Back in January following the Tucson attack, I wrote the following (later quoted by Derbyshire at Takimag):
Why can't we characterize this man for what he is? And then why don't we, as a society, have any measures in place to act on what we know about this crazy person?The Norway terrorist, referred to in this article as ABB, is pure, unadulterated evil. There is no other viable explanation. Yet the post-Christian or pseudo-Christian left, with "left" here used as both a reference to the professional political left and society in general, has abandoned the intellectual means to describe such savagery. We have also repudiated the notion of biological determinism, instead believing that external influences impose themselves upon individuals instead of understanding that these individuals act upon inherent desires that occasionally manifest as abject evil. So we concoct narratives that rationalize the behavior as opposed to merely accepting the state of man as he exists. The Christian ethos, with objective and stringent definitions of evil, and the biological imperative are both sufficient for describing such behavior, but our enlightened class wrongly dismisses such basic representations of man.
Well, to define this man as irredeemable would constitute surrender to biological determinism, the bane of liberal creationists and social constructionists. Liberals will not allow society to "give up" on anyone, not even the most hardened criminals or the dumbest children. Liberals imbue society with immeasurable power to successfully cultivate, nurture, and mold every single individual. It takes a village, from the cradle to the grave.
Up until this point, I've spoken of our general society, unconsciously loyal to the maxims of liberalism yet not explicitly applying them in social analysis. Unsurprisingly, we've seen an outpouring of condemnation from the left of "far-right extremists", with so many specific spurious claims that I won't even mention, e.g. ABB is a Christian. Some on the Right, likely the same pusillanimous cowards back in January, fear this attack will undermine conservatism. They believe the left will use this man to smear groups with which he may or may not have had minimally overlapping views. But the left does not care about truth, they do not care about justice or honesty. They have already demonized conservatives as murderous and evil, so what will change? Our resident troll called the Tea Party, the damn Tea Party "terrorists" yesterday:
"Great White Terrorist". Plenty of those. Let us see. Oslo right wing rascist, Confederatee States of America, Unabomber, McVeigh,Tea Party, European ColonialistasAnd in a column about the debt ceiling, let me repeat that the debt ceiling, NYT columnist, Nobel Prize winner, and Princeton professor Paul Krugman had this to say about the Republican dissenters:
And no, I don’t mean the fanaticism of the right. Well, OK, that too. But my feeling about those people is that they are what they are; you might as well denounce wolves for being carnivores. Crazy is what they do and what they are.So the left spews mindless vituperative no matter what; this will change nothing.
-In the end, ABB is a psychotic, evil man largely rejected by society. While he nominally expressed a desire to defend society and perhaps rationalized his actions as such, he did something antithetical to the nature of civilization. Thus, his actions were the expression of someone who felt the burden of social rejection and adopted a Messianic-like justification for ultimately performing an act that undermined the society he had no part of. We need to understand men like ABB, who his friends have described as socially inept, not in the context of a political ideology (same applies for "left-wing" terrorists like that eco-nut last year) but in the context of man as a social animal. Men who have no part in society have no impetus to support it. Fortunately, this apathy very rarely becomes antagonistic.
Finally, as to the notion that ABB attempted to rationalize his actions as a violent defense of his nation, Auster has a back and forth with OneSTDV commenter RobertB concerning the underlying reasons behind ABB's actions. As Auster points out, RobertB claims to "understand" ABB's actions, even while condemning the notion of political violence as a general concept. First, I have never seen anyone on the Right or the Left encourage such violence, even amongst the "fringe" niche we inhabit here. Second, it's an interesting dilemma brought forth by RobertB's comments, specifically the moral justification for political violence. I posit that we all condone violence in some instances, usually in regards to self-defense or thwarting some inevitable evil not yet come to pass.
