Home / Culture and Society / Eighty Young Campers in Norway Slain by Fair-Haired Extremist

Eighty Young Campers in Norway Slain by Fair-Haired Extremist

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

A 32-year-old Norwegian political extremist, now known to be an enemy of Muslims, bombed an Oslo government center on Friday, July 22, killing seven. He then traveled to an island summer camp 17 miles distant, a youth camp for the sons and daughters of the Norwegian Labor Party, where he savagely murdered at least 80 of the children.

His killings at the camp were horrendous. Anders Behring Breivik, at his arrival on the Utoya Island camp was dressed as a police officer. Fitting, because at the camp island, the police had just established a powerful presence, searching and locking down that area in their search for him — Breivik – following the Oslo bombings. 

Anders Breivik is a blond haired fair skinned Norwegian of striking appearance. He told any who questioned him that he was making routine checks in connection with the earlier terror attack.

Some of the 80 or more campers killed in the rampage were as young as 16. Many jumped into the water to escape, and the killer shot them to death as they tried to swim from harm’s way. In the words of one camper, a 15-year old girl, fortunate to escape, “He first shot people on the island. Afterward he started shooting people in the water.”

Armed Norwegian police officers chased the mass murderer half a mile across Utoya Island, where, cornered, he simply surrendered. Even as the officers prepared to shoot the Neo-Nazi terrorist, he stopped. He didn’t panic; he “just surrendered.” A check told police that the shooter’s only weapon, an automatic pistol, had run out of bullets.

Breivik is said to have viewed American “Unabomber” Ted Kaczynski as a hero and wrote anti-Muslim philosophy on his Facebook page. In Oslo, Breivik placed explosions that shattered windows at government buildings, including the building which held the office of the Norwegian Prime Minister, Jens Stoltenberg, who was not injured. Seven people however were killed, and about 15 injured.

In court some days later, on July 25th, Anders Breivik admitted the bombings and the killing of the young people, claiming that he was saving Europe from a Muslim takeover. He said he attacked the Norwegian liberal party because, “price of their treason is what they had to pay.” He would not enter a guilty plea, but told the court he was the perpetrator, trying to save Norway and Europe from cultural Marxism and “Muslimization.”
He referred to himself as part of an organization, of which now two “cells” remain.

Powered by

About John Lake

John Lake had a long and successful career in legitimate and musical theater. He moved up into work behind the camera at top motion pictures. He has done a smattering of radio, and television John joined the Blogcritics field of writers owing to a passion for the liberal press, himself speaking out about the political front, and liberal issues. Now the retired Mr. Lake has entered the field of motion picture, television, and video game (now a daily gamer!) critique. His writing is always innovative and immensely readable!
  • He’s never serious, troll, except perhaps when he writes about rock concerts. Most of the times, just a shit disturber. If you get more than one comment out of him, preferably in a row, consider yourself lucky.

    Perhaps the poor fellow suffers from an ADD

  • troll

    El Bicho – I dropped by to see if you want to take me up on my offer…I guess not

    (btw – if you want to have a ‘straight forward’ discussion with folks as implied in your semi-sanctimonious #217 you might avoid starting out with forms of address like your snarky ‘the enlightened ones’ from #162…just sayn’)

  • troll

    the production of ideas is as critical as anything

  • You got me beat. I have neither the resources nor the requisite kind of skills to make that kind of difference. I didn’t know I was ever going to have to apologize for being a writer, but I guess I must. The bottom line is, I have to resign myself to cranking out ideological tracts, hoping all this time to be on the right side of history.

  • troll

    I gave you a real life example of ‘what I do’ El Bicho

    I will overproduce the seed which I will distribute off market

    I’d send you some surplus veggies but they are spoken for

    I also work in metal: make one to use and one to give away

    none of which is done from an armchair

  • There you go, LB. That was one concrete suggestion you asked for.

    I did, however, refer you to Wolff’s video and you chose not to comment on it. Likewise with my #216. So I don’t really understand what kind of instant miracles you’re looking for. No wine before its time, I say.

  • Why would I need to imagine it when you could just tell me what you do?

    This is why people dismiss you armchair anarchists as blowing smoke up each other’s behinds. When asked in a straightforward manner to provide specific examples of what you are talking about both you and Roger prove unable to do so. (Although hanging zing from a tree may have merit.)

    Not that you aren’t entitled to respond however you see fit, but I’m not sure why you guys act like you know a better way of life when you can’t or won’t articulate it.

  • Cindy, re #204

    Yes, changing culture is a social endeavor, but it’s got to start somewhere, with an individual or a number of individual. My example wasn’t meant to preclude other avenues, but it’s one way how a change of consciousness can occur in some people.

    We must realize that conspicuous consumption only feeds the system. I’m not talking about depriving oneself of life’s necessities, as though extreme asceticism were the necessary stance one must take in order to defy and not support the system. But realistically, a great deal of what we consume are either trinkets or things which keep us diverted and occupied, not life’s necessities. We should be careful with our hard-earned money, our limited resources, so as to put them to use for what will benefit us rather than the system which exploits us, especially since what little we have and “earn” is won at the expense of our subjecting ourselves to the condition of exploitation. So yes, that’s not the only way, but it’s a necessary first step in changing one’s consciousness so as to effectuate social change, a platform to build upon.

    There a plenty of people in America and worldwide who live from hand to mouth. Making ends meet is their natural, chronic condition. Yet, they’re not all without resources, skills, etcetera. That’s why I speak of community action. These people should get together, locally, pull their resources, determine the community needs which are not being met by the system, and form cooperative ventures to meet these needs. That’s how self-sufficiency is built from the ground up, it’s rewarding, and it surely beats a minimum wage job at the local MacDonald’s. That was the context for my remarks.

    As to Bookchin, “the Dean,” yes we talk about it on the Mice thread (look it up). Perhaps one should distinguish here between anarchism as a personal philosophy and anarchism as a movement. While I may agree that the very concept of organization may be antithetical to anarchistic principles, I’m too much of a neo-Marxist and feminist to dismiss the notion outright.

    Anyway, it’s something to talk about.

  • troll

    yes the world is different because you don’t work in a bank Cindy

    (imo and grossly oversimplified) Bookchin is an apologist ymmv

  • troll

    #196 El Bicho – in the throws of a bout of unimaginative cynicism are we?

    as an example – after harvest why don’t I send you the (non-genetically modified ‘heirloom’ organically produced etc etc) seed for next season’s depression garden?

  • zingzing

    wake up civil, cindy.

  • i will reply after a visit to sleepytown, zing. nightie night muchacho.

  • zingzing

    cindy, as an individual, i don’t change things, nor do i make things worse. i have nil effect. same as you. but i do believe that liberals have a good affect upon society. gay marriage is one thing we’ve been fighting for recently, and that seems to be becoming a reality. are you against gay marriage? if not, who do you thank for that?

    i don’t think protesting is “kid’s stuff.” i think… wait, george lopez? eh?

    anyway. protesting is an important part of the process, i’ve done it myself, both as a liberal (in 2003, in washington, against the war in iraq) and as a radical of some sort (in london, in 99 or 2000, when we had a grand old riot), but protest can often be both ineffective (2003,) or something that galvanizes the opposition (99 or 2000,) because the protesters end up looking like destructive fools.

    i grew sick of not having any voice. so i joined the status quo side that best fit my views. it’s done me little good, but it’s better than nothing.

    given that, how do you feel? do you feel your voice is ignored by society? it is. you are (rightly) viewed as a radical by most you come across. it’s great that you’re outside the system in your thought. but you’re not free of it. you still have to exist within it. if you don’t confront it directly, instead of trying to attack it from without (which is a position it can easily ignore you from), what does that make you?

  • i didn’t mean to imply that protesting formally was the be all end all.

    i guess it is more that i can’t even enjoy freaking george lopez for all the sexist shit on that show. i can barely stand anything anymore that would be considered ‘normal’ and i will include what is ‘normal’ to the current ‘hip’ crowd–who are likely twice as deluded (imo) as the regular average joe.

  • zing,

    you don’t change things is my contention. in fact, you make things worse. (er, is my contention)

    actually, it is liberals, it seems to me, who keep this hell hole rolling along as normal. they could be stopping it. but, like you, they think protesting is kidstuff and something one should grow out of and you know, get with the ‘real’ world.

    that was me i am talking about. and maybe that is what pisses me off and makes me so ornery–that all my good deeds that were EVER in line with the culture, were actually is service to the ‘enemy’.

  • Roger,

    Bookchin critiques “post-modern forms of anarchism”. Hmmm, I wonder how I will reconcile that with what I think Bookchin is saying about social anarchism. That would be very interesting to me to find out if you, troll, anarcissie, or? happen to be interested.

  • zingzing

    cindy: “it is about beliefs. at least, for me it is.”

    fair enough. but there’s a gulf between beliefs and reality. some of us have to do our (ineffective) bit in reality. you’re not going to take down the system by yourself. and there aren’t going to be enough people like you to take it down any time soon. and even if there were, they’d never agree on what to do next.

    i’ll agree with you that liberals deserve criticism as much as conservatives do. and yes, they do help to preserve the status quo to a degree. but society isn’t going to go to bed a vulture and wake up a lovable kitten. at some point, everyone has to reconcile their beliefs to reality. while you wander around in a theoretical “what if,” us braindead liberals have a real opportunity to change things ever-so-slightly, which is as good as it’s going to get.

  • 198

    it’s more than about voting, zing. the whole of our thinking is infiltrated from birth by our culture. while ‘liberal’ has typically felt like the ‘good guy’ vs the ‘bad-guy’ conservative, it is more like both sides equally uphold the dominating culture. both sides equally accept, as the ‘real world’ and to a great degree as ‘natural’ (that is beyond our control, preordained by biology), the dominant cultural social reality. doing this is cause of all ills. that is the problem in a nutshell.

  • Which gives me an idea. Why not read some anarchist stuff? We could read Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism: An Unbridgeable Chasm

  • Roger,

    I am sure of one thing. I don’t want this to be ‘advice’. I have struggled with similar feelings. But, one strand of tinsel doesn’t a decorated tree make. Staying home and recycling won’t change the world, imo . I own property, for pete’s sake. And I am not about to disown it and fail to provide for my old age for the likes of some misguided attempt to do the right thing by other people. I can see where that would get me.

    When the culture is ready to eliminate private property, I will be the 1st in line to give mine to the public domain. I will discuss the idea and promote it. But changing culture is a social endeavor, imo. Not something one can do in private by simply not working for a non-profit, not owning property, not using laundry detergent (or whatever one’s idea is–joke!–sort of).

    I don’t work for a bank, it hasn’t changed the world one iota. It’s a social thing, for me. I think Murray Bookchin had a point.

  • 200 –

    199 was a follow up comment to Jordan. 202 is for you.

  • it’s not about blathering on the internet. that was someone else’s, might i suggest–misguided idea. it’s about how the ordinary liberal mindset (including its disagreements and its variations) is a part and parcel of supporting the dominating culture.

    it is about a way of thinking that replicates the problems. it is about beliefs. at least, for me it is.

    what can i say liberals whom i see here day in and day out critiquing conservatives are also worth critiquing and, ironically, for the same reasons they think conservatives are. they think conservatives are contributing to the problem. i think both ‘sides’ are. and with equally awful and terrible dehumanizing results.

    what can i say, i think liberals are happily swallowing the blue pill. try the red pill, neo.

    (i agree with you about my style not winning friends and influencing people, though. your point is well taken. i am probably just going through a stage. maybe i will get better. i hope so.)

  • Let me provide a rather silly example of doing what one can not to support the system. I feel rather guilty of working even for a non-profit, the Salvation Army in this case (there is just as much corruption in non-profits as anywhere else, minimum wage, no problem. And the only reason I’m doing it, I need to buy a vehicle to move back to California. So when my coworkers – people from prisons who work there for 68 cents a day, because it’s a better deal than doing nothing – ask me for some money, I feel guilty for saying no because I have a stupid objective on my mind, which is to get the fuck out of KY. So yes, even by working part-time for a limited objective, such as a used van, I feel I’m compromising myself in not being able to freely respond to people who are in a hell of a worse situation than I am. In some sense, I’m not being true to myself.

    So I say, eliminate the need. Most of the things we desire and crave for are artificial and not really necessary. People in the community should come together, decide on what are the real needs, and try to fill them by forming cooperative ventures. That’s a start, and it must be local.

  • zingzing

    who are you talking to, cindy?

  • I’m not sure I even get what the comments about being ‘holier than thou’ or the ‘if you think we are all a bunch of morons’ attitude comes in.

    Since when isn’t it okay to disagree with someone on a politics forum? Since when isn’t it okay to say so when you think someone is doing the wrong thing? Your characterization of troll, Roger, and me sounds like it comes from some very hostile, ignorant thinking.

