Posted on 07/25/2011 10:16:03 PM PDT by americanophile
The Norwegian mass murderer Anders Behring Breivik, who shot dead more than 90 young socialists at their summer camp on Friday after mounting a huge bomb attack on the centre of Oslo, has been described as a fundamentalist Christian. Yet he published enough of his thoughts on the internet to make it clear that even in his saner moments his ideology had nothing to do with Christianity but was based on an atavistic horror of Muslims and a loathing of "Marxists", by which he meant anyone to the left of Genghis Khan.
Two huge conspiracy theories form the gearboxes of his writing. The first is that Islam threatens the survival of Europe through what he calls "demographic Jihad". Through a combination of uncontrolled immigration and uncontrolled breeding, the Muslims, who cannot live at peace with their neighbours, are conquering Europe.
But these ideas, however crazy, are part of a widespread paranoid ideology that links the European and American far right and even elements of mainstream conservatism in Britain.
In an argument on the rightwing Norwegian site Dokument.no, Breivik wrote: "Show me a country where Muslims have lived at peace with non-Muslims without waging Jihad against the Kaffir (dhimmitude, systematic slaughter, or demographic warfare)? Can you please give me ONE single example where Muslims have been successfully assimilated? How many thousands of Europeans must die, how many hundreds of thousands of European women must be raped, millions robbed and bullied before you realise that multiculturalism and Islam cannot work?"
(Excerpt) Read more at guardian.co.uk ...
BTW, Breivik may be crazy as a loon, but he’s absolutely right about Islam. There, I said it. Deal with it.
It is clear that this guy was a lone wolf nutjob.
His manifesto was all over the map.
Yes that is truly amazing. The Guardian, no less.
It might be an honest headline, but there is a reason they chose the strategic decision to be honest about it. It’s not politically advantageous for the Euro left to promote a Christian vs Muslim dichotomy.
They also try to claim that Islamic terrorists who actually follow the Koran to the letter have “hijacked” the religion, so it is more of a stretch than they can get away with to claim that Breivik was carrying out the “fundamentals” of the New Testament.
Gotta admit, that is funny...
What happens in Europe, stays in Europe.
"Paranoid ideology"?! I don't think so. Concerned or anxious? Especially since 9/11, Bali bombings, 7/7 in London, Madrid bombings? And a string of other related, ongoing events? Most definitely, Yes.
Core messages of Breivik's writings, presented by our own "illustrious" mainstream media starting on July 22, 2011, say he is anti-immigration, anti-multiculturalism, anti-Marxist & anti-Islam (for reasons he gave). -- Those ideas/beliefs have been shared by very many ordinary people too, I'd say, for over 15.
Though, most ordinary, yet concerned people, who share Breivik's political ideas would not agree w/ Breivik's actions & approach of dealing with the issues. Nor would they do what Breivik did. That's the BIG difference.
That said, it is hard to figure out who is "left-wing", or "right-wing", why, how come, etc.. with so much propaganda, spin, and 'opinions & speculations' going around, about Breivik himself too, since the events on Saturday July 22, 2011.
Consider Boris Johnson (a right-wing, monarchist, conservative Brit, who also was elected Mayor of London in 2008, was a member of Parliament for Henley, and editor of The Spectator magazine). In his July 25 article, he makes some very astute, apt (though not original) observations about Breivik. But, he also says:
It wasn’t about immigration, or Eurabia, or the hadith, or the Eurocrats’ plot against the people. It wasn’t really about ideology or religion. It was all about him, and his feeling of inadequacy in relation to the female sex. The same point can be made (and has been made) about so many of the young Muslim terrorists. The fundamental reasons for their callous behaviour lie deep in their own sense of rejection and alienation. It is the ideology that gives them the ostensible cause, that potentiates the poison in their bloodstream, that gives them an excuse to dramatise the resentment that they feel in the most powerful way – and to kill.
