easily appeased by empty disclaimers that you remain entirely blind to the fanatical Islam-hatred that infests a certain close-knit subset of the Right-wing blogosphere.”
I don’t agree with a lot of what Geller says. She is particularly shrill, but I don’t doubt that she is sincere when she says she is against violence. Both of them see themselves as superior to those they criticise precisely because they are against violence.
Geller’s mistake, and Spencer’s, is to attack Islam rather than particular religious doctrines, but that is merely a difference of opinion I have with them not a reason to assign to them blame for mass-murder.
On the Islamic side of the fence I draw the line at advocacy of violence. Supporting Hamas or the Taliban would be in that category as they are avowedly terrorist groups. On the other hand I am happy to take the word those who condemn violence and don’t support terrorists. I might still condemn particular beliefs they have, but I don’t see them as accessories to murder.
Mondo what does “radicalised” mean. One person’s radical is another’s plain speaker.
It doesn’t really matter what word you use to describe the advocacy SB – the issue is not how you label it but how obvious a potential it has to result in unacceptable violence.
Obviously those who openly advocate for violence are radicalised – in fact they’re criminals by the standards of Australia – but if you’re suggesting that the mere removal of that open advocacy would render their cause benign then you’re obviously mistaken. It would render it legal, as indeed it should, but the danger it poses would still exist. It’s potential to inspire others to violence would still exist.
The same is obviously true of the type of inflammatory idiocy that seems to be increasingly gaining momentum on the far right. I’m not saying it should be criminalised or otherwise prohibited – I believe strongly in free speech – but I am genuinely astounded that it isn’t being more marginalised by the mainstream.
It is particularly frustrating to see commenters such as yourself refusing to accept the potential danger associated with this sort of alarmism – even going so far as to rationalise as “unexceptional” the deliberate de-humanisation of child victims of a mass murderer – when you would be the first to identify the problem if it were emanating from one of the ideologies you dislike.
The original post is not trying to score political points. Unless any comment on peoples reactions to stuff is trying to score political points.
But in the spirit of political point scoring, cos its midnight and I’ve had 10 op rums (and left the computer on) – If Julia Gillard was in charge when 9/11 happened they would have hung her from the flag pole at Parliament house, and if Dubya was in charge of the BER they would have spent years lauding him and calling for more school halls and allegedly dodgy spending.
WE all know what side of politics gets the cruisy ride in the media, and never has its assumptions questioned, and it ain’t the left.
“I’ve read a lot of his manifesto, too much” – Jules.
I think people should read it, though I’d recommend using his term for it, “compendium”, for an important reason – it’s allegedly not a compilation of only his ideas, but is a drawing together of the ideas of the people he was in contact with in his ‘templar knights’ group.
And they are pretty scary ‘ideas’ – from listing all of Europe’s nuclear reactors as potential bomb targets with the intention of producing another ‘Chernobyl’, to discussion of an alternative massacre plan involving a flame-thower to kill the “class-traitors” as they emerge from the fire-exits of a building after having raised a false alarm. The potential ineffiecency of this as a killing method is, apparently, to be balanced against the utility of having the horribly scarred survivors serving as a warning to the rest of the class traitors.
Compendium is a much better term actually. And everyone probably should read it.
Just a poll, but interesting none the less.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/08/03/poll-muslims-atheists-most-likely-to-reject-violence/
“Through interviews with 2,482 Americans, Gallup found that 78 percent of Muslims believe violence which kills civilians is never justified, whereas just 38 percent of Protestant Christians and 39 percent of Catholics agreed with that sentiment. Fifty-six percent of atheists answered similarly.”
10 OP’s jules?! You must have an iron liver! 🙂
These days its a bit rusty.
And funnily enough grog interferes with my ability to count so you know, it might have actually been 37 rums…. or a few less.
Mondo: “It is particularly frustrating to see commenters such as yourself refusing to accept the potential danger associated with this sort of alarmism”
There is a very real problem with the sort of vile religious beliefs that oppress hundreds of millions of people around the world. What concerns people is that those beliefs are being accommodated in their own countries and people who take issue with these putrid beliefs them are being are being prosecuted and persecuted.
Already our freedoms have been diminished. I am sickened by the fact that Yale University Press felt it could not publish a book on the Danish Cartoons because of the threat to its staff. Too many people have to live their lives under police protection because of some criticism they have made of Islam.