    Personally I think it is you who have a ‘holier than thou’ attitude. It is clear to me you are a part of the problem based on your constant ‘put-downs’ aimed at any sort of radical thinking or thinking that is otherwise different from your own.

  • zingzing

    i guess jordan (and i) may vote, which you may not, being all against the system and such. but jordan’s one of them rioting canucks (or at least i think he lives in vancouver–beautiful city…) and i live in a voting district where my vote means about as much as a fly shitting on your fruit salad (i think the district went about 90% for obama, when i did vote, and went dem with equal or higher percentages in the mid-terms, when i did not vote).

  • zingzing

    “It’s not a matter of ‘not doing enough’. The point is about actively doing what supports the problem.”

    so… don’t take this the wrong way, but an armchair statist (if i had to put a word to your complaint, i guess that would be it,) has a larger impact upon the world than an armchair revolutionary? how so? how does jordan’s blathering on the internet have such power while your blathering on the internet does not?

  • #182, troll, any chance you can state the specifics of what you do? repeating the same generic statement offers no insight

  • Jordan,

    It’s not a matter of ‘not doing enough’. The point is about actively doing what supports the problem.

    Just wanted to clear that up. I’m not surprised that you don’t understand. And I doubt you will see the distinction. In my experience your mind is a closed trap.

  • Yes, Clavos, I know.
    *stares at lead balloon on ground, sadly*
    It did bear repeating, I suppose, for the newcomers.

  • Clavos

    it IS after all, John Lake’s thread, which he has graciously allowed ALL of us to commandeer.

    Actually, no, Irene. No thread is the sole property of anyone, and no one has the right to control the topics discussed (within the parameters of the Comments Policy, which admittedly is sometimes elastic), including the author of the article.

  • Thank you.

  • zingzing

    nooses at dawn, roger. kidding. as i said earlier, all i ask is that you not put words in my mouth. your criticisms of me would actually be far more effective, and deserved, that way.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    zing –

    Foghorn Leghorn would offer to bury the hatchet…and Dog would immediately shield his head. Foghorn would say “No, no, boy, not in your head, I say, not in your head!”

    So it’s up to you, zing – either hold out your hand in new-found camaraderie, or duck-and-cover as in the nuclear attack drills of my youth….

  • Zing,

    I’m prepared to bury the hatchet and start from scratch if you are. Meanwhile, I apologize for having said some things I shouldn’t have, in particular, for impugning your integrity. I had neither the basis for doing so, nor the right.

  • You’re rubbing it in, Baronius, and by now unnecessarily so. So yes, there’s is bad blood between me and zing. All that had to be said has been said. End of story. Get over it.

  • On a more serious note, El Bicho, by way of answering your ironically-put question, let me refer you to a 30 minute segment of today’s Democracy Now!” show. Start with a 30 minute mark into the show. There you’ll find a fairly clearheaded presentation of our political and economic woes by Richard D. Wolff, along with a trace of possible solutions and forms of action on the macro level.

    It’s rather discouraging that the recent demonstrations in Wisconsin by public service employees clamoring for their collective bargaining rights had come to an abrupt end, but we haven’t seen the end of people’s discontent with the present political system and the underlying economic system, as Wolff ably argues.

    It’s also encouraging that a Marxist style economist such as Wolff is receiving airtime even on national shows which are dubbed as progressive. This is only to the good.

  • Baronius

    I’m about to do an unseemly “I told you so” dance.

    It’s no coincidence that this thread turned so ugly. Everyone makes a choice to escalate or deescalate a situation. Some low-life goes on a killing spree in Norway; we pick through the bodies to see if there’s anything we can use to throw at our political adversaries; Roger shows up to condemn everyone, jokingly using terminology that probably showed up in the killer’s manifesto. I say “we” because Roger makes me go all snotty when he gets personal, but no, that’s a lie. I choose to go all snotty. The result is the nastiest thread we’ve had around here in a long time.

  • Why not be proud of myself? I figure, somebody’s gotta do it. 🙂

  • If you want to criticize me, Glenn, do it in your own words. So far you haven’t done it. And no, I don’t think “so little of you.” I remarked earlier on this thread that I regard you and Handy as persons of integrity. As to my criticism of your positions/general stance, Cindy expressed it quite well in her pointed remarks directed at zing, well, that’s another matter.

  • troll

    Jordan Richardson and El Bicho – I laid out what is working for me these days in a comment upthread:

    I overproduce and share the surplus through non-market means

    this is a scalable approach that lends itself to collective action

    …and on a personal note: Jordan – I never considered you to be a moron until I read your comments here

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    I hide behind the words of no one. You of all people should know that I take responsibility for my words, and that I am always sincere. I figured – hoped – that since you think so little of me, that it might help you to see that I had accepted Jordan’s words as the constructive criticism that they are, and that you should do the same.

    I guess I shouldn’t have wasted my time.

    Maybe I should instead go back to being the greatest obstacle to “true democracy”.

  • #139: i did admit i was trolling a bit with the last line of #11 in which i cheekily directly connected the norway guy, islamic extremism and the american right.

    I will interpret #166, then, to have been made in exactly the same spirit! *Lulz* Ho, ho, ho, and cheerio!

  • Glenn, rather than hiding behind the words of Jordan or anyone else for that matter – do you realize how lame such an appeal sounds? – why don’t you tell me in your own words what it is you think I should to or listen to?

  • Refers to Chris’s comment.

    Jordan, let’s not personalize it. It’s not zing, the person, who is the greatest enemy (obstacle was my original term) but the mindset. That’s what I truly believe. Shouldn’t I be free to express my POV?

    Mark Eden (“troll’) elucidated the structure of my argument up the thread, have you read that part? Yet, Glenn and zing were the ones who made it “personal.” Rather than discussing ideas, they took it for an affront and a direct attack on them as persons. It was after that that things got ugly.

    You say it’s not about censorship, Jordan. Then why did you capitalize the part you did? Weren’t you suggesting that I object to zing or anyone else expressing themselves, that my beef was mostly about not tolerating views which run contrary to mine? Obviously, that’s not so. I always welcome meaningful dialog and exchange of views, but none of that was happening. So yes, “censorship” was an issue by virtue of your own phrasing, and I responded in that vein.

    If there are parts of your critique I haven’t dealt with, would you please point it out to me on a point by point basis, one point at a time. I can’t deal with a laundry list as per your last comment.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    Jordan once told me that my problem was that I had a habit of being sanctimonious. Jordan was right. I’m still honestly struggling to change my writing habits to the criticism, but if I’m to grow, I must do so.

    You should listen to what Jordan has to say, for we ALL need criticism at times…and we all need the courage to accept that criticism, for what is constructive criticism but the literary equivalent of pruning a plant that it may grow and more effectively bear fruit?

  • Agreed.

  • Jordan Richardson

    Here’s the thing, Roger: you didn’t respond to my critiques. You continually (and I think purposely) ignored them in favour of characterizing me a certain way (mad, foamy, whatever). Fair enough.

    Your interpretation – “the point of our discussing the problems facing America and the world”

    My “pointless query” – Erm, not sure. I can’t actually find a point of reference to that, Roger. Not once did I deride whether or not you should discuss the issues of the day on the Internet. We all do it. What I did deride, however, is that it appears that’s ALL you do while also calling down hellfire and brimstone on anyone for not doing enough. zingzing is an “enemy,” for example, and Glenn is an “obstacle” to democracy. What are you?

    You can’t quite point that lens at yourself, though. And any time someone tries, you snap their little fingers off with your attempted insults. It’s kind of sad and it sure as hell doesn’t represent the compassion and fair-mindedness I would entrust a revolution to. As I was driving at, it’s more like bitterness and ego rolled into a toxic package.

    But hey, see what you want. You bought the mirror, chief.

    As to my “dribble” (I gotta tell you, I prefer to refer to my writing as “drivel”), I’m okay with that. Better than that, I’m AWESOME with that. Blogcritics is one of many holes I’m comfortable in. It’s not the only port in the storm, etc.

    What is pure idiocy Jordan, is for you to assume that anyone COMMENTING ON THE INTERNET has anything to do with my comment.

    Says a comment on the Internet. Amazing. All we’re doing, Roger, is commenting on the fucking Internet. That’s it. We’re a bunch of people that come to the same website and shoot the shit on the Internet. There’s a comment policy, some pictures, some reviews, and a thread of comments that usually disintegrates into a bunch of people beating off. That’s all. So your comment has everything to do with that because that’s the medium.

    For your information, in my last article I took up the cause against all censorship, including on BC, even with respect to the persons who have recently been banned. But where were you all this time, my dear sir, while I was haggling with the management for weeks on end over form of words and what they would or would not find acceptable. Which particular hole of yours you were hiding in while all this was going on?

    I’m not even sure what the hell this means or why I would even remotely care. I said nothing about “censorship” in my comment and I didn’t even come close to blowing on the idea.

    I can tell you where I was, though, or more specifically what I was doing: I was not reading your article and not giving a royal shit. It’s pretty fun; you should try it sometime. Let your hair down. Check into a cheap hotel. Trade in the treatise for an ice cream cone and enjoy some summer days. Turn up some music. Watch a movie. Lighten up. Use, Roger, less, Roger, commas.

    So don’t be preaching to me about where I should go

    I didn’t. I merely pointed out the fact that you seem to really, really hate everyone around here to varying degrees. I merely wondered aloud, perhaps harshly, why you’d bother coming here. You say to talk to Cindy and troll, but surely you can email them or something if the crush of the commoners is so offensive to your refined tastes. If it’s not, why keep reminding everyone of how stupid and pathetic you think they are? Your haughty sense of superiority, newly shined-up as it is, isn’t as flattering as you think it is. Of course, some people are more patient than I am so who’s to say.

    If you don’t like what I say, you can ignore.

    Nine times out of 10, I do. No worries, it’s back to regularly scheduled dribbling right after this.

    But if you choose to be snotty, rest assured I can dish it out in kind.

    I’m okay with that.

  • Well, EB asked for ideas and you responded.

    And, yes, good manners doesn’t preclude robust responses, so broadly speaking I would like to see a good general level of civility maintained.

  • Of course I wasn’t serious, Christopher. How could you think?

    Are you suggesting, though, I shouldn’t respond to Jordan’s critique? Should I phrase it more politely?

  • Roger, you seem to be backsliding into your earlier, overly controlling mode, which I would like to see you refrain from.

    That official note over, I’m also rather startled with these suggestions of yours – “take over the factories, take over the seats of government, municipal, state and federal, abolish private property, empty the prisons. But without a doubt, the first and the most pressing order of business, hang zing from the nearest tree.”

    Every single one of them is neither new or wise; are you serious?

  • “What are we to think of when you say that a guy COMMENTING ON THE INTERNET is a fucking obstacle to democracy? What kind of pure idiocy is this?”

    (Jordan Richardson, #167, in one of his less lucid, foaming-at-the-mouth moments)

    What is pure idiocy Jordan, is for you to assume that anyone COMMENTING ON THE INTERNET has anything to do with my comment. So you’re either just plain dense or misunderstanding on purpose. For your information, in my last article I took up the cause against all censorship, including on BC, even with respect to the persons who have recently been banned. But where were you all this time, my dear sir, while I was haggling with the management for weeks on end over form of words and what they would or would not find acceptable. Which particular hole of yours you were hiding in while all this was going on?

    So don’t be preaching to me about where I should go. If you don’t like what I say, you can ignore. But if you choose to be snotty, rest assured I can dish it out in kind.

  • Jordan, in case you didn’t know, I’m here precisely because I can communicate with people like Cindy and “troll.” Yesterday’s excursion into the nether region occupied by the minds of the enablers and the feeble-minded (and I’m speaking neither of Glenn here nor of Handy whom I respect as persons of integrity, only of zing, the all-too-comfortable Mr. Weasel) was but a valiant but failed effort on my part to keep the dialog going even with the enemy. Worry not, I shall not repeat it soon. As to your rather pointless query about the point of our discussing the problems facing America and the world – well, there’s just no point honoring your question with an answer. No to diminish of course your own contributions to BC, or should I say the hole you’ve found for yourself? rest assured that our exchanges are of no lesser value than your usual dribble. Get the picture?

    El Bicho, you asked for a plan of action. Well, take over the factories, take over the seats of government, municipal, state and federal, abolish private property, empty the prisons. But without a doubt, the first and the most pressing order of business, hang zing from the nearest tree.

    But don’t you tell anyone. I want it to be a surprise.

  • Cannonshop

    #163 the problem is, Glenn, you didn’t overcome your basic hatreds, you just changed who they’re directed at, and the ‘justifications’ for them.