However, the West currently must combat a verifiable yet not rigorously defined war against its native people. What then should we do when political initiatives fail, when culture, media, and government collude to persist the war? Is a violent revolution tenable from a moral standpoint? Perhaps in an entirely quantitative framework, one could argue in the affirmative. But as we've been repeating consistently here, we as a society must not fall victim to materialistic nihilism. We must not allow bean-counting to supersede life and its transcendence in determining our actions. We must not concede the moral axioms that make us human, even if such concessions appear rational. Of course, we will often struggle mightily to uphold such principles, but what benedictions result from this struggle - community, civilization, and humanity. We mustn't lose sight of the ultimate goal of conservatism, the protection of society and the presumed way of life within it.
35 comments:
I disagree. I'm with Moldbug - this guy isn't crazy, he's a mirror-imaged Weatherman. He's the bad cop to a nearly nonexistent good cop. He thinks that because violence and terrorism works for the other side, it'll work for him too. But ABB doesn't realize that it only works when your side has significant state power (good cop) to say "We must make concessions and appeasements to remove Bad Cop's justifications for violence":
I think the questions are actually much simpler.
The first is a moral one. If you believe in morals, particularly Christian morals, mass murder of unarmed civilians can never be morally justified, no matter what the underlying "cause". What we have here is a case of a lack of moral formation, or some other kind of moral deficiency, resulting in an unspeakably evil act. It isn't a result of social alienation or awkwardness per se -- most socially awkward and even isolated people do not commit mass murder, and would not think to do so. And it isn't a case of insanity, either -- Breivik's writings were not the raving rants of a madman, but methodical, calculated, and fairly precise. He was not an insane person or an isolated person who snapped, he was a fairly lucid person with some fairly lucid ideas who had some extreme moral failings. It's very much about his own moral failings, rather than a sociological or ideological thing.
I agree somewhat with what Moldbug wrote, but I think Breivik's goals were probably different. I think he wanted to (1) get people to read that 1500 page thing he wrote (this would have been his primary goal, as far as I can tell) and (2) cause a left-wing backlash that would demonize and suppress the right, thereby serving to radicalize it over time. Neither of these is "irrational", although reasonable people can disagree with both. The key, though, is that virtually no-one, whether they agreed with the goals or not, would conclude that they justify acts violence to reach them, and particularly acts of cold-blooded mass murder. That is where the *disconnect* lies here -- it isn't a result of "insanity", it is a result of an almost total failure of morals, and moral formation.
First, thanks for the post.
---------------------
OneSTDV wrote:
-In the end, ABB is a psychotic, evil man largely rejected by society. While he nominally expressed a desire to defend society and perhaps rationalized his actions as such, he did something antithetical to the nature of civilization.
---------------------
Have to disagree with your first sentence above. I think he is sane, not 'evil', nor, from what I've read, was he rejected by society.
A psycho has a history of behavors and attitudes that he doesn't have. He has expressed understanding of the brutality of his actions but felt the ends justified the means.
Although his act has caused tremendous suffering for the people and families concerned it was in his mind an act of war against an enemy destroying his country. Soldiers also cause tremendous suffering to their victims, but we don't normally call it evil, because we consider their motivation. To me an evil person is someone who gains pleasure from making others suffer, a sadist in other words.
ABB obviously wants the victims and families to suffer, but that is for a higher purpose (hey, it was good enough for the Inquisition).
As for his place in society, I don't think he had it too bad, in an objective sense. He was brought up without his father though (thanks feminism), so no doubt that created problems for him. That link you posted indicated that he's never had a girlfriend (I doubt it - Roissy needs to investigate this whole issue for us).
Loveless or disturbed males will often turn their energies towards a 'cause', and our tall, blond, blue eyed ABB, certainly found one.
Like RobertB, I can understand his actions while not agreeing with them. (Why that Auster guy can't distinguish the difference, I can't understand.)
In the end I think ABB has both damaged his cause and also promoted it.