People have every right to be alarmed and to express that alarm as they choose. The people who should be excluded from polite society are those who support religious vilification laws and laws against the defamation of religion, the leftist fuckwit judges who insisted Geert Wilders be tried, supporters of Hamas, the Taliban, the Muslim Brotherhood and the many other jihad groups, anyone who believes in punishment for blasphemy or apostasy, anyone who supports demonstrations outside Jewish businesses. These people, all of them, are beneath contempt.
“even going so far as to rationalise as “unexceptional” the deliberate de-humanisation of child victims of a mass murderer”
I didn’t read Geller’s comment that way. I didn’t see any dehumanisation there at all.
“the leftist fuckwit judges who insisted Geert Wilders be tried,”
He was charged with 2 counts of inciting hatred and violence against people based on the fact the were non western. That was fair enough. Of course you support giving people the right to verbally abuse some people while taking away the victims of that abuse’ right to act in self defence, even if that means violence. After all punching a racist prick who said something racist is just another form of freedom of expression.
Tho if you want to support that sort of racist vilification thats your business.
He should have been tried for his haircut as well tho. That he wasn’t is a travesty.
“I don’t agree with a lot of what Geller says. She is particularly shrill, but I don’t doubt that she is sincere when she says she is against violence.”
You do know who she is and what she used to do for a living, right?
The people who should be excluded from polite society are those who …
Just a sec – “excluded”? What happened to all your condemnation of restrictions on free speech?
I’ve read a lot of his manifesto, too much – Jules.
Disturbing isn’t it.
I guess I should get back to it, but I’m finding SBs attempt to do the Geller/Bolt Limbo* just too damn enjoyable!
*(you know the dance…”of course I deplore the bloodshed, but…” “I’m no bigot, but…”)
But enough of pleasuring myself to his misfortune
Lets play “Spot the Difference”…
Look closely
Compare (third picture down)
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2011/07/summer-camp-indoctrination-training-center.html
Whole captions just disappearing…
Mysterious…
btw – isn’t this the sort of thing that should be handed in to law enforcement?
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2007/06/email-from-norw.html#comment-6a00d8341c60bf53ef00e008cc03258834
does she possess identification capabilities that they don’t?
Jules i have no idea who she is or what she previously did for a living. I’m sure you’ll tell me, but going on your last post, whatever you say is unlikely to bear any relation to reality.
I’ve read her blog a few times. It is not to my taste but that is hardly the point is it?
SB: your skills in identifying (and condemning) dangerous fanatics and ideologues who advocate from an Islamic or Left-wing viewpoint certainly cannot be questioned. They are finely honed – as all here can attest.
However your skills in identifying (and condemning) similarly dangerous and fanatical ideologues who advocate from a Right-wing viewpoint is compromised beyond all belief.
This is why you are generally an ineffective commentator. Your arguments about the Left are, in some respects, sound – but your blatant hypocricy and obvious double-standards undermine you.
There is no doubt that the comments emanating from the US far-right in the wake of this tragedy, such as Beck’s description of the murdered children as the Hitler Youth, or Geller’s smearing of them all as anti-semites, would provoke hysterical condemnation from you if they were expressed from a Left-wing viewpoint following an Islamic terror attack.
You may not be aware of this reality, but I can assure you that all other commenters here are.
But I guess it doesn’t matter in the end. This sort of fundamnetalist right-wing violence will sadly only grow worse over the coming years and eventually even partisan ideologues like you will be forced to abandon your blatant double-standards.
Well said mondo.
Mondo there are couple of points here. The first and most important is the idea that certain commentators are responsible for Breivik’s actions. On that we disagree. I think that reasonable people have a basis for being alarmed and should be able to express that alarm in strong terms without being blamed for the actions of others who choose the path of violence. I would draw the line at “who will rid me of this troublesome priest” type comments” or saying that the impugned person or group will be attacked and will deserve it. Those type of statements or anything more direct deserve condemnation as likely contributing to violence.
The second point is much easier – Beck’s comment was unsavoury. It seems to have been a comment about the camp itself, and he certainly didn’t imply that they deserved to be shot. Clearly his comment was not nearly as unsavoury as Kos’s “screw them” comment about the Iraqi contractors who were tortured and had their mutilated bodies strung up on a bridge. On the issue of bias, perhaps you can show me the leftist sites where Kos is demonised in the same way Beck is.