    I’ve also noted you tend to believe in a lot of conspiracies-I sometimes read your comments just to see how well the Right is doing, because the real world doesn’t show them nearly that well organized, prosperous, or effective.

    You still live a life bounded in bigotry and fear, you just changed who the ‘other’ is that you fear and disparage. For that matter, your tent-meeting belief in your Party Uber Alles strikes me as another example of claiming to overcome irrationality, while merely shifting your target.

    At least Zing makes no claim to being anything but fanatically partisan.

  • Jordan Richardson

    One of the other things I wonder about is why the three of you are even here. If we’re all such fucking morons, why not just email or IM each other and end it? Or do you like to put on a big show of your “superiority” in public?

  • Jordan Richardson

    It amazes me and amuses me that the Grand Revolutionaries spend hours and hours and hours of the day on BLOGCRITICS, a site largely known for movie, music and culture reviews, deriding everyone who doesn’t think like them.

    I’m happy that Roger, Cindy and troll have found a hole here to play in, I truly am. But this constant deriding of EVERYONE ELSE that should dare cross their paths is ridiculous beyond words. And on this thread of all places? Shameful.

    Cindy, Roger and troll, your ongoing bull sessions are not as revolutionary as you think they are. Any time I’ve tried to talk to you about practical implementation, you retreat behind more dust covers and can’t come up with a single way in which to ACT. Like zingzing said, you’re sure wearing out those keyboards though.

    zingzing’s also right about alienating people. You three show an incredible contempt for society and different thinkers. I’m personally afraid of the sort of world you promote for that very reason. What would you do with those poor fools you so easily and hatefully categorize? What are we to think of when you say that a guy COMMENTING ON THE INTERNET is a fucking obstacle to democracy? What kind of pure idiocy is this?

    So no, you’re not helping. You may think you can hear the new world “breathing,” but you’re choking the life out of it. You don’t stand for unity, compassion and love at all. You stand for pseudo-intellectual superiority, stuffy and masturbatory philosophizing, and posting an awful lot on the Internet. Give yourselves a big fat pat on the back, will ya?

  • zingzing

    so now that you, irene, know that i know what you’re saying, heres’s what i’m saying: you went ahead and made the “stupid and obscene” connection that i made, just on the other side. it was an example, but you made the example. do you understand? i’m saying what you said was equally as “stupid and obscene” as what i said. even if it was only an example. you made the “stupid and obscene” example into something “stupid and obscene,” if my words were “stupid and obscene.”

    i know it’s very meta, but it is what it is. you made a stupid and obscene example of the stupid and obscene stupid and obscene. i hope you’re proud, because that took a bit of work.

  • zingzing

    irene: “Bingo, Zing.”

    yeah, that’s because i can read things and interpret them correctly. it’s a skill i learned. some other people aren’t too good at it. i feel special because i can. roger sucks at it.

  • zingzing

    cindy: “thanks for your help in keeping the world as fucked up as possible, zing. your contribution is noted. it is your fault, you are responsible. yes, you personally. (in case you though i was using ‘you’ in the collective sense).”

    i’m wondering what i’ve done. from your arm chair, are you starting the revolution for better things? i assume you must have so much blood on your hands, your keyboard is frying. if you’re haven’t started the revolution, then my stalling is equally ineffective.

    we only relay opinions here, cindy. if i’m not willing to put myself outside the bounds of society and still try to work with it, what’s the big problem? i assume the revolutionaries will need people on the inside. why alienate everyone around you? if society is going to change, we’ll need people on the inside and people on the outside. yet you seek to insult those who could be your best friends.

    strategy no-no, cindy. work it out.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    El B –

    Have you ever lived in a town where there were places that whites wouldn’t go, and places that blacks couldn’t go? Have you ever lived in a town where there were “white” and “colored” entrances to the only doctor’s office in town?

    I have – and this was sixteen years after the Civil Rights Act! And looking back with the benefit of hindsight, I could see just how much hatred that institutionalized racism fostered. In case you didn’t know it, El B, NOTHING GOOD COMES OF HATRED…but that’s precisely where RP’s policy (and yours, apparently) would lead.

    I’ve been there. I seriously doubt that you have.

    Any place that is open to the public must be open to ALL the public. One’s home is not open to the public, and so your “home” question is a false argument.

    So if you want to call me a bore for not letting RP off the hook, fine – but I’m not going to stop. I refuse to stand silently by while the country devolves back to the days before the Civil Rights Act, all under the guise of libertarian “freedom”.

  • What exactly are the enlightened ones doing to create this utopia? Please point me in the direction to what’s taken/taking place because other than a lot of blathering on the Internet I don’t see it

  • Damn, Glen you are such a bore with this constant “RP is racist” business. Are you overcompensating for your own past?

    Exactly why does a person not have a right to do business with whomever ever they choose? How does the govt get to decide that is wrong? Where in the Constitution is that power granted? And why stop at businesses? Why not force people to have different races, creeds, and religions into their homes?

    Personally, I would like to know someone is a racist, so I could avoid doing business with them. Apparently, you on the other hand have no problem giving your money to racists, which could fund racist activities. Noble as it may be, your way is worse.

  • Nightie night Roger,

    I was only up to finish my new england clam chowder, into which i put a pound of the most beautiful clams i ever saw (acquired frozen). As it turns out I may as well have made rubber ball soup. It’s a waste. Will have to find a cat to eat it and then go to a fishmonger and try again.

    You have a good night. 🙂

  • Cindy, forgive me if I can’t be responding today. This give and take really wore me out, having been made to feel like I was speaking to Martians. I do appreciate your comments. For a while I thought I was going insane.

    Will respond tomorrow.

  • it is a failed paradigm, as Roger said. the only way out of it is to renounce it and make something different. working within it is like bombing for peace or fucking for virginity.

  • in case i wasn’t clear enough…

    you could help, but you do not help. your efforts are efforts that serve only to help keep things wrong. you slyly denigrate people who are actually doing the right thing as ‘living in a fantasy world’…while you and the other beasts keep the train of pathology in motion.

    it is your fault, you are responsible. yes, you personally. (in case you though i was using ‘you’ in the collective sense).

    won’t you be embarrassed when you find out that you are supposed to take a stand (you lily-livered so-and-so). won’t you turn red when you find out that refusing to accept the ‘real world’ on its terms is the only way to change it. it’s the ONLY way out.

  • “people working towards realistic goals in the real world” are the very same people who are making it what it is and keeping it what it is.

    thanks for your help in keeping the world as fucked up as possible, zing. your contribution is noted.

    and that, my friend, is likely why Roger is frustrated. and not out of any animosity in general.

  • I said you wasted the entire comment, Glenn. But anyway, I never meant to say you’re a willing accomplice. I should have made that clear.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    See? I DID prove your claim that I’m the greatest danger to true democracy!

  • Glenn, you just wasted your entire comment. I was only swatting a fly ofh my back. I don’t think you’re suffering from any anxiety, Glenn, but your compadre does.

  • #130, I’m certain they do and they will. Capitalism is always morphing. Even so, you can’t squeeze blood out of a turnip.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    MY anxiety? Surely you’re not referring to me.

    But if you were, I’d say the anxiety is yours, not mine…because I have a decent grasp of the ebb and flow of history, and I can see the big picture beyond the idiocy that is paralyzing Washington, D.C. History is not on America’s side, sadly enough. We are beginning our decline, and China is rising. We’ll still be in the first rank of nations for decades to come…but we won’t be first among equals.

    China may yet falter, but the game is hers to win or to lose. But her political will is much greater than our own. Go east, young man – FAR east, for it is there to which the center of the financial and cultural world is shifting.

    In my novel (which will probably remain forever unpublished), I describe a South African family that survives because they were not afraid to move to Angola when the time came when moving was necessary – for their ancestors knew that not only the environs of Johannesburg was home, but all of Africa was home.

    Empires rise, and all empires eventually fall…but they do so much more quickly in the modern era. When the time comes to move for the sake of the family and for the hope of future progress, then move! For not only America, but all the world is our home. Another example would be the Jews, who have known this for many centuries.

    Perhaps by posting that I’m not not afraid to vote with my feet, I’ve somehow proven your claim that I’m a great danger to true democracy.

  • troll

    Rog – while I suspect that the dominant dominance paradigm expressed in the dem/repub//lib/neolib conflicts is played out I’m willing to grant zing that I’m in no way certain and that the ruling class may have another hat trick up its sleeve

    there are after all lots of folks yet to be introduced to the magic of compound interest

  • How else can I alleviate your anxiety?

  • Irene Athena

    Bait? What bait?
    Sorry Glenn, busy turning ’08’s into ’12’s at the moment.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irene –

    “GONG”? From The Gong Show? A blast from the past, indeed! But America’s Got Talent is a pretty good substitute, even if they don’t use that big hook….

    And I’ll never trust Ron Paul – the man is a racist. Do you really think that it was for purely libertarian reasons that Ron Paul stated that business should be legally allowed to discriminate against people of different races/religions/ethnicities? Especially considering the fact that Paul DID publish very racist statements in HIS magazine, in HIS name, in HIS byline, over a period of years? And do you really believe his story that he didn’t really write any of that?

    Oh, come on! The much simpler and much more likely explanation is that he’s a racist and he’s using libertarian ideology to further his racist ends.

  • Bingo, Zing. (You left out “stupid and,” but I assume that was implicit.) Hope you and Roger can “woik” it out. Bye now.

  • zingzing

    irene: “There continues to be a disconnect between what you think I was saying about FARC and what I intended to say.”

    i know irene, that’s why i pointed it out. i understand exactly what you were saying. one shouldn’t directly connect this guy in norway to the right any more than one should connect farc to the left. to do so would be obscene. right?

  • zingzing

    you read me how you read me, roger, but the words you read aren’t there. the things you get out of the words people say are all in your mind, and have very little relation to what they actually say. that’s how you come to the silly conclusions you come to.

  • Just so I get the last word, ZingZing: There continues to be a disconnect between what you think I was saying about FARC and what I intended to say.

    We shall leave it at that, because there shall be weightier matters to discuss in the future as I endeavor to convince you to “come out from amongst them,” the “dark-sided” ones of the Left who yet kisseth the jackass which is the State. [Happier now with the adieu, Roger? You wacky anarchist.]

    PS. Yes, I now more fully appreciate the cartoon, and the Internet art form.

  • Well, zing, you accused me of “voices in my head,” rather than owing up to the fact that I read you how I read you. What else can I do to alleviate your anxiety?

  • zingzing

    jesus, roger. you’re ridiculous.

  • No voices in my head, zing, only the form of words. So unless and until your words start ringing genuine and true, to be clearly distinguished from all the other voices, excuse me for rightly or wrongly interpreting them, or misinterpreting them as the case may be, as just another default position. It’s my prerogative, after all, right or wrong, and I’m willing to abide by it.

    So forgive me for being blunt, but there’s no other way. Meanwhile, let me close what promises to be too polite a conversation.

  • zingzing

    “ZingZing: No, I did not tell you that [“I am off to pass out Ron Paul door-hangers”] for the lulz of getting your goat. (Incidentally, I ended up NOT doing that because they all said 2008 on them instead of 2012.)”

    ha. that’s great. well, whether you did or did not (write the comment for the lulz,), do you get the cartoon now? i love that cartoon.

    “My answer: You “did that””

    ah, but i did not object per se to farc being labeled leftist. they are leftist, although i doubt i’d agree with them about a great many things, or at least ways to achieve their goals (which i’m sure is the same for the other side of this fracas). my point was that you were complaining about “stupid and obscene” comments connecting evil [x]-wingers to regular [x]-wingers. but that’s what you did in making the comment. you can say that’s not how you meant it, but the overall affect is still the same. that is all. i admitted my right to say stupid and obscene things (do you deny that right?), and i did admit i was trolling a bit with the last line of #11 in which i cheekily directly connected the norway guy, islamic extremism and the american right. there are certainly similarities. but they do stop at a very certain point.

  • Sorry for butting in, Roger Nowosielski and ZingZing, but it IS after all, John Lake’s thread, which he has graciously allowed ALL of us to commandeer.

    (Now, THAT, I said for the lulz. 😉 Bye now.)

  • ZingZing: No, I did not tell you that [“I am off to pass out Ron Paul door-hangers”] for the lulz of getting your goat. (Incidentally, I ended up NOT doing that because they all said 2008 on them instead of 2012.)

    I told you that because, even though I had the following in my mind (starting with “Your question in #65,” below) I did not have the time at the moment to compose it, but I DID want to acknowledge that you had spoken to me, and that I had to run, and did so in a light-hearted, friendly, but not intentionally troll-lulz-inducing way.