The left sees him as nothing more than a Christian. Seeing as they rule the joint, it's the standard. Dare disagree and I'll quote the bible of the flying spaghetti monster *snicker* *snort*
I support ABB's goals... he clearly has identified that Europe is committing suicide through Islamic immigration. I think in a naive sense he is a hero because he sacrificed his freedom and his life to help steer his nation from self-destruction. Regrettably, his actions, far from stemming the flood of islamic immigrants to stuff the voter rolls for socialist parties, will likely intimidate those who oppose inevitable mulsim domination and accelerate the process. Like Brutus killing Ceasar, in the goal of fighting tyranny, his own naive actions simply fed the monster. Vile socialists cynically importing muslims to stuff the welfare rolls now can claim victimhood and moral superioriy.
The Norway terrorist, referred to in this article as ABB, is pure, unadulterated evil.
Stopped reading right there.
For shame.
This was an evil act and I condemn it. But as Auster wrote, if good comes from evil, then so be it. These things might develop as a result:
- the nationalist Right will be accommodated and respected as a dangerous Other.
- young people, in their reptilian hindbrains, are impressed by bold acts of violence meted by photogenic evildoers; see Che. By grim irony, this event may have been what it takes to fulfil Moldbug's dictum "recruit the youth camp"
- right wingers, on an emotional level, may have shed their decades-long feeling of helpless impotence.
- the left may have been shocked into abandoning their population replacement project; for all the fears of amplified repression resulting from this... we were getting there anyway. Frog, slow boil.
- Right's legitimate program of stopping and reversing immigration and respecting indigenous Western nations may finally become acceptable in the media. In the wake if this event, NYT published an opinion column that blogger Fjordman would have approved.
Again, this was an evil act. Shouldn't have happened.
To OneSTDV!
Sam Harris the famous atheist does not believe that Breivik is a Christian ---> http://www.samharris.org/blog/item/christian-terrorism-and-islamophobia/
Anders Breivik is a Freemason ---> http://catholicknight.blogspot.com/2011/07/breaking-oslo-terrorist-is-freemason.html
The Norway terrorist, referred to in this article as ABB, is pure, unadulterated evil.
Stopped reading right there.
For shame.
Honestly, I don't want someone with your views reading my site anyway.
If random killings are acceptable, then where does it stop? Wouldn't one be justified in killing anyone then? And is this the sort of society, the sort of humanity and moral environment, that we should aspire to?
I don't support the idea of killing unarmed civilians under any circumstance.
But wouldn't his cause have been helped more by shooting Muslim immigrants randomly instead. This could be a deterrent for Muslims to immigrate to Norway in the first place, since the relative safety and impunity of Western Countries is a major drawing point for them.
Shooting a bunch of liberals will just harden their resolve, and increase their numbers and support due to sympathy.
Of the eight comments left so far I am most in agreement with katana's.
To analyze this act requires us to understand the context. For example, knightblaster argues that murder of unarmed civilians can never be morally justified. Contrast to katana's point about the violence that soldiers cause, or for that matter the innocent victims that result from Obama's campaign of drone attacks. The difference between their two points hinges on the concept of civilians. Are civilians only classified as non-military personnel? Are political leaders and apparatchiks strictly civilians? I don't have an answer in this specific case because I don't know all of the details as to the nature of that youth leadership camp but I suspect that we're not in black and white territory - this wasn't a boy scouts camp, it was a socialist party camp for young up-and-comers who were being trained in effective methods to implement their political multiculturalist agenda. On the other had these teenagers and young adults, some of whom were actual politicians, were not people with real power in society, or in their party, in other words, the linkage between policy action and being held responsible for the consequences of said action is not direct.
If the Israelis are ultimately responsible for the assassinations of Iranian nuclear scientists, then they would be running afoul of knightblaster's dictum that murder of civilians can never be morally justified. There would be many though who would argue that these nuclear scientists were legitimate targets or at the very least, not completely out of bounds. Not a black and white scenario but certainly not as muddy as the Norway incident.
Secondly, the context will be judged in relation to where one stands in terms of knowledge and involvement. A person who is disconnected from the immediate environment and consequences can afford to be more principled in their judgment. An Israeli is likely to see the nuclear scientist assassinations differently that would a Swede, I imagine, and the same is likely in this case.