I have no doubt that leftist bias exists at many sites, and that double-standards are applied regularly by left-leaning commentators. In fact I spend much of my blogging time at Pure Poison arguing with lefties about this very issue – so much so that many commenters there perceive me as a right-winger.
But the obvious existence of left-wing hypocricy does not excuse yours.
Mondo if I had one rule for the left and another for the non-left, if I had held leftists responsible for murderous violence even though they opposed it, or if I had claimed that florid leftist rhetoric was likely to cause violence then you might have an argument that I am a hypocrite. But you don’t. I have not done any of those things.
If you keep thinking for yourself you will indeed attract criticism from both sides. It is a sure sign of independent thought although obviously some here don’t have any worries in that regard.
if I had one rule for the left and another for the non-left
You do that all the time. You’re just in denial about it.
SB seems determined to prove Mondo correct.
Though hypocrisy is one of the more venial sins.
___This post is not a duplicate____
“You do that all the time. You’re just in denial about it.”
To be fair SB considers anybody to the left of him, Kevin Andrews or George Pell or any other religious conservative (Taleban, Mullah Omar etc etc) to be left wingers so he does criticise those on the right, he just doesn’t realise he’s doing it because his political compass is affected by his reality distortion field.
I agree with SB that we are all capable of violence, including murder, when given what we see as an adequate excuse. However, this does make accessories out of those who offer or promote those excuses.
The most generally-acceptable excuse is self-defence. In a system of law where human rights are respected, a perception of threat or danger prior to being violent can be a major mitigating factor in the judgement. The question asked is whether that perception of threat or danger was reasonable.
Did Anders Brievik have a good reason to fear that his life was threatened? His manifesto makes it quite clear that he believed “the only way” to save himself and his society was to act now, and to act with horrible violence.
Why did he think that? Although a clinically paranoid person makes decisions from a warped reality, a rational person decides on the basis of what he or she “knows”, which generally comes down to what that person has been told and is willing to believe.
Since Brievik is only one of billions of people quite willing to believe they are threatened by one thing or another (we have an immediate biological and emotional response to perceived threat), who stoked that fear?
Whether we specifically advocate violence or not (this is where I disagree with SB), we have to take responsibility for what we say. If we genuinely perceive a threat in some behaviour, then we need specifically to advocate constructive, non-violent ways to reduce it. Cut the emotive language.
This won’t cause the visceral, unreasoning response of a Chicken Little [1] fear campaign, but it will direct resentment and confusion towards engagement and achievement. If “something” has to be done, propose a viable, constructive thing to do.
If I had been stirring up fear about, say, subjugation by the Flying Spaghetti Monster (it’s the END, the END I tells ye!), and someone had torched a Pastafarian temple, I would feel responsibility. I wasn’t just tossing words out into the void. I was affecting others.
[1] In what is now a children’s story, but was originally a satirical political ballad, Chicken Little rushes from person to person, saying “The sky is falling!”. Nobody is particularly impressed in the story, especially since the sky doesn’t fall. It looks like we can ignore one alarmist in the light of probability.
Note: due to illness, I don’t comment much, but I do read this blog. 🙂
“If you keep thinking for yourself you will indeed attract criticism from both sides. It is a sure sign of independent thought although obviously some here don’t have any worries in that regard.”
Comedy Gold. Keep an eye out for that train in the tunnel. Your right eye mind you.
“I agree with SB that we are all capable of violence, including murder, when given what we see as an adequate excuse. However, this does make accessories out of those who offer or promote those excuses.”
Nuremberg !
Clyties, Breivik was a fan of violent video games and I for one think it’s time Epic Games admitted complicity in this massacre, along with all the gruesome would-be butchers of the Gears Of War online community who propagate this murderous filth. The Beatles self-titled album contained “Helter Skelter” so I guess it is time for Paul McCartney to take responsibility for his role in the Manson murders, along with the rest of the Beatles who popularised this murderous anthem, not to mention that evil fucker George Martin who produced the song. It’s also time Hollywood apologised for every nutter who has seen a violent movie. That utter utter psychopath Gutenberg should be disinterred, dismembered and desecrated for not only inventing the instrument by which so many irresponsible ideas have been propagated, but also publishing the Bible which has inspired so much killing. In fact it is high time for the ICC to indict God.