    As for my wasting my time and effort, zing, working with the Big Tent on his campaign: Luke 19:11, and then Luke 19:16,17. It’s a religious fanatic thang; you wouldn’t (maybe) understand! Lest you think I am assigning Messianic properties to Ron Paul; no, I’m trying to be faithful to what I feel is part of what I’m supposed to be doing with my free time right now: living at peace with liberals (who used to be who you are now) who have joined sort-of-Conservatives like me, finding common ground. For the first time in a long while, all of us feel like part of the UNITED States of America, instead of talking to one another the way y’all are on this thread, (unless that, too, is for the lulz.)

    So here goes:

    Your question in #65 where you quote me paraphrasing you, and then ask “where did I [zingzing] say that, and then, explain what you meant, but in so doing, paraphrase me incorrectly: Me: “Now you object to having the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary guerilla organization) described as a leftist group?”

    Zing: no… where did i do that? you were the one that said to say such a thing would be stupid and obscene. but in saying it, that’s exactly what you said. that’s all i meant.

    My answer: You “did that” [i.e. objected to linking FARC with the left] in #65:
    (also, it appears that you have now connected the farc thing and left wingers, even if it was used only as an example, it’s there now.)

    Me: GONG! Yes, I did “connect the farc thing with left wingers” in the sense that “leftist” encompasses, in generally accepted parlance, unrelated groups such as Obama supporters and S.A. guerillas. No I did not “connect the farc thing with left wingers” in the sense of claiming rhetoric by folks like you was a motivator for the “FARC thing.” You, on the other hand, freely admitted that you had the right to, with my adjectives which I now convert to adverbs, “stupid[ly]” and “obscene[ly]” make PRECISELY that accusation to Baronius vis-a-vis Breivik and right-wing rhetoric.


    To Glenn & Troll: While I don’t agree with Ron Paul on every issue (e.g. immigration, though I understand where he is coming from in his views) I do agree with most of what he says. And I believe him more than I believe any other candidate. What he says, he means. As to what YOU all individually want in a candidate, notice I recommended him as a STEPPING STONE to getting together and coming up with reasonable compromises to your diverse but not necessarily irreconcilable ideals. His campaign serves as a catalyst to that end, even if he never ends up in the White House.

  • zingzing

    what? all i ask is that you respond to the words i say, not the voices in your head.

  • Well then, zing, you’ve just defined your grail. From now on I’ll be responding only to things you say that are original.


  • zingzing

    “I just hate the idea of “group think,” and zingzing takes comfort in the fact that all liberals think alike. I couldn’t think of greater self-condemnation than that of identifying oneself with this fact and standing by it.”

    never said any such thing. and all liberals certainly do not think alike. those are just words you’ve shoved in my mouth, which is a complaint i’m sure you’ve heard before. when you say something that’s false, saying it doesn’t make it true. one would think you’d be able to come up with something other than outright falsehoods, but whatever. you can’t just use whatever made-up words you want to, roger.

  • It’s a failed paradigm, “troll,” and ridden with contradictions. No constructive solution can possibly come about while we restrict ourselves to operate within its confines.

    Besides, “feeding the world,” though a noble endeavor, in this context seems to me like settling for too little, like taking the crumbs. Human liberation from all manner of domination ought to be the overarching object.

  • Right, Chris, it is the ideas that need attacking, not persons. I oughtn’t to have stooped this low. I just hate the idea of “group think,” and zingzing takes comfort in the fact that all liberals think alike. I couldn’t think of greater self-condemnation than that of identifying oneself with this fact and standing by it. It flies in the very face of all claims to individuality which he so proudly asserts. What an irony!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    What, the Republicans are a threat to true democracy? I never said that! I’m only owning up to actually BEING the greatest threat to true democracy!

    BTW – here’s something that John Boehner just said today:

    Well, first [the Tea Party caucus wants] more. And my goodness, I want more too. And secondly, a lot of them believe that if we get past August the second and we have enough chaos, we could force the Senate and the White House to accept a balanced budget amendment. I’m not sure that that – I don’t think that that strategy works. Because I think the closer we get to August the second, frankly, the less leverage we have vis a vis our colleagues in the Senate and the White House.

    Yep! Force the senate and the president to do exactly what they want or they’ll either force America into default, or KEEP America in default until those unAmerican lib’ruls cry “Uncle”!

    That, sirs, is REAL small-d democracy by REAL Americans at work! Do what they say, or the economy is toast!

    As for myself, I need to be respectfully silent because I’m nothing more than a threat to the small-d democracy that the Tea Party caucus is so strongly supporting! I’ll be REAL quiet, now….

  • I think people who accuse others of complacency and smugness whilst being excessively sure of themselves are kind of missing something…

    It is the very ideas that need attacking from all sides. We need new paradigms.

  • zingzing

    “I’m the only one questioning your self-complacency and smugness.”

    ha. no you aren’t. get down off your pedestal, your smugness. does it really surprise you that liberals would agree with me? i’m a liberal. i don’t always agree with everything every liberal says. but i’ll admit i agree a majority of the time. hell, you and i probably at least somewhat agree on about 90% of the political questions out there.

  • troll

    …the main one these days seems to be over Hayek’s dilemma – how much government is just right

  • #120

    What squabbles?

  • Yes, Glenn, it’s the Republicans. I get your point.

  • Glenn Contrarian


    zing, Glenn, Handy, Dreadful, and Baronius is on one side, and Roger’s on the other.

    Well, isn’t it obvious? Everybody but Roger is obviously a great danger to true democracy!

  • zingzing

    what’s the worst that could happen? chaos in those nations. like a campground, we’ve got an obligation to leave them better off than when we first got there. i don’t know if we’re capable of that, but just outright leaving the areas now has possibly catastrophic results for the people of those nations. it’s the quagmire we were warned about and we put ourselves in, even though we never should have. it’d be great if we did just leave and the taliban didn’t take over and there were no civil wars and those countries were able to ensure their own security. but that’s some wishful thinking. i think we’re closer to a pullout in iraq, and obama thinks we’re closer in both areas than the armed forces think we are.

    as for the rest of your second paragraph, i more or less agree. surprised? you shouldn’t be, if you’ve really read what i’ve written here over the last 5 or 6 years.

  • Sorry, Baronius, didn’t see that.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger sez: the liberals may object but they surely toe the line. And so they toe the line on the bailouts and any number of things that years ago would be considered unAmerican.

    Here’s a list of bailouts that happened under Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, and Bush 43…but NOT Clinton.

  • I don’t give a hoot you find me annoying, zing. By Jove, you ought to. I’m the only one questioning your self-complacency and smugness. Somebody’s got to, in view of the fact you get a free ride from your liberal-minded buddies, Glenn and Handy, and now Dreadful’s included as well.

    Shoot, even Baronius comes in your defense. That alone should make you leery.

  • troll

    zing – I might be wrong

    a synthesis might emerge out of liberal/neoliberal squabbles that will feed the world

  • Gotta speak my mind, Cannon, and if not here then where.

  • No, Baronius, I don’t own the thread. But since you did butt in, you earned an honorable mention, by inclusion.

  • Shoot, zing, the liberals may object but they surely toe the line. And so they toe the line on the bailouts and any number of things that years ago would be considered unAmerican. Meanwhile, we’re only fueling the voice of reaction.

    I don’t buy your scenario that the world would come to a standstill if we pull out. What’s the worst that could happen? The Taliban taking over, the women not getting their rights? It’s a tribal society, zing, and we can’t bring them up to speed by wishful thinking or any other methods. Besides, I don’t buy the dogma of nation building, not when it issues from our mouths and our corridors of power. I don’t buy anymore the idea of American beneficence or benevolence and force for the good. Those ideas are discredited. We’re just another nation among other nation-states trying to survive, that’s the hard reality. And we’ll stoop at nothing to prolong our existence. Sorry, I have no sympathy for that. Let the history unfold as it will.

  • zingzing

    i know! true democracy loses a voice to the tyranny of the roger! i will resist! you continue to disagree with me roger, and i’ll continue to put my opinion out there for you to disagree with.

    “But of course, you’re going to fall on another dumb excuse to the effect that zingzing doesn’t need to do any of that, that he’s self-sufficient in his own infinite wisdom, that his interests lie elsewhere, or any of the above.”

    nah, it’s none of that. i just find you a bit annoying at the present. i’m sure you can figure out why. but where’d you get the idea that you think i think i have infinite wisdom? i have infinite opinion. but if anyone’s into a little self-deprecation around here, i don’t think it’s you.

  • Cannonshop

    Damn, I thought I played rough with people.

  • Baronius

    “you asked for it by butting in”

    Roger, I forgot about your belief in your ownership of the blogosphere. But if you reread my comment you’ll see that I wasn’t taking sides.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Hey zing –

    didja see that? You got TOLD to stay out of politics! You out of all Americans are to stay out of politics! But remember – the one who told you to stay out of politics isn’t a danger to true democracy – YOU are!

  • Glenn Contrarian

    But lest I forget – I am the one responsible for being the greatest danger to true democracy. The right-wingers who demonize people until right-wing nut-jobs kill them aren’t the real danger to true democracy – I am!

  • My so-called “preconceptions” are derived from scrutinizing the positions you espouse. I’ve been there once. And no, I don’t fault you for where your energies goes. That’s your business. But stay the fuck out of politics because neither your interests nor your heart are at it. And because of that, you’ve got nothing to contribute other than noise.

    As to my self-criticism, read my last article if you dare. But of course, you’re going to fall on another dumb excuse to the effect that zingzing doesn’t need to do any of that, that he’s self-sufficient in his own infinite wisdom, that his interests lie elsewhere, or any of the above.

    Nice try, but you’re not fooling me for a minute. You are a lazy bastard, comfortable to a fault, and nothing but a sophist besides. So yes, I’m sticking to my story.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    fraggala –

    Now, now, you know better than that! A federal court just ruled that if a man calls for the president’s assassination, it’s just his freedom of speech!

    And when Bill O’Reilly repeatedly referred to “Tiller the Baby-Killer”, it wasn’t at all his fault when someone blew away Tiller.

    See? If you’re a right-winger, you can legally call for people to be killed…and take precisely ZERO responsibility when those people are killed! That’s today’s Republican party: the party of “It ain’t my responsibility!”

  • fraggala

    It’s so blatantly hypocritical – every time the Right get their people to bomb and shoot down people, they immediately come online and start asking why should we look at his politics – why are we calling him a right-winger – he was a lone wolf blah blah blah… These right-wing ‘nutbags’ are doing your bidding – you right-wing extremists, you tea-partiers and your GOP funders YOU are to BLAME.

  • zingzing

    roger, the war on terror isn’t all that popular. the vast majority of liberals i know never liked it. many conservatives that did like it no longer seem to either. look into your crystal ball and tell me what you think would happen if we pulled out of every facet of the supposed WOT. what do you see? what i see is that we’re screwed either way, but there’s still a possibility of gracefully exiting, if that’s what anyone really intends on doing. it’s very profitable for those who would continue the war. and it’s hard to stop people from making war if they really want to.

  • zingzing

    roger: “Let’s face it, buddy, you’re a lazy fuck.”

    nah, you’re just too lazy to think past your preconceptions. my energies go in different directions than yours, and you don’t even know where that is, yet because i do not call for the revolution or read or comment on your articles, you form your opinion and you stick to it. great job, seeker of truth. may complexities never vex you. assume everything. never try to understand.

    troll: “zing – is saying that you could be wrong the same thing as self-criticism?”

    it’s certainly a form of it. i express some doubt. i’ve still yet to see any self-criticism from you or roger. all i see is you two complaining about liberals.

  • A good portion of today’s Amy Goodman show, Democracy Now! is devoted to the examination of the person behind the Norway massacre and his views. For those who are interested, start the broadcast at 11:30 minutes into the broadcast.

    The show traces the perpetrator’s views to US right wing and fundamental Christian Right ideology, and it makes an imppresive case. I must add, however, that our “War on Terror,” whether under this or past administration – so yes, liberals, take responsibility for this! – plays a formative role in creating a climate in which the conservative views are the natural reaction.

  • troll

    zing – is saying that you could be wrong the same thing as self-criticism?

    people give back to their “community” in more ways than one.

    either you are setting up a strawman or you think I meant that there’re a limited number of ways to share…if the latter then pardon my poor presentation

  • And another …

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Well, zing, since we’re not at all interested in “honest search and intellectual inquiry”, let’s get back to our REAL agenda, since you and I are the greatest threat to true democracy!

    Once more into the breach, dear friend, once more into the breach! Or close up the wall with our liberal dead!

    Cry havok! And let loose the blog comments of political upheaval!

  • Oh well, another liberal chimes in. Ain’t that a surprise?

  • Bull shit and you know it. I value disagreement more than I value agreement, but it’s got to be a meaningful disagreement, not one arising out of default positions.