Glenn Beck caused controversy yesterday by referring to this camp as a socialist version of the Hitler Youth. Would it be morally justified to strike at a Hitler Youth camp where future leaders were being trained to cause great harm to those who lived in Nazi Germany but didn't subscribe to the Nazi philosophy?
These moral black and whites would be easier to process if ABB had targeted a day care center and an accounting office instead of a socialist leadership camp and the offices of the ruling party of Norway.
Lastly, I don't believe that we'll understand the effects his actions have caused for quite a while. I'm certain that no one will ever point to his actions and claim that any good came from them, rather the effects will play out more subtly, individual actions of people, whose viewpoints have been changed or heightened by this mass murder will act, think and speak differently in the future on the topics that motivated ABB, either in support of his concerns or in complete rejection of his concerns.
@ last Anonymous (and the general notion of justification):
I largely conceded this point (see last paragraph). One could potentially argue that his actions were rational - direct defense of society against those (liberal children) who will perpetrate an inevitable threat (liberalism and Muslim immigration) against said society. He did so via violence, but when one's society and her citizens are at risk, such measures may be necessary (we justify this in times of war).
BUT, as I said in the post (last paragraph), one can only find this entirely logical argument tenable if one rejects all notions of humanity. Only a person who sees man as a number and not a uniquely "spiritual" life would countenance random murder.
These people who see everything in entirely sterile utilitarian terms lose sight of what life means and what makes us human. And to deny humanity is to embrace evil.
The NOrway attacks are a perfecvt example of why diversity is not only a strenth but a NECESSITY.
If nothing else it acts a s a sheoild agaisnt the perfidies of the white man.
"I largely conceded this point (see last paragraph). One could potentially argue that his actions were rational - direct defense of society against those (liberal children) who will perpetrate an inevitable threat (liberalism and Muslim immigration) against said society."
Liberal Children. With the caveat that I haven't yet seen a comprehensive roster of the youth camp victims, I'm not really so sure that it's accurate to label them all as children. My understanding is that these victims were mostly in their late teens and early 20s. They were youth activists, elected politicians, etc, they weren't all 12 years old. It's a quibbling point but it does influence the emotions in this topic because we (society) generally hold that the murder of a child is worse than the murder of an adult. If my information is wrong and the victims were all children then I've no beef with accurately describing them as such, however if most of the victims were socialist activists who were 18 and older then to use the term "children" deceptively alters the character of the discussion.
Only a person who sees man as a number and not a uniquely "spiritual" life would countenance random murder.
I'm not sure why you're framing ABBs killing spree as "random murder." ISTM that he specifically targeted his victims - socialists in power (bombing) and the next generation of socialist leaders (camp shooting spree.) If you mean, however, to imply that absent a specific cause, reason, grievance against any individual the act of target selection is random then that's really massaging the definition of random.
I go back to katana's points about the military. An army kills soldiers of the opposing force. The soldier who fires a shot doesn't have a personal grievance against the opposing soldier he is targeting and that opposing soldier is a random target, one of many opposing soldiers who are within the field of fire.
Army killing - very defined by rules.
Mohammed & Malvo sniper killings - defined by randomness.
Prostitute killers - not quite as random as M&M snipers but only prostitutes were targeted.
ABB killings - only socialists were targeted. Not random people.
Armies fight against clearly defined enemies. Serial killers don't. ABB believed he was targeting enemies of his culture. Most everyone responds that he was fighting against an imaginary evil and no one believes that multiculturalism and cultural Marxism are harming society yet the revealed preferences of most of these people show quite clearly that there is massive white flight away from the conditions that these socialists have imposed on Norwegian society. Clearly these Norwegians are responding to something that they don't approve of and find detrimental. This is why I believe that ABB's actions and crimes will reverberate within Norwegian society for years to come - ABB will be the name never invoked but his actions will color much of public debate, mostly in subtle ways.