There is an important lesson, therefore, in the case of Anders Breivik. He killed in the name of Christianity – and yet of course we don’t blame Christians or “Christendom”. Nor, by the same token, should we blame “Islam” for all acts of terror committed by young Muslim males. Sometimes there come along pathetic young men who have a sense of powerlessness and rejection, and take a terrible revenge on the world. Sometimes there are people who feel so weak that they need to kill in order to feel strong. They don’t need an ideology to behave as they do.
As a rule, and politics aside, people don't usually fall into neat boxes or categories of left-wing or right-wing. Nor do their beliefs or actions. Breivik's ideas, whether he plagiarized, paraphrased, and/or added his own two cents worth, are Not original. Even most 'creative ideas' have what is called an incubation period, draw on previous ones, and gradually build on earlier ideas/beliefs, as actions do, and evolve.
Perhaps, a Key learning point for politicians, journalists, and bureaucrats (left or right wing) should be to improve their own IQ & devise strategies to effectively to address & deal with peoples' concerns (err.. 'paranoia') rather than label & dismiss Breivik as simply a lunatic.
Immigration, multiculturalism, & other related points have been & are very real social, economic & political issues & concerns.
Corrections:
for over 15 = for over 15 yrs.
to effectively to address = to effectively address
But these ideas, however crazy, are part of a widespread paranoid ideology that links the European and American far right and even elements of mainstream conservatism in Britain.
In an argument on the rightwing Norwegian site Dokument.no, Breivik wrote: "Show me a country where Muslims have lived at peace with non-Muslims without waging Jihad against the Kaffir (dhimmitude, systematic slaughter, or demographic warfare)? Can you please give me ONE single example where Muslims have been successfully assimilated? How many thousands of Europeans must die, how many hundreds of thousands of European women must be raped, millions robbed and bullied before you realise that multiculturalism and Islam cannot work?"
Well, in typical Far-Left Lame Stream Media efforts at dismissing, dissembling and marginalizing those they oppose or who's philosophy they disagree with, this MORON, Moonbat, dismisses Brievik's challenge for anyone (to show "One ountry where Muslims have lived at peace with non-Muslims without waging Jihad against the Kaffir") as deranged, yet he does not (cuz he CAN NOT) point to even one, where this has not taken place.
These Fellow-Traveling, Leftist Tools, posing as "Jorn-0-Lists" are sooooo predictable; so sanctimoniously transparent; phony and disingenuous as to be a joke!
No doubt Andrew--like so many of his brethren Lib Loons--is obviously an Alinsky acolyte and well versed in using his "Rules for Radicals," which when all else fails, they trot out--if not the ol' tried and successful accusation of "Racist" or "Bigot"--the one that works best: Rule No. 5: "Ridicule is the most potent weapon."
Boris Johnson was correct, in that Breivik was a lunatic (he wasn’t just “maladjusted” - he was obviously a psychopath on the order of Charles Manson) who had just picked a convenient irritant to use for his grandiose self-justification. Hitler did the same, only Hitler was smart enough to be able to drum up supporters (also by playing on resentment against “outsiders,” in that case, the Jews) and had enough sane moments to be able to organize them. Breivik was so crazy he couldn’t even do that; maybe it was his call for men to “cut off their penises and testicles and murder innocent children” to prove their devotion to his cause that turned off any would-be followers?
In any case, while it is true that there are probably some maladjusted nuts among Islamic terrorists, nothing could account for the existence of so many of them without the existence of an underlying ideology: the violent, murderous Islam.
That said, Breivik objected only to Muslims in European societies, not to Islam itself, and in fact thought that Muslims should have all of the Middle East and build a new caliphate there.
Thanks.
My thoughts on Breivik’s mental health. Various posts, especially #100 onwards
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2753032/posts?page=100#100
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2753032/posts?page=115#115
Breivik did not call for self-castration and/or execution of innocent children to prove devotion to his cause, but to prove trustworthy to a possible Islamic ally* in his war to seize control of Europe from the Globalist Left.