    If you showed an iota of interest in the kind of things we’re talking about, you would have visited some of my pages and join the discussion. At the very least, you would have had the right kind of context for the ideas I’m arguing for. And yes, I would have treated you with kid’s gloves, not as an intruder but as a seeker. But no, you’d rather pontificate about my or anybody else’s views ex cathedra, thinking yourself to be all so smart and all so knowing that learning and searching are no longer the principles you live and guide your life by.

    Let’s face it, buddy, you’re a lazy fuck. And the reason why you’re lazy it’s because you’re comfortable. Well, I’m not comfortable by any means. And I wouldn’t be any more comfortable if my material circumstances were to drastically improved. I crossed that Rubicon long time ago.

  • Wrong, Baronius. Zing doesn’t express even an iota of interest in honest search and intellectual inquiry. And neither do you, which is why you take his side in this debate.

    Ho, that’s rich! zing and Baronius are two of the clearest thinkers on the site.

    You may well be as clear-thinking as they are, Rog, but I must say that if you are, you don’t do a very good job of translating that clarity into written words.

  • zingzing

    roger, the only way you’d think i had any “interest in honest search and intellectual inquiry” would be if i were to agree with you. i was roughly where you are now 10 years ago. i found it to be a useless position.

    but if all you have is empty rhetoric about how stupid everybody else is, let’s just agree to disagree. i can’t see you doing anything but staring down your nose.

  • Wrong, Baronius. Zing doesn’t express even an iota of interest in honest search and intellectual inquiry. And neither do you, which is why you take his side in this debate.

    So no, I don’t expect zing to cross the bridge, as “troll” had put it. Nothing like that happens overnight. But I would expect and welcome him to at least express interest in ideas which, at first glance, seem cockeyed and off-the-wall to him – if for no other reason than intellectual curiosity. Then and only then I could start taking him seriously. Meanwhile, excuse me if happen to regard your views, and those of Zing, as mere regurgitation of the liberal or conservative dogma.

    I didn’t mean to include you in the mix, but you asked for it by butting in.

  • zingzing

    “…with survival in the hands of engineers working for the lowest bidders I should be optimistic?”

    that’s simplistic. the world moves forward in marvelous ways every day. in some areas, we certainly aren’t moving fast enough. in others, it’s been a long time coming. but it’s a constant forward motion. i wonder if you even want to see it.

    “but as Rog suggests it might require that you adopt a self-critical attitude to perceive this”

    i don’t think roger has much time for self-criticism. at least not around here. and up there, i said such things as “liberalism may attend to capitalism” and shit about limits and bounds. i’m well aware of limitations on just how effective liberalism can be, but i’m pretty sure it’s a more effective route than pipedream radicalism, although i’ve admitted many times that that could be wrong. does that not sound like self-criticism? show me where you (or roger) have done any self-criticism on this thread. all you’ve done is criticize others. so where’s the self-criticism you would shove on others?

    “or tithing or potlatch or direct gifting – what’s your point?”

    oh, come on. taxes (at least some of them) are used to help others. people give back to their “community” in more ways than one.

  • Baronius

    To a would-be revolutionary, everyone who isn’t kicking over tables seems like part of the problem.

  • troll

    negative nancy.

    …with survival in the hands of engineers working for the lowest bidders I should be optimistic?

    some call it non-perishable canned goods. some call it taxes…or tithing or potlatch or direct gifting – what’s your point?

    it’s not up to me (or glenn) to offer any choices. i’m just describing reality as i see it….seems to me that you both go a bit beyond simple description – but as Rog suggests it might require that you adopt a self-critical attitude to perceive this

    you are free to disagree…thanks

  • zingzing

    oh, roger. glenn and handy and i are all individuals as well. we may agree with each other often, but that’s an acceptable state of affairs. we’re just trying to solve the world’s problems as well, as futile as that might be. don’t begrudge someone’s opinion just because someone else happens to agree with it. from what i can see on this thread, troll came in and echoed your thoughts. what may happen in other places might be different. but that goes for everyone. liberals bad, roger good? wake me when it’s time for tea.

  • Of course I didn’t miss “the joke,” just chose to ignore it.

    The three or four of us, zing, each is an independent thinker. It’s not an echo chamber at all. It just so happens we’re all exercised about the political and social problems facing the US and the world, and each of us have ideas on what might be possible solutions. And it goes beyond saying that the Democrats are good and the Republicans are bad. But in essence, that’s the predominant message that comes across, whether it be you, Handy and Glenn. It’s all soooooo boring.

  • zingzing

    “But you do stand in my way.”

    did you really miss the joke?

    “It’s bad enough to hear what you no doubt regard as words of wisdom, but it’s this echo chamber that’s so obnoxious. If I didn’t know any better, I’d swear all three of you are clones.”

    ah, turn that gaze upon yourself and your echo chamber. are you truly shocked that people would disagree with you? especially when all you’ve done is insult? roger… come on.

  • But you do stand in my way. It’s bad enough to hear what you no doubt regard as words of wisdom, but it’s this echo chamber that’s so obnoxious. If I didn’t know any better, I’d swear all three of you are clones.

    That alone is reason enough to be suspicious that there’s something rotten in the state of Denmark.

  • zingzing

    roger: “All three of you are so perfectly reasonable it wants to make me puke.”

    don’t let me stand in your way.

  • zingzing

    troll: “I don’t see history trending toward the positive and I doubt that humans will survive the next century in any great numbers…”

    negative nancy.

    “my interest presently is in producing more than I need and sharing the surplus with ‘the community'”

    some call it non-perishable canned goods. some call it taxes.

    “Glenn – as with zing you offer the choice between the devil and the deep…”

    it’s not up to me (or glenn) to offer any choices. i’m just describing reality as i see it. you are free to disagree.

  • troll

    zing – i understand. you see a brighter, theoretical future. it may come to pass, but it’s not the present, and it won’t be the present.

    I don’t see history trending toward the positive and I doubt that humans will survive the next century in any great numbers…my interest presently is in producing more than I need and sharing the surplus with ‘the community’

    you have to work within the bounds you exist in.


    haven’t we come to understand that ‘reality’ is complex chaotic and non-linear in this posttoasty world?

    Glenn – as with zing you offer the choice between the devil and the deep…I see no reason to think that continued jousting between liberal and neoliberal representatives of capitalism will produce especially positive ‘real world’ results – it’s a closed system and is bound to overlook or suppress alternatives

    Irene – there’s nothing particularly idealistic about communal structures…what’s idealistic is the notion that individuals exist sans communal structures

  • I’m doing that, Handy, considering the source. All three of you are so perfectly reasonable it wants to make me puke.

  • #77: as usual, zing says it better than I could. How this perfectly reasonable position could be compared to “a rock”…well, consider the source, I guess.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Irene –

    I will cut Ron Paul ZERO slack. You saw my article and you know full well that if he gets his way, the National Flood Insurance Program goes away…which means the insurance industry will either charge exorbitant prices for flood insurance (or cancel it altogether) for most of America’s heartland, most of Florida, and nearly all our coastline…all of which comprises well over half our population.

    And banks will NOT approve mortgages in a flood zone unless flood insurance is included…so if Ron Paul got his way, most of our nation’s real estate market would come to a screeching halt…and so would our economy as a result.

    So, um, NO, I will NOT cut Ron Paul slack. He is an ideologue who cannot see (indeed, refuses to see) what would happen if he got to implement what he sees as inflexible libertarian dogma. I’d rather see Romney, Huntsman, or Santorum as president. Heck, I’d rather see Newt Gingrich as president before Ron Paul! I’d even take Dick Cheney as president before Ron Paul! At least all of these losers – unlike Paul – realize that some government programs are quite essential to the functioning of the nation’s economy.

    Anyone who supports Ron Paul hasn’t been paying attention to what the man has really stated that he would do, and what would happen as a result.

  • zingzing

    roger: “It’s like talking to a rock.”

    don’t forget to roll. there are things under rocks. when one stops looking, as you most certainly have, you wouldn’t know. you’ve developed a single perspective. tunnel-vision, they might call it.

    cannonshop: “It’s HARD to treat issues or persons as individuals, it’s harder yet to examine how the choices represented by those issues, or the choices of those individuals, fit into the larger context of America and its culture and civilization.”

    yep, it’s hard. so don’t let yourself limit someone to “liberal” or “conservative.” you never know what a person might think. we’re all individuals.

  • Cannonshop

    “Liberalism” is no longer Liberal, it’s become increasingly anti-Liberty, and more Collectivist, just as “Conservatism” has become increasingly anti-Conservative.

    Party Labels aren’t even a decent measure-there are pro-Liberty Democrats and anti-Liberty Republicans, as well as Republicans that forty years ago would have been aligned with much of that period’s counter-cultural “Liberals”.

    The point is, the terms are in and of themselves both false, and misleading, a kind of universal disingenuousness that crosses party boundaries thanks to media on both sides that are too lazy to actually research, or even think about things, instead relying on labeling as shorthand for deeper consideration of serious issues.

    It’s HARD to treat issues or persons as individuals, it’s harder yet to examine how the choices represented by those issues, or the choices of those individuals, fit into the larger context of America and its culture and civilization.

  • I’m glad, Irene, that you believe in someone. As to zing, I think it’s a lost cause (for the time being). He’s of the mind that one’s political beliefs are no differently manifested than by one’s preference for colors or a rock star. As per his #77, first paragraph, I used to love blue. Now I detest blue since I’ve fallen in love with red.

    The man hasn’t got a clue. Can’t relate evolution of thought to his own experience for the simple reason he never experienced any. It’s like talking to a rock.

  • zingzing

    irene. you did it for the lulz. maybe not the passing out stuff, but the comment. but glad you get the cartoon. and paul is another pipe dream. he won’t be president, even if you do like his ideas. you’re flushing your efforts and time away.

  • Roger, I may be unwillingly achieving that goal by telling zing that I STILL can’t completely get my head around the example he uses to explain the trollbait cartoon. ZingZing, you CAN’T be implying that I’m claiming to pass out Ron Paul door hangers JUST to get you angry and to
    invoke the (fortunately not delivered) diatribe about “the Newsletters.” That I’m doing it all for the lulz! No siree. I’m for real. Ron Paul is the stepping stone to all Baronius’ capitalist dreams, all your liberal dreams—and Glenn’s if he can cut Paul the same slack he’s expecting us to cut for himself–, all all the idealistic commie dreams of Troll (of the Jameson, not the cartoon), all the anarchistic dreams of Cindy and Roger. And I’m not claiming the good Dr. is anything MORE than a stepping stone to getting all those disparate groups together to work on at least reasonable COMPROMISES of their dreams—but he IS a stepping stone.

    But I sort of get the gen’l meaning of the cartoon now. Thanks. Well…’Nite all.

  • It’s become a funny thread, guys. It’s about time we have some serious laugh.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    troll –

    Which side strongly supported Citizens United, and which side opposed it? Which side supports the idea of “corporate personhood”, and which side rejects it? Which side recognizes the need for regulation of Big Business, and which side thinks that businesses should get to do what they want without regard to what happens to the little guy?

    You and I can agree wholeheartedly that we need to have lawmakers who aren’t bought and sold by Big Business…but do you really think we’ll ever arrive at that point by letting Big Business do whatever it wants, without regulation, free to give as much money as they want to whichever politician they want?

    By their actions shall ye know them, troll. One side tried at least somewhat to keep business out of politics, and tried to provide protections for consumers. The other side took as a matter of unquestioned dogma that business should have full and unrestrained access to politics.

    But just ignore everything I just said, now, because it’s not Unfettered Big Business that’s a danger to true democracy – it’s ME!

  • zingzing

    well, troll, i think glenn’s argument is that roger is not the roger of yore. he’s changed, and so has his politics. that’s all fine and good. but he’s like a miley cyrus fan that found britney and now can’t stand miley cyrus fans and shits on them as much as possible. it’s hard to take it seriously.

    liberalism as it exists may attend capitalism. that might be true. but i’m no big fan of what capitalism does, and neither, as far as i can tell, is glenn. the other side of this very two-sided coin, conservatism, certainly plays to capitalism more whole-heartedly. i think your big complaint is that we should, by all rights, be on your side, but we haven’t quite been able to cross that bridge.

    in ways that are often unfortunate, capitalism is what we have. it’s not really going to go anywhere during our lifetime, excluding some capitalism-destroying event. it’s the framework we are forced to exist in, as bad (or good) as that sometimes can be.

    you have many things that you should thank capitalism for (the job you hold, the computer you type on, the house you live in). you bite the hand that feeds you. i understand. you see a brighter, theoretical future. it may come to pass, but it’s not the present, and it won’t be the present. you have to work within the bounds you exist in.

    if that’s a crime, i guess it’s a crime. if i could have it my way, we’d all work together in peace and harmony in a social heaven. but it’s a competitive world, where one man steps on another to make his way. that’s reality. it’s unfortunate, and it’s good that there’s people like you and roger out there trying to fantastically push society forward, but it’s also good that there’s plenty of people working towards realistic goals in the real world.