The interesting debate, I believe, is to specify at what points actions against traitors to civilization become, at the least, quasi-legitimate. Are those rebels in Libya who kill the bureaucrats of Ghaddaffi's government in the same boat as ABB because they didn't have a specific grievance against the individual that they murdered and killed the person just because of their group status?
The NOrway attacks are a perfecvt example of why diversity is not only a strenth but a NECESSITY.
If nothing else it acts a s a sheoild agaisnt the perfidies of the white man.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Why not just wipe out all the whites? What, are you a weak cracka-lover?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcxgjNwL4uI
Biological determinism is very compatible with left-liberalism. You can see this is the debate over gays - liberals argue that gays are genetically programmed to be be gay and it would be unfair to expect them to go against their genes.
Biological determinism also eliminates the ideas of virtue and evil. If we are biological determinists it's idiotic to talk about ABB or Stalin or Pol Pot of Charles Manson being "evil". They were all simply acting out their genetic programming.
By the same token there is nothing admirable about Mother Theresa or Thomas Edison or any of the other figures we set up for young people to emulate. They too merely did what they were genetically programmed to do, and could do no other.
Biological determinism is an extremely left-wing idea.
Auster had a post that (rightly) ridicules Whiskey's overwrought and overreductive theory of beta-rage behind the ABB killings. I have no idea how to comment on VFR. Would someone explain to Auster that Whiskey is notorious around here as a one-note instrument?
It annoys me that Auster is so pigheaded about Game; there is no need to distract him with Xtreme Whiskey.
That was me above.
PS - see Auster's article about Norwegian prisons. If I ever get busted for something here in the States, I will claim Norwegian ancestry and demand extradition straight to that jogging yard.
If this lunatic had deliberately set out to ruin any hope of anti-Jihad, stopping Islamization, he could not have done a better job.
But he's all over the place, no real ideology. He loves (openly gay, hard-left) Alan Ball's Tru Blood. And Dexter. And hard-left Ron Moore's Caprica. And John Stuart Mill (classical liberal). And some Norwegian Resistance fighter. He's talked of "protecting gays and Jews."
He's a nut who wanted, bottom line, to kill other people's kids. He's Cho, Sodini, Loughner, and particularly all those guys in China who kill kindergartners. What kind of a man attacks kids? Really?
A man deranged into pure hatred for a society which he has no place. Even crazy people usually just attack celebs or politicians to be famous, or random people like Son of Sam. This guy isn't even that -- he's both crazy and resentful of other people's kids.
If this guy wanted an act of violence to shake up Norway, he should have burned the Koran in front of Friday prayers while confederates filmed it, knowing he'd be torn to pieces on video, said video posted all over the internet. THAT would have woken folks up. Provoking Muslim violence by doing something that Westerners have to live with every day (Piss Christ, Cowdung Madonna, etc.) into horrific and video-driven violence, well that's obvious. And effective.
But he did not do that because what he really wanted to do was kill lots of kids. Which guarantees the most rapid, abject, complete surrender to Islam possible. Norwegians will now complete their surrender to Islam on a rapid pace, I expect the entire country to be an Islamic Republic within five years.
Let me add, violence against innocent Western civilians only works when elites want to do something anyway -- crack down on open profession of Christianity, give Muslims preferential treatment, humiliate ordinary Whites, things like that. The violence is just an excuse to do things that the elites want to do in the first place.
Anti-Jihad, anti-Islamicization requires changing both ordinary people AND ELITES at the same time. It requires patient, Bill James like SABRE-metrics type stuff such as "you can get richer and win more votes doing THIS" than violence against kids which has only guaranteed a rapid descent into Islamicization. The only place where this does not apply is Putin's Russia, where the (real life) neo-Nazi skinheads are part of the ruling regime thug-brigade and represent dangerous elements that must be appeased.
"Norwegians will now complete their surrender to Islam on a rapid pace, I expect the entire country to be an Islamic Republic within five years."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good. They deserve their abject dhimmitude.
I think some of you are dancing around the fact that, in the end, the Norway Attack is a unmitigated disaster for principled pro-white causes.