In the killer's own words: "...The Islamic Ummah should view our enemies; the US/EU globalists, as a greater threat than we would ever aspire to be. The reason is that we do not wish to destroy Islam but simply to isolate it primarily outside Europe."*Note: A non-Globalist Islam ally that would withdrawn from Europe and limit their Caliphate expansionism to the world outside of Europe."Assuming we will ever seek common ground, which is unlikely at best, the problem will be the authentication process. How can the Ummah, the enemy of our enemy, know they are really dealing with a Justiciar Knight and not a CIA or EU agent? How can it be proved that the individual seeking to become a proxy for the deployment of nuclear/radiological/biological/chemical weapon(s) isn’t an undercover agent working for the US or a Western European country’s intelligence?"
"The difference between an agent and a Justiciar Knight is that the latter will be willing to make a great sacrifice for the purpose of proper validation. Now what kind of sacrifice would be great enough to remove all doubt that the candidate is not a EU/US agent? A Justiciar Knight is willing to martyr himself for the cause while a EU/US agent will not be willing to sacrifice much. The entity should demand that the alleged Justiciar Knight in question surgically remove his penis and testicles and/or execute a fixed number of civilian children."
- Manifesto, page 960 (LINK)
" Breivik wrote: "Show me a country where Muslims have lived at peace with non-Muslims without waging Jihad against the Kaffir (dhimmitude, systematic slaughter, or demographic warfare)? Can you please give me ONE single example where Muslims have been successfully assimilated?"How many loyal readers of the Guardian ever considered such a question? IMHO, this particular quote has the potential to backfire on the Guardian and any other progressive minded media attempting to smear the counter-jihad. As the progressive media continues to modify their 'analysis' of Breivik to fit within the progressive agenda, theyinadvertently provide opposing food for thought, free counter-jihad advertising (if you will) to readers who have been shielded from these facts for years. Interesting dilemma for the msm.
bump
It was to prove that his devotees had the same fanatical level of devotion as Islamic devotees, and therefore the Muslims would trust him.
Interesting! One often wonders how much misery the world would have been spared if certain other people with what was clearly NPD had either snapped first and done something that resulted in their removal from society or been diagnosed and put away before they could do any harm: people ranging from Mohammed to Napoleon to Hitler and beyond.
All of them thought they were special people and specially annointed by Fate and thus were beyond the strictures that applied to normal human beings. They appear to have been sane enough to capitalize on these things politically, or perhaps they just happened to come along at the right time, when the societies around them were so chaotic or weak that they were able to gather followers.
I think the thing that confuses some people is that there are things they believe Breivik was correct in saying. But aside from the fact that virtually anything that sounds sane in “his” manifesto was literally taken from the writings of other people (IIRC, about 2/3 of its 1500 pages are quotes from other people’s work), that particular type of insanity does seem to be very much prone to attach itself to a cause.
Paranoid schizophrenics are in their own world of fear and anger and are genuinely reacting to something they think is a threat to them, even though it is literally a hallucination; but people with NPD need a stage and an entire drama to highlight them.
Eric Becker, in one of his excellent books, commented that during the French Revolution (during the Terror, particularly), the mental asylums were emptied out and nobody noticed the difference, because suddenly all the lunatics had attached themselves to a violent cause where their insane behavior then appeared perfectly normal.
A bit of News from a FReeper in Norway a few mins ago about Breivik’s case:
>>>>”BTW. The breaking news right now is that his lawyer is claiming his client is insane.”<<<<
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2753032/posts?page=116#116
To the left of Ghingus Khan? And here we have the problem, how in the world is Ghingus Khan on the right of the political spectrum.
Personal freedom is to the right, no state power.
This knee jerk commentary is exactly why journalists jumped to the wrong conclusions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.