  • troll

    zing – #73 refers to the structure of Rog’s argument that so riled Glenn

    but my opinion is that liberalism attends capitalism which only provides the best democracy that money can buy

    as for communism – there’s commies and then there’s commies…I’d be the later type if I knew what it meant I guess

  • Glenn Contrarian

    I think pablo is a great example of the intellectual disconnect we have here.

    As troll pointed out, I was southern racist and conservative bigot…but what he doesn’t point out is that that’s how I was raised…and what pablo doesn’t grok is that I was finally able to work through the racism and bigotry and see it for what it was. At the time I did love Reagan and did like George Will…but after I saw through the hypocrisy and the lies, I loved them no longer.

    So how, exactly, does that make me a “real piece of work”?

    I suspect it comes from the disdain that some have for a person who turns his back on that which he once espoused, but found to be wrong. I guess pablo would call that cowardice instead of courage. We all know that Roger holds it to be the greatest obstacle to true democracy.

    I’m not surprised – I gotten the same scorn from my family and from my co-workers back in the Navy, all of whom simply could not grasp the possibility that what passes for conservatism these days…is anything but.

    The self-proclaimed conservatives aren’t fighting to preserve actual conservative ideals – they abandoned such back in the 1990’s. Right now, they’re fighting to preserve their hold on power…and their main tool is the utter rejection of any position that is supported by liberals (no matter how sensible said position may be) and the outright demonization of anyone who has the courage to stand up and say, “I am a liberal!”

    But I’m the greatest obstacle to true democracy. I guess “true democracy” in some people’s eyes are the results of votes cast only by those who are already of like minds, on the same side on all the issues….

  • zingzing

    troll, why is liberalism the greatest obstacle to true democracy? one would think being able to voice an opinion was democracy. and aren’t you a communist? i could be wrong… but if that’s so, what use do you have for democracy? (not that i’m totally against the wondrous ideals of communism, but that’s just not how it works out, it seems.)

    also, glenn beck said that the camp where the kids were killed “sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth or whatever.”

    he continues, “Who does a camp for kids that’s all about politics? Disturbing.”

    glenn beck’s 9/12 movement includes camps for kids all about politics.

  • troll

    ……a bit of drama there Glenn but consider the argument:

    liberalism is the greatest obstacle to true democracy – zing and Glenn are liberals – ergo…

    so – where’s the ‘insincerity’ and what’s the problem?

    (pablo – Glenn is a self-proclaimed reformed southern racist and conservative bigot)

  • pablo


    And I pity any guy who claims to be a liberal and loved Ronald Reagan and George Will. LOL

    Your a real piece of work Glenn, obviously hence your nickname on here.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Roger –

    I consider people like zinzing and our well-meaning Glenn as the greatest obstacles to true democracy.

    That’s something I would not have said of the worst on BC. Not of Arch, of Dan, of anyone.

    I’ve said many times that I’ve got a great deal of respect for Clavos. He’s wrongheaded on many issues (IMO, of course)…but at least he’s sincere about it. He performs his duties as editor honorably, and does not say something that he doesn’t sincerely mean (unless he’s using sarcasm).

    You, on the other hand, have shown that in the first year or so I contributed to BC, your conduct was apparently NOT sincere (unless your personality made a complete flip-flop). You had me completely fooled…and that doesn’t happen very often when it comes to reading someone’s personality through their writing. Take that as a compliment, if you like. To my mind, it’s not.

    I once trusted your opinion – but no more. I am much more willing to trust someone who is sincere (even if he’s sincerely wrong) than to trust someone who has shown me beyond question that he is not sincere.

    You once had my trust. Now you only have my pity.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    I find it strange that there are some who want to relegate “terrorism” solely to Islamists when the religion whose adherents have killed the most people in the Name of God is…

    …mainstream “Christianity”.

    That’s something to bear in mind when there’s one particular party that wants to be pictured as wrapping itself in the flag and carrying a cross….

  • Costello

    It’s fascinating that the snippet from the Manifesto resembles the ravings of a certain commie-lib-hating, blah blah blah, fooh fooh fooh, ipso facto, mother father

  • zingzing

    your last sentence is exactly what that cartoon’s about. you just knew that would piss me off. ugh… ron paul.

    glenn! bring out the “ron paul’s a fucking racist” diatribe.

    look at the cartoon again. some guy pops in (1st panel), says something terrible (3rd panel), then… see? you can play the game, but you don’t know it’s art.

  • It’s hopeless, ZingZing. It’s like when it took all afternoon for people to get me to understand what iilii meant last summer. It’ll come to me maybe later. But I’ve got to go hang Ron Paul door hangers now with…deep breath…all those other people in the Big Tent.

  • zingzing

    “ZingZing I still don’t get the cartoon. Low-hanging fruit = troll food, maybe?”

    no no. internet troll. then look at the last sentence of #11.

  • zingzing

    irene: “1)Muslims who blow things up for Allah.
    2)People who want to blow Muslims up for blowing things up for Allah.
    3)People who want to blow up Muslims just because they’re Muslims.”

    well, the first ones are religious fanatatics, but i wouldn’t lump them in with the western right wing. the second one is the american right wing gung ho kill em all of the last presidency. they’ve just forgotten it. and the third are parts of the american right wing and parts of the jewish right wing.

    “4)Republicans who supported Bush’s plans to go after Al Qaeda abroad.
    5)Republicans who criticized Obama’s plans to go after Al Qaeda abroad.”

    those two are 99% the same.

    “6) People who assert that if a baby’s got a nervous system, it feels pain.
    7) People who prefer the economic policies of F.A.Hayek to those of John Maynard Keynes.
    8)People who prefer the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes because they’ve never heard of F.A.Hayek.”

    well now you’re just getting into opinions.

    “Now you object to having the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary guerilla organization) described as a leftist group?”

    no… where did i do that? you were the one that said to say such a thing would be stupid and obscene. but in saying it, that’s exactly what you said. that’s all i meant.

    “Must we now call THEM “right wingers,” too?”

    that would be silly. i don’t know why’d you’d do that.

  • Well handyguy #57, as far as predictors of such aberrant behavior go…you may already be aware that someone has drawn a direct line between a certain psychological experiment at Harvard U and the transmogrification of 16-year old freshman boy genius Larry Kaczynski into the Unabomber. The article’s from The Atlantic so it can’t be paranoia, right? 🙂

    Baronius #58. The Communifest Manifesto’s always there for the mining, and sadly, fresh terrorist acts inspired by it are delivered regularly (in actual fact, if not as top-of-mind news items in the U.S. press.) I thought the comment about loose change was funny.

    Roger, oh, yeah. George Orwell. Thot it rang a bell! See what happens when you make Vikings read English lit as teenagers? ZingZing I still don’t get the cartoon. Low-hanging fruit = troll food, maybe? That’s me! Well, thanks for the conversation, everyone. Gotta go! Have I talked enough to earn B.H.o.t.M. for July? *fingers crossed*

  • think of it … sorry

  • “he who controls language controls thought.”

    Bears repeating, even if it’s plagiarized.

    Come to thing of it, George Orwell said it too.

  • John Lake, I assume you know I wasn’t calling you a jackass. 🙂

  • Ah gee, ZingZing, the term “right wingers” is ALREADY being used as a pejorative to describe all sorts of not necessarily-overlapping groups:
    1)Muslims who blow things up for Allah.
    2)People who want to blow Muslims up for blowing things up for Allah.
    3)People who want to blow up Muslims just because they’re Muslims.
    4)Republicans who supported Bush’s plans to go after Al Qaeda abroad.
    5)Republicans who criticized Obama’s plans to go after Al Qaeda abroad.
    6) People who assert that if a baby’s got a nervous system, it feels pain.
    7) People who prefer the economic policies of F.A.Hayek to those of John Maynard Keynes.
    8)People who prefer the economic policies of John Maynard Keynes because they’ve never heard of F.A.Hayek.

    Now you object to having the FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, a Marxist-Leninist revolutionary guerilla organization) described as a leftist group? Must we now call THEM “right wingers,” too?

    I noticed one line in particular in the excerpt that John Lake just posted from Breivik’s Manifesto: he who controls language controls thought.

    Good stuff. The jackass probably plagiarized it.

  • zingzing

    or why don’t you take a look at this one instead of cravenly hoping that the next mass murderer is a lib? i think a little right wing self-reflection is a far better alternative than a left wing attack. (something i’ve tried to avoid, but it may have proved impossible.)

  • Baronius

    Yike. Next time I’ll take the low road and save everyone the aggravation. How about this: I’ll cut and paste something from the next killer’s manifesto to make liberals look bad. Then I’ll go to the beach and dig through the kid’s pockets for loose change, having already done the intellectual equivalent.

  • Well, McVeigh and Breivik were both acting against the governments of their countries, blowing up government buildings and in Norway targeting the majority political party.

    But it’s hard to know how important that is. The main thing is that they were unstable people waiting for an outlet for their rage. The kid in Tucson and the major at Fort Hood and Lee Harvey Oswald may all fit that same mold.

    If we could only predict who was about to go off, as in that disturbing and very fine movie, Minority Report — would that be the only way to prevent these periodic explosions of terror?

  • zingzing

    55 was for 53. (also, it appears that you have now connected the farc thing and left wingers, even if it was used only as an example, it’s there now.)

    and even if roger is trying to disagree with me (a kneejerk suspicion on my part), he pretty much nails my response to baronius’ lack of interest.

  • zingzing

    maybe. i can say stupid and obscene things if i like. baronius, however, wanted to just ignore the whole thing, because breivik doesn’t deserve our attention. that’s where it started. it didn’t come out of the blue. it was a reaction to baronius’ desire to shove it all under the rug.

  • It’s this double standard, Irene, and total absence of self-criticism that gets me. We readily condemn individuals who, in some sense, are a product of the insane world we live in — call them exceptions as a matter of fact — while we gloss over our own inhumane acts and our complicity because they’re “necessary evil.” And this is supposed to be the norm and the standard of sane behavior.

  • ZingZing, lets get back to precisely what you DID say. You told Baronius that if he didn’t see the Norway/Breivik tragedy as an opportunity to reflect on how a right winger could get to that point, he was a coward.

    I repeat what *I* said in response. I said that if I were to rub your nose in the fact that in Colombia, the leftist FARC forces children to become soldiers (to bear arms against their own flesh and blood), and told you that you, as a left winger, to avoid looking yellow-bellied, needed to take a good long look at how a left winger could get to that point, I would have said something stupid and obscene.

    And I would’ve, don’t you agree, ZingZing?

  • Yes, Roger (#50) that’s just it! Even the monster Breivik looks on the bloodied corpses on the beach and pronounces the scene “atrocious” but “necessary.”
    He doesn’t use the soulless euphemism “collateral damage” to describe the devastation left by a US-operated (or at least paid-for) Predator Drone. There are little Muslim babies in that carnage, too.

  • zingzing

    “Your implication seems to be that there’s something fundamentally CRAZY-MAKING about right-wing thinking.”

    well, i do think that being right wing is a bit crazy. but never did i imply that simply being right wing is enough to make a man do this kind of stuff. i said the opposite. which ever way it happened (he was crazy, then he was right wing, then he combined the two into killing children -or- he was right wing, then he was crazy, then he combined the two into killing children,) the “crazy” is always a crucial part of that equation, and not exclusive to either wing.

  • No sane person would. It’d behoove us, however, to look at the heated-up rhetoric of the modern state as regards “War on Terror,” which makes some individuals take it upon themselves to act in the same manner that we ourselves act when in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan, or in a manner which counters our own terrorist activities directed at those populations.

    But of course the modern state is justified in its actions, be it in the name of national security or defending the homeland, or what else have you, and thereby excused from being irrational. That title is the natural preserve of the individual

  • Handyguy #40 and Baronius, are on the same page here. (Somebody get a screen shot!) It’s a reasonable stance.

    I’d add that I agree the Koran burning was insensitive, and I was particularly disappointed that a Christian pastor, who is supposed to be representing the love of Christ, would feel the need to bear witness to the Prince of Peace in that way. But it’s something that some, not all, right wingers do, and I really can’t imagine the Pastor Whosomadinger dressing up like a cop and killing sunbathing children because their parents promoted Koran-reading in school, any more than I can imagine Richard Dawkins doing that.

  • No, ZingZing #44, I’m actually EMPHASIZING your claim that no sane person would do what Breizik did. Your implication seems to be that there’s something fundamentally CRAZY-MAKING about right-wing thinking, that there’s a natural progression from being angry enough about what’s in the Koran to burn it (yikes! not only in EFFIGY, but actually burning…IT! – – Richard Dawkins who writes nasty diatribes about it, gets a pass….just because….) and the slaughter of innocents whose parents belong to the “wrong” political persuasion.