I don't think that's just, right or due, but given how politcal confrontation works in the modern era, in all its forms, that's a given.
Basically, imho, it comes down to this: A man who proscribes a christian, euro-white homeland, culture and priority, destroyed those of the blood and culture he allegedly champions, even if some of those victims entertained political views contrary to his primary creeds.
Of course, I don't justify murdering anyone, I agree with Camlost that, in terms of his terrorist act maintaining a modicum or political coherence, he 'should have' murdered immigrant muslims in Scandinavia or a clearly designated group of pro-immigration/pro-multiculti white Europeans, rather than, as said, shedding the blood of those he allegedly champions.
re: Whisky: The more you talk, the more you sound like a deliberate misinformation stream. He didn't kill "kids". Young adults from 16-22, current party members.
nitcrit, et al: he doesn't give a rats ass about "public image campaigns." He makes the cogent argument that such campaigns have all failed, and that given the parameters of democratic rules, his side could NEVER win anyway. He intentionally and calculatedly stepped outside of "democratic rules".
What good does public image and democratic rule do when you are a permanent minority, and even EXPRESSING your viewpoint is ILLEGAL?
PA said...
This was an evil act and I condemn it. But as Auster wrote, if good comes from evil, then so be it. These things might develop as a result....
Did anything helpful to your cause result from Timothy McVeigh's bombing of a building full of women and kids? Not as far as I can tell. So I think it's highly unlikely that anything positive will result from Breivit's atrocity. But linking your cause to it in any way, shape or form is a really bad idea. The left will already try to tar you with this. Why help them do it?
"The Norway terrorist, referred to in this article as ABB, is pure, unadulterated evil. There is no other viable explanation."
Sure there is. Fame --> poontang --> more offspring. Also, as a sweet little bonus, this human man removed some competing DNA from the gene pool in his killing spree. Sort of a two-fer. It's a fine example evolutionary adaptation, and I'm really not sure why any HBDer calls this human's act "evil."
The Norwegians will look within after this calculated sweep of the gene pool, realize that the problem with Norway is too many blond-haired blue-eyed whites (who obviously do nothing but remove fellow species mates' DNA from the gene pool), and massively accelerate the importation of non-white people. This will obviously increase the overall safety of the nation and prove to everyone else that Norway is not racist, which is the most important thing ever.
prawnster
Sure there is. Fame --> poontang --> more offspring.
And I'm sure the Norwegian authorities will helpfully provide him with "poontang" behind bars.
He did kill at least one person as young as 14.
There is an anecdote where he deliberately refrains from killing a boy (11 years old?) pleading for his life but I can't find the article again at the moment.
I think some of you are dancing around the fact that, in the end, the Norway Attack is a unmitigated disaster for principled pro-white causes.
I think it has no impact whatsoever on those causes. The same people who hated the pro-white cause before this will still hate it. People who favored it will still favor it.
Anon 7/27 leaves us with food for much thought. He is right to see the logic of the attack even as most of us recoil in horror at its brutality. The teens were not all children in a technical sense and the government headquarters was surely a quasi-legitimate target. How far are Rightists willing to go to reverse the historic trend? This is a deeply important question.
In reading Robert Wright's Nonzero, I found an analysis of cultural evolution from a Leftist perspective. It sees all of history as evolving toward greater non-zero-someness.This means greater power for the egalitarian creed of liberals.Cooperation and love will mark all future relations, much like the 1970 book called The Greening of America.The flower children return!!
Wright seems not to believe in God but he finds meaning in our increased capacity for multiculturalism and diversity.He sees technology and information-processing as the keys to a bighter future with issues like race disappearing under the tide of egalitarian togetherness.He dismisses "chaos theorists" like Robert Kaplan as misguided despite Kaplan's astute warning about diversity bringing chaos. My vote is easily for Kaplan but I remain horrified at the extremist tactics of ABB.Surely there is a middle ground by which we can reduce diversity and save traditional societies built entirely by whites.
You can see this is the debate over gays - liberals argue that gays are genetically programmed to be be gay and it would be unfair to expect them to go against their genes.