SB, he wasn’t inspired by video games – he just used Modern Warfare 2 as some kind of “training” tool (although – really? It might look realistic, but presumably the skills required to actually use a real firearm are somewhat different – kickback is more than a little vibration and you can’t just press X to reload! – and in real life random psychos don’t have access to UAVs and don’t recover health just by ducking behind a barrier for a few seconds). The gun club membership obviously had a hell of a lot more to do with his ability to shoot people than playing a videogame.
As, of course, did his paranoid delusion that muslims ARE TAKING OVER EUROPE. Which, in his own words, was his primary motivation.
Videogames? This wasn’t some teenager who got all excited by the gore.
Jeremy it is a fact that European freedoms are being diminished to accommodate immigrants from different cultures. There is absolutely no problem with documenting that and complaining bitterly about it. There are many people who hold those views but to not resort to violence, just as there are many gamers who do not resort to violence.
What you are seeing now is an opportunist campaign to silence people with differing views.
I think the difference between say music/movies/games is that they are fictional/art/etc (ie not credible commentators, you know what they say is opinion or fiction) as opposed to pundits/news/politiitians who are meant to have a level of credibility in such matters (and often don’t distinguish between opinion/fact or have a credibility such that their opinion is as if fact) inciting fear about things you can see/touch that are relevant to you because you are exposed to it daily and are apparently at threat from it.
Narcotic, you are twisting in the wind now. The whole argument that people who oppose violent actions and say so are somehow responsible for the violent actions of others is not only wrong it is putrid. It reeks of sanctimonious moralising and opportunistic self-righteousness. In this case it is seizing upon a tragedy to score a few political points by attributing blame to political opponents. This kind of shallow-minded sermonising coupled with a good dose of hubris is exactly what the intellectual elite are all about these days, and it is why they are so thoroughly contemptible.
“Jeremy it is a fact that European freedoms are being diminished to accommodate immigrants from different cultures.”
What about Holocaust Denial? Thats illegal in Europe but it wasn’t caused by dha immagunts. But its illegal in many parts of Europe.
You’re just like Andrew Bolt. You only complain about this sort of thing if you can use it bash immigrants.
Funnily enough Jules I was outspoken about the imprisonment of Australian Holocaust denier Freddie Toben. I didn’t hear too many lefty voices complaining about that.
You’re just like Lee Rihannon. You only complain about this sort of thing if you can use it to bash Jews.
it is a fact that European freedoms are being diminished to accommodate immigrants from different cultures
Wow I keep hearing that on Fox News what a coincidence well then it must be true …
**YAWWWWWWWNNNNN**
Immigrants from different cultures have been entering Europe for milennia. It’s what makes Europe Europe. Way to go ignoring three thousand years of history.
Wake me up when SB says something original. I could use the rest.
RM: “Immigrants from different cultures have been entering Europe for milennia.”
Really? Certainly not as far as Western Eurpoe goes. The Barabarians were Europeans. They at least had the good sense to realise the virtues of Roman civilisation when they crossed the Rhine and the Danube and tried to ape them. Eventually things got back on track towards the end of the dark ages. The Huns were repulsed at Chalons, as were the Persians at Marathon, Salamis and Platea and the Muslims at Potiers, Lepanto and Vienna. The Celts were always Europeans. The Slavs were slowly integrated into Eastern Europe. Nobody really knows where the Magyars came from. Or maybe you are referring to the Jews who having been massively persecuted for centuries have made an enormous contribution to civilisation since their emancipation following the French Revolution.
History shows that the Golden Age of Athens was snuffed out by Spartan fundamentalists, but their great civilisational values were passed on to the Romans. Justinian closed down the Academy and the philosophers went East. Islam had its Golden Age which was also closed down by fundamentalists, but not before the Greek ideas were transmitted to Europe and flowered in the renaissance. They survived Napoleon, the Nazis and the Communists and now there is a new test.