  • zingzing

    irene, look at the cartoon again. and look at the title (something like “troll exploitable,” although the actual title of the drawing is “troll bait”).

  • John Lake

    Here is a part of the Anders Breivik’s “Manifesto”.

    “The ideology that has taken over Western Europe goes most commonly by the name of
    “Political Correctness.” Some people see it as a joke. It is not. It is deadly serious. It
    seeks to alter virtually all the rules, formal and informal, that govern relations among
    people and institutions. It wants to change behaviour, thought, even the words we use.
    To a significant extent, it already has. Whoever or whatever controls language also
    controls thought. Who dares to speak of “ladies” now?
    Just what is “Political Correctness?” Political Correctness is in fact cultural Marxism
    (Cultural Communism) Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. The
    effort to translate Marxism from economics into culture did not begin with the student
    rebellion of the 1960s. It goes back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian
    Communist Antonio Gramsci. In 1923, in Germany, a group of Marxists founded an
    institute devoted to making the transition, the Institute of Social Research (later known
    as the Frankfurt School). One of its founders, George Lukacs, stated its purpose as
    answering the question, “Who shall save us from Western Civilisation?” The Frankfurt
    School gained profound influence in European and American universities after many of its
    leading lights fled and spread all over Europe and even to the United States in the 1930s
    to escape National Socialism in Germany. In Western Europe it gained influence in
    universities from 1945.
    The Frankfurt School blended Marx with Freud, and later influences (some Fascist as well
    as Marxist) added linguistics to create “Critical Theory” and “deconstruction.” These in
    turn greatly influenced education theory, and through institutions of higher education
    gave birth to what we now call “Political Correctness.” The lineage is clear, and it is
    traceable right back to Karl Marx.
    The parallels between the old, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism are evident.
    Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, shares with classical Marxism the vision of a
    “classless society,” i.e., a society not merely of equal opportunity, but equal condition.
    Since that vision contradicts human nature because people are different, they end up
    unequal, regardless of the starting point society will not accord with it unless forced.
    So, under both variants of Marxism, it is forced. This is the first major parallel between
    classical and cultural Marxism: both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature of
    Political Correctness can be seen on campuses where “PC” has taken over the college:
    freedom of speech, of the press, and even of thought are all eliminated.
    The second major parallel is that both classical, economic Marxism and cultural Marxism
    have single-factor explanations of history. Classical Marxism argues that all of history was
    determined by ownership of the means of production. Cultural Marxism says that history
    is wholly explained by which groups defined by sex, race, religion and sexual normality
    or abnormality have power over which other groups.
    The third parallel is that both varieties of Marxism declare certain groups virtuous and
    others evil a priori, that is, without regard for the actual behaviour of individuals.
    Classical Marxism defines workers and peasants as virtuous and the bourgeoisie (the
    middle class) and other owners of capital as evil. Cultural Marxism defines all minorities,
    what they see as the victims; Muslims, Feminist women, homosexuals and some
    additional minority groups as virtuous and they view ethnic Christian European men as
    evil. (Cultural Marxism does not recognise the existence of non-Feminist women, and
    defines Muslims, Asians and Africans who reject Political Correctness as evil, just like
    native Christian or even atheist Europeans.).
    The fourth parallel is in means: expropriation. Economic Marxists, where they obtained
    power, expropriated the property of the bourgeoisie and handed it to the state, as the
    “representative” of the workers and the peasants. Cultural Marxists, when they gain
    power (including through our own government), lay penalties on native European men
    and others who disagree with them and give privileges to the ”victim” groups they favour.
    Affirmative action is an example.
    Finally, both varieties of Marxists employ a method of analysis designed to show the
    correctness of their ideology in every situation. For classical Marxists, the analysis is
    economic. For cultural Marxists, the analysis is linguistic: deconstruction. Deconstruction
    “proves” that any “text,” past or present, illustrates the oppression of Muslims, women,
    homosexuals, etc. by reading that meaning into words of the text (regardless of their
    actual meaning). Both methods are, of course, phony analyses that twist the evidence to
    fit preordained conclusions, but they lend a ‘scientific” air to the ideology.
    These parallels are neither remarkable nor coincidental. They exist because Political
    Correctness is directly derived from classical Marxism, and is in fact a variant of Marxism.
    Through most of the history of Marxism, cultural Marxists were “read out” of the
    movement by classical, economic Marxists. Today, with economic Marxism dead, cultural
    Marxism has filled its shoes. The medium has changed, but the message is the same: a
    society of radical egalitarianism enforced by the power of the state.
    Political Correctness now looms over Western European society like a colossus. It has
    taken over both political wings, left and right. Among so called Western European
    ”conservative” parties the actual cultural conservatives are shown the door because being
    a cultural conservative opposes the very essence of political correctness. It controls the
    most powerful element in our culture, the media and entertainment industry. It
    dominates both public and higher education: many a college campus is a small, ivycovered
    North Korea. It has even captured the higher clergy in many Christian churches.
    Anyone in the Establishment who departs from its dictates swiftly ceases to be a member
    of the Establishment.
    The most vital question is: how can Western Europeans combat Political Correctness and
    retake their society from the cultural Marxists?
    It is not sufficient just to criticise Political Correctness. It tolerates a certain amount of
    criticism, even gentle mocking. It does so through no genuine tolerance for other points
    of view, but in order to disarm its opponents, to let itself seem less menacing than it is.
    The cultural Marxists do not yet have total power, and they are too wise to appear
    totalitarian until their victory is assured.
    Rather, those who would defeat cultural Marxism must defy it. They must use words it
    forbids, and refuse to use the words it mandates; remember, sex is better than gender.
    They must shout from the housetops the realities it seeks to suppress, such as our
    opposition to Sharia on a national and local level, the Islamisation of our countries, the
    facts that violent crime is disproportionately committed by Muslims and that most cases
    of AIDS are voluntary, i.e., acquired from immoral sexual acts. They must refuse to turn
    their children over to public schools.
    Above all, those who would defy Political Correctness must behave according to the old
    rules of our culture, not the new rules the cultural Marxists lay down. Ladies should be
    wives and homemakers, not cops or soldiers, and men should still hold doors open for
    ladies. Children should not be born out of wedlock. Glorification of homosexuality should
    be shunned. Jurors should not accept Islam as an excuse for murder.
    Defiance spreads. When other Western Europeans see one person defy Political
    Correctness and survive and you still can, for now they are emboldened. They are
    tempted to defy it, too, and some do. The ripples from a single act of defiance, of one
    instance of walking up to the clay idol and breaking off its nose, can range far. There is
    nothing the Politically Correct fear more than open defiance, and for good reason; it is
    their chief vulnerability. That should lead cultural conservatives to defy cultural Marxism
    at every turn.
    While the hour is late, the battle is not decided. Very few Western Europeans realise that
    Political Correctness is in fact Marxism in a different set of clothes. As that realisation
    spreads, defiance will spread with it. At present, Political Correctness prospers by
    disguising itself. Through defiance, and through education on our own part (which should
    be part of every act of defiance), we can strip away its camouflage and reveal the
    Marxism beneath the window-dressing of “sensitivity,” “tolerance,” and “multiculturalism.”
    Who dares, wins.

  • Perhaps I don’t understand your intentions, ZingZing. As for the cartoon image in #37…*flyover noise*….

    …I was in the middle of writing a response to other points in #37 when your last question came up. Hold on a moment.

  • zingzing

    in #27, irene, you’re misquoting me or at least you do not understand my intentions. i went out of my way to state that no sane person would do what he did, no matter what his political beliefs. yet you ignore that. why?

  • So am I, zing. And yes, Baronius is famous for avoiding guilt by association by any means. Which accounts for his ready-made dismissal of social problems which ought to be looked at as quirks.

  • re: #28, Actually Glenn, in #12 and #27, I was agreeing with Roger, not you, in a self-effacingly non-snarky sort of way.

    But I’ll accept gratitude from whatsoever quarters it may come. *curtsies*

  • zingzing

    well, then roger, i’m glad we all live in a country where we can have and express our opinions. and in my opinion, it’s ridiculous that baronius would simply want to close his eyes and ignore problems when they arise.

  • Like Timothy McVeigh, Breivik found far-right rhetoric that reinforced his personal demons and hatreds. The ferocity of that rhetoric can often be repellent, and the fact that it might encouraged unbalanced individuals is an understandable concern.

    But there was only one Oklahoma City bombing — it wasn’t the first in a long series of big acts of domestic terrorism. And one hopes that it’s equally likely the Norway massacre was a one-of-a-kind event.

    Major Hasan was another example: an extremely troubled person for whom radical Islamist rhetoric reinforced a mental break.

    When we call McVeigh or Breivik “right-wing,” we’re judging by their avowed beliefs. But this doesn’t mean I consider all right-wingers potential mass murderers. These two were lone nut jobs, moths attracted to a flame.

  • Your right to your own opinion was never in question, zing.

  • zingzing

    roger, you need to find some new enemies. and if, per your wishes, i can’t have my own opinion, how does that help “true democracy?”

  • zingzing

    irene, take a look at this image and consider what i said and was saying above.

    then again, if you can’t see any connection whatsoever between what happened in norway and, say, koran burning or the response to the ground zero mosque here in america, i suggest you open your eyes a bit.

    and i’m sure roger doesn’t believe that anyone denies there is left wing terrorism out there.

  • I didn’t say he wasn’t, Costello. Read my preceding comment.

  • Yes, except in America’s interest, terrorist acts are defined as those which are perpetrated by the Islamists. Those who strike against Islamists are deemed either crazy or lone wolfs.

    And it goes without saying, of course, that extremism is the exclusive property of the Right. Our homegrown liberals are simply too polite and well-groomed to ever admit that the Left can ever be accused of resorting to extremism on behest of its own causes. (That is called Fascism.)

    Hence “I’m better than Thou!” credo the liberals live by.

  • Costello

    Roger, why wasn’t this man a terrorist?

  • Costello

    From what little I’ve read, this was a terrorist act motivated by poltics. It’s a cop out by those who find themselves on the same side who want to call the man crazy and move on rather than examine what has taken place. Besides, has it been determined that he actually is crazy or is that simply how the majority of people describe the act to make sense out of it?

  • And apropos of the skewed use of the term “extremist” or “terrorist” by our lame liberal press and their spokespersons here on BC (they all know who they are, no need to press the issue), Amy Goodman’s today’s show, Democracy Now! is a helpful reminder.

    But I doubt it will make much of an impact on all those who are content with spewing out the liberal dogma, limited for the most part to bashing the Republicans or the right wingers, and amounting to nothing more than saying, “See, we’re better than you are!” and consider this exercise of their right of free speech as art of thinking.

    Nuff said.

  • John Lake

    Just in the last 5 minutes as I’ve been preparing this “comment” the secondary link has stopped working. It went (5 minutes ago) to here (PDF)
    I can only suggest you keep trying.

  • John Lake

    For those who haven’t yet seen it, here is Anders Breivik’s “Manifesto”.

    A European Declaration of Independence

    (then click on 2083+-+A+European+Declaration+of+Independence in red ink)

  • Irene, let be even more blunt. I consider people like zinzing and our well-meaning Glenn as the greatest obstacles to true democracy.

    There, I said it.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Thank you, Irene.

    Roger, snarkiness does not become you. You’re better than that. When I first began contributing to BC, you were a reasoned, logical voice…but in the past year you’ve become a regular user of the style you once routinely discouraged. It used to be that you did not attack others or disparage their ways of thinking…but now such disparagement comprises a significant portion of your posts.

    What happened, Roger?

  • Well, Roger, far be it from me, who was once described by a regular commentator as “low-hanging fruit,” to describe anyone ELSE of having an undisciplined mind. But yes, I’m at least bright enough to see the inconsistencies in the way the term “extremist” is used around here.

    I mean, it’s as if I took this recent story about the leftist FARC in Colombia forcing children to become soldiers in their army, and said (smugly) to Glenn or ZingZing, “Yep, eee-yup, that’s Leftist thinking for you.”

    That would be a stupid thing to say. It would be an obscene thing to say. Instead of enlisting the aid of reasonable people (who mayhaps differ from me on economic policy or foreign policy) to become advocates for children being treated so cruelly, I’d be alienating them.

  • #12

    It’s the vagaries of the liberal, undisciplined kind of mind, Irene.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    You’re up late. So am I.