-
Biological determinism is an extremely left-wing idea.
Yikes, how idiotic.
The left wants to support gays so it will use any argument necessary to do so. They didn't reach a consensus on their pro-gay rights platform based on biological determinism. They just use that argument to cow right-wingers and to give a just-so justification for themselves to pursue this path.
They also believe that all sexuality is socially constructed and 'cisgendered' people are in fact not 'born that way' but are socialized into a heteronormative system. They believe both contradictory things at the same time because both are politically expedient.
So just because the left is willing to use a biologically determinist argument doesn't make them biological determinists. They frequently use What Would Jesus Do arguments as well, regardless of the debaters actual religiosity.
As for the idea that we can't call Pol Pot, Stalin et al evil is nonsensical as "evil" has a colloquial meaning outside of religious-supernatural definitions. There is a such thing as the Naturalistic Fallacy. Just because Hitler was pursuing a path of genetic domination for his own group does it mean we should blithely concede that this is acceptable because it is in line with his genetic drives.
Allow me to support Kyle in rejecting biological determinism as a Leftist strategy. Leftism uniformly opposes biological theories of explanation for natural events. They believe in environmentalism which is the opposite of genetic explanations.
Leftists are blank slaters who believe in IQ equality, racial equality, and the idea that motivation and effort can overcome all obstacles. Robert Nisbett, the notorious U of Michigan social psychologist, believes that you can grow intelligence as much as you wish.The Left does indeed grab whatever suits the moment by finding genetics a convenient place to stop arguments about gays. That this condition is biologically "abnormal" is easier to handle if you agree that its foundation is genetic. We mustn't be blamed for genetic errors.
I very much like the article from American Thinker:
" I was far less interested in his alleged political convictions than I was disturbed by the fact that close to 600 people with cell phones had not been able to get help. And I am even more disturbed by the fact that no one was asking that question. All the cockeyed ideas in the world don't explain why no one stopped the killer. He couldn't have 600 people in his sights at one time....
...Further information reveals that the young people on Utoya Island had been playing the new version of cops and robbers, with some cast as innocent Palestinians blocked at checkpoints, blockaded in Gaza, languishing in the world's biggest open-air prison, and others playing wicked Israeli soldiers. We have a photo of some campers proudly displaying a handmade "Boycott Israel" banner.
What happened, then, was a fatal clash between two fantasy worlds."
Except that Brevik's world was not nearly as fantastic, despite his isolation from the street gangs he used to run with.
The fact that someone as meticulous, thorough, highly-placed, and street-smart as Brevik was killing the future teenagers of his country, rather than, say: running Norway's police and security forces in such a way as to preclude Norwegian women from getting raped on the steps of their government buildings, is the biggest indictment of Norway itself.
He is, of course, evil...in the avenging judgment vein of Ras'al-ghul from Batman Begins. (He even has the same style of twin goatee!) But given the absolutely pathetic response of both his victims and those who took forever to arrest him, I can't say with any certainty that his bleak assessment of the situation was incorrect. There was no United 93 in Norway's 9/11, and that should be the biggest argument against ever letting liberals or Muslims get that far in ANY society.
Teach your unruly rich kids to be Batman, lest they become supervillains instead.
nikcrit said...
I think some of you are dancing around the fact that, in the end, the Norway Attack is a unmitigated disaster for principled pro-white causes.
-----------------
Can't agree. The dust will settle but the issue will remain. What drove this guy to such murderous extremes?
That's when people will start taking a serious look at an innocent sounding thing called 'multiculturalism'. It's far from innocent though, it's an anti white and white suicide belief system combined.
Whites, have been led to believe that they will be better off if they go against human nature and embrace diversity. It is a bald faced lie that no other peoples believe for a moment. Do Japanese, Chinese, blacks believe this? No. Whites have been subject to relentless propaganda for them to adopt these multiculti lies.
Principled whites should not cower from this event, they need to stand up and tell it damn straight.
Post a Comment