In the current era the problem is the inability of the West to believe in its own values so that now it can’t be bothered defending them. It is being supplanted by a more vigorous culture that at least has the self-confidence to breed and reproduce itself. Generations of leftist “scholarship” has been chipping away at Western civilisation damning and demeaning everything about it. Their relativist multicultural cant is de rigeur among the smart set. We see it flowering in an American president who demeans America’s allies and bows and scrapes to foreign tyrants, and in the Archbishop of Canterbury who speaks in favour of Sharia law.
Now the greatest freedom of all, free speech is regularly sacrificed at the feet of religious extremists. The real problem is the West itself. As Will Durant said, after observing that the essential cause of the Roman conquest of Greece was the disintegration of Greek civilization from within: “No great nation is ever conquered until it has destroyed itself.”
Now I guess for having views like that I must be assailed for having caused the Norwegian massacre.
Now I guess for having views like that I must be assailed for having caused the Norwegian massacre.
Or at the very least not invited to any parties.
“Funnily enough Jules I was outspoken about the imprisonment of Australian Holocaust denier Freddie Toben. I didn’t hear too many lefty voices complaining about that.”
Were you? I think I have a vague memory of that actually…
Ok then fair enough, you did stand up for him when jeremy did. I take it back about Bolt.
Although Holocaust Denial is a pretty disgusting thing.
I am kind of conflicted about that one myself. I tend to think that it should be allowed under the proviso that if a bunch of people whose family died in the holocaust then want to punch your head in for being a rude fuckhead they can. if that leaves someone brain damaged well … if you’re into Holocaust Denial people probably couldn’t tell anyway.
Tho buns is right about this:
“if I had one rule for the left and another for the non-left
You do that all the time. You’re just in denial about it.”
No great nation is ever conquered until it has destroyed itself.
And in the case of (Ancient) Greece and other countries, that’s generally as a result of slavish adherence to one’s own traditions at the expense of accepting new ideas and other ways of looking at things.
BTW SB, there is no one single European “culture”. As I said above, immigrants have been shaping Europe for milennia. That includes WITHIN continental Europe. Go to the south of Europe and then to the north of Africa and you’ll see how those cultures have been mixing (no doubt you’ll say “yes and that’s to blame for all their current problems”). The Greek ideas that flourished in the renaissance had actually been taken on by Arab cultures during the so-called “Dark Ages”.
Generations of leftist “scholarship” has been chipping away at Western civilisation damning and demeaning everything about it.
“Damning and demeaning” being rightist shorthand for “daring to suggest that it might not have been the greatest contribution to the modern world” through actual scholarly methods.
It is interesting that those that make a profit from hysterical hate mongering then cry free speech to then justify silencing those that disagree with them.
Jules, I have one rule for everybody – the right to free speech.
Narcotic, your comment is a bit obscure – how can you silence someone by asserting their right to free speech?
RM: “And in the case of (Ancient) Greece and other countries, that’s generally as a result of slavish adherence to one’s own traditions at the expense of accepting new ideas and other ways of looking at things.”
With them and others it was losing track of the things that made them great in the first place.
“The Greek ideas that flourished in the renaissance had actually been taken on by Arab cultures during the so-called “Dark Ages”.”
you really didn’t read what I said, did you? You know. this bit:
“Justinian closed down the Academy and the philosophers went East. Islam had its Golden Age which was also closed down by fundamentalists, but not before the Greek ideas were transmitted to Europe and flowered in the renaissance.”
““Damning and demeaning” being rightist shorthand for “daring to suggest that it might not have been the greatest contribution to the modern world” through actual scholarly methods.”
No. It means constantly attacking the shortcomings of Western society in a completely lop-sided way with no appreciation either of its merits or the relative defects of other societies, no matter how inferior they are. There is nothing scholarly at all about post-modernism or the various sub-genres of Victim Studies or Marxist critiques of the capitalist world. They have value only as case-studies in fatally afflicted thinking.
Exactly SB 🙂
With them and others it was losing track of the things that made them great in the first place.
Yes. When you think of things that make Europe great, certainly the general lack of Arabs is one of the first things to spring to mind.
Why, of course you’re right, SB. Because traditional scholarship does not involve:
constantly inflating the shortcomings of Western society in a completely lop-sided way with no appreciation either of its defects or the relative merits of other societies, no matter how obvious they are,
DOES it?
RM, your argument that intellectual dishonesty is OK because some other people have been intellectually dishonest is completely illogical.