    The problem is that they’re not always lone wolves…and sometimes they get organized and become truly dangerous. For instance, McVeigh was not a lone wolf. In fact, there were newspaper reports (that I can no longer find online) that his friend Terry Nichols had met with Islamists in America in the months before the attack. Most of us have heard how Terry Nichols had been at the same school on the same day as Ramzi Yousef in the southern Philippines (and had likely met him), but not so many have heard how Nichols had been caught with stun guns in his luggage when he tried to board a flight back to the U.S. – on the very same day that Yousef had planned to blow up a dozen airliners across the Pacific.

    Right-wingers of the ilk of McVeigh and Nichols hate Islamists, of course – but as the old saying goes, “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. And they were trying to organize.

    That’s how massacres and lynchings happen. If you’ll check our history, you’ll find more than a few times when American citizens have banded together to commit horrendous crimes. You’re knowledgeable enough that I don’t think I need to go into details.

  • Tim,

    What do you mean when you say EO invited Fjordman to contribute to BC?

    If I recall correctly, back in 05, anybody could join BC and articles were self published.

    Fjordman wrote 4 articles for the site that year and then disappeared. Can’t remember any particular debate about it.

    As far as I am concerned, this just shows the danger inherent in all dogmas; take them too seriously or too literally and you are going to go mad. Be careful what you believe!

  • Cannonshop

    #21 Glenn, nutjobs tend to believe in vast conspiracies, and use that belief (and extend it) to justify their actions. Change the names, and you get the manifestos of people like the Weather Underground, UnaBomber, SLA, and Charles Manson.

    One of the big reasons people like to grasp to Conspiracy Theory, is that it can be used to justify ANY action, or shift the blame for ANY failure.

  • There’s been a lot of speculation that Breivik and Fjordman are one and the same, but I think it’s unlikely. One way or the other, the truth will come out in the coming days.

    I’m not willing to let Eric completely off the hook. In the heated atmosphere in the months following 9/11 he did have some serious blind spots when it came to the agenda of the extreme right, especially in Europe. Inviting Fjordman to contribute was a very serious error of judgement.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And here’s a blurb from Breivik in his “glossary of terms” from his manifesto:

    Cultural Marxism/multiculturalism: term describing the current Western European/US political/moral systems based on “political correctness” – a mix of Marxism, extreme egalitarianism, suicidal humanism, anti-nationalism, anti-Europeanism and capitalist globalism. The ML ideology or political platform (Maoist-Leninism) ML which is also a European hate ideology, was later refined “toned down” and disguised and incorporated into politically correct movements such as; feminism, pro-drugs, pro-sexual revolusion, anti-racism, anti-fascism, anti-Christendom, anti-capitalism, gay and disability rights movements, environmentalism etc.

    Sound familiar? Sounds just like the far-right paranoia and racism I grew up around in Mississippi….

  • Cannonshop

    #15 Glenn,you’re stuck on that, aren’t you? Let me make it a little clearer:

    scum that gun down kids aren’t of the left, or of the right, they’re of themselves and their twisted dreams of fame and adulation.

    They’re cowards, they kill not for a cause, but to be famed, to be notorious, to be influential in some way that they can’t be due to lack of talent, lack of skill, lack of merit. McVeigh’s a great example of this, so is Major Hassan, so is the Ft. Bragg shooter, so too are Kip Kinkle and other school-shooters.

    Are we clearer now? this guy is made of his delusions, and his desire for recognition. a Narcissist and Sociopath, that’s all he is, he doesn’t even qualify as a Terrorist, he’s just a Nut with a Gun and a Plan-mostly a plan for self-aggrandizement and the recognition he never earned legitimately.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    And for our BC conservatives who want to deny that Breivik was from the far right, here’s this from the German news magazine Spiegel concerning the blogs that Breivik frequented and supported:

    Such blogs provide a window into a strange scene: pro-Western, exceedingly pro-American and friendly to Israel — but extremely anti-Muslim, aggressively Christian and openly hostile to everything which is liberal, leftist, multi-cultural or internationalist. It is a “patriotic-nationalist” scene which detests the Nazis but is sympathetic — to the point of maintaining informal contacts — to the Tea Party Movement in the US, to the right-wing populist Freedom Party of Austria, to the right-wing football fan group known as the Casuals and to the stridently anti-Muslim English Defence League.”

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Tim –

    It seems that Breivik might well BE Fjordman.

    I’m usually loath to accept blogs with which I’m not familiar…but a quick Google check started turning up all kinds of links claiming that the two are one and the same.

    But just as co-workers or friends of Ted Bundy can’t be held responsible for being on good terms with him when they did not know just how bad his intentions really were, we should not at all point the finger at Eric Olsen. You were right, apparently, that Fjordman was bad news, bad seed…but there’s a big difference between having evil opinions and committing evil acts. Evil opinions are not against the law in America, as distasteful as they often are.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Tim #16 – whoa!

    Are you sure it’s the same Fjordman? I obviously haven’t been here long enough to remember him (since 2008), but I feel I should at least play devil’s advocate here – how do you know it’s the same Fjordman?

  • When it comes to this terrorist’s motivations, the elephant in the room none of you will mention is the name that comes up again and again in his “manifesto”


    Remember that name? You should.

    He used to be contributor to this site.

    As soon as I read the toxic screens he started posting the moment Olsen invited him to the site, it was clear where this vile individual was coming from, and where it was heading. I immediately resigned as a contributor to this site, because I didn’t want my own writing to be tainted by association.

    When I heard that name in the news, I felt physically sick.

    How do you feel, Eric Olsen, now the bodies are piling up?

    Saying “I told you so” really doesn’t give me any pleasure. But at least you ought to be man enough to admit that I was right about Fjordman from the start.

  • Glenn Contrarian

    Cannonshop –

    Yes, the right-wing terrorist’s actions in Norway did in fact advance in some small way the Left’s agenda…

    …in the same way that Timothy McVeigh’s actions did in fact advance in some small way the Left’s agenda here in America.

    McVeigh wasn’t in any way a ‘Leftist’. Neither was Breivik. They were both far on the bleeding edge of the Right…even further out on the Right than are those who are in power in the Middle East, who have been on the receiving end of the ‘Arab Spring’.

  • Cannonshop

    #11 it WAS dealt with some sarcasm, Zing, but you have to admit, his actions did in some small way advance the Left’s agenda-he gave them eighty martyrs and discredit to anyone opposed to the Progressives in his home country.

    Which is what extremists really DO.

    There were a few fascinating details though-the use of public Trust in Law Enforcement-nobody questioned whether he WAS a cop, and nobody asked to see proof when he entered the camp, for instance, his choice of victims-people pretty much guaranteed to be unarmed and unable to defend themselves (this is typical of most of the shooters over the last three decades-choosing schools with anti-carry policies, or Major Hassan on Ft. Hood, where only the MP’s are allowed to carry arms on-post…)

    Fundamentally, these guys are cowards, they want to inflict harm on the unarmed and unprotected, and kill for fame.

  • Irene Athena

    Which is to say, accusing political enemies of “Breivikness” at this time is as absurd as it is tasteless. It was a sickening tragedy.

    Interesting to note: If you follow John Lake’s link to the Amazon page for the Unabomber’s published writings, you’ll find that all seven of the reader reviewers give positive ratings, and none of them seem to espouse radically right viewpoints. I don’t have any reason to suspect that these reader reviewers will be entertaining thoughts of sending bombs in the mail, though. They were quite impressed with the Unabomber’s views – – they just disagreed with his belief that violence was required to bring the changes he wanted.

  • Irene Athena

    Oh heck, Zingzing, you can find parallels between Breivik (no, he’s not a Christian fundamentalist) and Richard Dawkins.

    From Breivik’s Manifesto:” In many ways, our modern societies and European secularism is a result of European Christendom and the enlightenment. It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a ‘Christian fundamentalist theocracy’ (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want). So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage.”

    Richard Dawkins: Given that Islam is such an unmitigated evil, and looking at the map supplied by this Christian site, should we be supporting Christian missions in Africa? My answer is still no, but I thought it was worth raising the question. Given that atheism hasn’t any chance in Africa for the foreseeable future, could our enemy’s enemy be our friend?”

  • zingzing

    cannonshop seems to think he’s a progressive (although i think that must have been dealt with a bit of sarcasm). baronius thinks he should be ignored. fox news initially reported he was islamic, even though they had three hours between the filming of the segment and the airing in which to correct it. (although even fox news seems to be reporting his political affiliations… baronius seems to think he could be a marxist, even though he clearly hated marxists.)

    this political and religious extremism does have scary amounts of parallels both in the american right and islamic fundamentalism.

  • And sadly, I think the reason there’ve been so few comments is because this took place in Norway.

    The “if it didn’t happen in America, it didn’t happen at all” outlook…

  • that said, i’d place more weight on his political beliefs than his religious beliefs. the whole knights templar and the quotes he uses (“Celebrate us, the martyrs of the conservative revolution, for we will soon dine in the Kingdom of Heaven,”) seem more out of fantasy land than any real christian belief.

    Ironically, Breivik’s words are strongly reminiscent of the fantasies of Islamic suicide bombers – the very people he seems so terrified of.

  • zingzing

    that said, i’d place more weight on his political beliefs than his religious beliefs. the whole knights templar and the quotes he uses (“Celebrate us, the martyrs of the conservative revolution, for we will soon dine in the Kingdom of Heaven,”) seem more out of fantasy land than any real christian belief.

    i know the right wingers here at bc don’t want to touch this (or if they do, they say to “ignore” it), but it’s really surprising that none have commented whatsoever. even the usual bc left wingers seem to be leaving it alone for some reason.

    it’s a bit fresh, and this is no time to be jumping to conclusions, i guess. maybe no one wants a rehash of tuscon. maybe the right wing is happy murdoch’s off the front page. there wasn’t any big conversation about that either. do we shy away when things look grim? or maybe things are just too obvious.

  • zingzing

    he’s not “one of [your] own.” he’s crazy.

    but he was right wing. it was his political, social and religious beliefs which, mixed with a dose of crazy, led him to this. his words (anti-islam, anti-multiculturalism,) and his choice of victims (the gov’t building and children of the left wing party in office at the camp,) leave no doubt about that.

    it is morbid. i’ll agree to that. but anything concerning at least 60 dead children is morbid, isn’t it? (the authorities investigating dropped the number of dead on the island to 68 today, although that number is expected to go up again.)

    i’m definitely not saying you need to defend him, or yourself, or your beliefs. i’m saying you shouldn’t ignore it. according to the accused, which should be taken with a grain of salt, he’s part of an organization called the knights templar… it may all be in his mind, but if it’s not, then there are like-minded people out there. i’m not saying there are, but there might be.

    the extremism of the right has been pronounced, not only in this instance, but in america (with the tea party) and in congress (with their obstructionism). if you’re not too careful, or if you ignore it long enough, we might just see something like this in america (not that we haven’t before).

  • Baronius

    Zing, if 19 people go on a killing spree in Norway, then yes, I care about their motivations.

    But I’m not trying to protect this guy as one of my own, in some sort of damage control move. I just want this to stop before we head down the Tucson road, with each side analyzing this loser’s every word in order to prove he belongs to the other side. It’s just morbid.

  • zingzing

    he’s crazy, baronius. but his motivation is of some importance. bin laden was crazy. are you uninterested in his motive?

    “Let’s do the one thing they deserve and ignore them.”

    he killed 90+ people in a day. sorry, that’s not going to happen. i know it’s hard to take. but a right wing extremist, who openly hated muslims and wanted to strike a blow for christian european culture against the invading hordes (something like 4% of norway is now muslim), killed almost 100 children belonging to members of the center-left labor party.

    if you want to ignore a right winger killing left wingers (or at least their children), you go right ahead. but that’s cowardice and that’s missing a moment for reflection on just how a right winger got to that point. the last thing the right wing needs to do is hide from it. again, he is crazy. but he also espouses right wing thought as the reason for what he did.

  • Baronius

    This guy is, above all else, a putz. A pathetic, delusional, uninteresting putz. I worry that we spend too much time looking at why these guys tick. It’s got to make the occasional inconsequential nutbag think that he can become important, too, by doing something similar. I don’t care if he’s a delusional Marxist or a delusional anti-Marxist. There’ve been both before, and there will be both again. In fact, these guys are typically so messed up that a conventional label doesn’t apply. He probably subscribes to Marxism and anti-Marxism simultaneously. There’s no umbrella under which you can fit the thinking of these people, because their thinking is abberant. Let’s do the one thing they deserve and ignore them.

  • John Lake

    At one point the headline (above) read “Marxist Extremist” whereas it should in fact have read “Anti-Marxist Extremist.”

  • Ed

    He was not a neo nazi, he was a zionist
    Palestine hater and murderer of little children.

    This terrorist is an enemy of humanity.

  • Big Daddy

    I think the headline gives an utterly incorrect idea since it should read, “ANTI-Marxist Extremist”. Breivik hated Marxists.