The norway massacre: the right shows its true colours.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Please do expand on how White Europeans are "scapegoats" GTL? I'd be fascinated to hear what you really want to say, these resistance movements, do you think they have good reasons for their intolerance?

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

And now, right on cue, I'm being voted down that my posts don't contribute to the discussion. Do you see how this works? One could set one's watch by it.

...And I'll be the one labeled intolerant! (Yes, I will cry you a river.).

This is all simply democracy in action. Freedom (beautiful yet terrifying.). Democracy.

...Which is exactly why the left "morphs", sheds its old skin, and tries to strangle and eliminate democracy, once the left has gained a loud enough voice. Becoming fascistic. Or else it would simply eat itself, via its own principles. So it has to shed its old ideals. "Evolution".

Democracy (newly AKA "dissent") then becomes a dirty word - and the raging tyranny begins. Usually beginning with schooling against "the evils of democracy" (which "must be squashed at all costs"), and the quenching of minority opinion.

Thus begins the claustrophobic sweatbox for those westerners who dare be patriotic, or to walk on old [specifically: CHRISTIAN] paths. Forced underground (I speak in archetype. I merely speculate. Please bear with me.). "Out of sight, out of mind", as the left might be apt to say.

But the goverment is, at this point in the narrative, still fractionally democratic (thank God.). So there occurs a sudden, dynamic change, as the downtrodden, and silenced, regroup - and break injustice. Like breathing fresh air again.

The "left", caught napping [and on the back foot]: as it stagnated and slowed and relaxed; breathing a collective sigh of fascistic, hypocritical relief, as its cognive dissonance abated a short while and they patted each other on the back; grown fat; as lynch mobs against conflicting worldviews were being groomed and schooled, and general day-to-day, tedious anti-democratic administrations were being carried out.

The "left", losing its zeal, and purpose, in its comfortable isolation. Grown weary. Complaisant. Petty. Fat. Confused. Fractured. Without purpose or counterpoint. Eating itself. And thus getting its bum kicked.

-------------

...Of course, you see, the "left", above, is like western Islam in a nutshell. Which is why anti_European racists flock to it ... and why you eventually get things like the Norway Massacre.

Or am I wrong?

I challenged a right wing blogger over his frequent postings that "we" (i.e., people like him) were "at war" with Muslims and the left. This blogger, from N. Ireland, is a right wing born again Christian who appears frequently on local TV and radio. I pointed out that the Norwegian was, like him, a right winger, born again and believed he was at war.

I pointed out that blogs like his encouraged such people to think that they were not alone, that there were many disparate groups and individuals who believed that violent response to Muslims (yes, all Muslims, in his point of view) was appropriate. he claimed that (a) the guy wasn't a Christian (b) he, the blogger,had never encouraged violence and (c) I was insane. He blocked me from commenting further on his site.

I on the other hand think (a) there is a connection between extreme religious fundamentalism and violence, whether Islamic or Christian (b) that blogs and hate-sites incite acts of religious and racial hatred (c) that right wingers always distance themselves from bad things done by their fellow travellers and that (d) right wing hate sites like the one I found are dangerous and parasitic on a liberal tolerant society, depending for their existence on a tolerance that they do not extend to racial and religious groups that they hate. Anyone agree or disagree? :)

You seem (either willingly or ignorantly) blind to the idea that the *entirety* of Islam is founded on violence against non-believers AKA non-Muslims. (I.e. you express double-standards.). But ... why do I sound surprised?

Just keep right on protecting the "poor Muslims" against those evil, "bigoted Islamophobes". (...People like you seem to forget that the Koran is widely available!).

The argument which inevitably follows, is that the English rendition of the Koran is not "accurate" nor reliable. Further betraying the supremacist spirit animating Islam. What's next? Violent cullings?

You send your kids to be killed in foreign wars, for no justifiable reason. You sell cigarrettes, alcohol and sex to your youth, causing their deaths. You use abortion as a means of contraception. You kill your youth by filling the air with toxic fumes from your latest petrol-guzzler. You risk the health of your youth by offering them unhealthy food and lifestyles. And you say that Breivik is mad?

Oh frabjous day. You've been reading Through the Looking Glass, haven't you? 'Fess up. The thing is, though, that Lewis Carroll didn't mean for the reader to take seriously Humpty Dumpty's pronouncement on matters lexical . . .

Sorry to sound rather stiff; I shouldn't like for this post to Jerusalem artichoke you. (Do you know what 'Jerusalem artichoke' means? It means 'I hope and suspect you didn't understand that and are made angrier still because you didn't'. They say French words compact worlds, but French isn't a patch on the English words for vegetables.)

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

Glorify: No offence but it has to be said: What you lack in aggression you make up for in ignorance...=)

That you are, ma croi.

PS: And I haven't been reading [any] Lewis Carroll.

The idea of the political right as a violent force is pure nonsense. Do you recall the mass murderers perpetrated by left-wing hippies for "peace and love" in America in the sixties? The slaughter of hundreds at the Communist prison Jonestown? The massacre of the rich and famous by Charles Manson? The bombing of the Pentagon by Bill Ayers? The hundreds of murders, rapes, robberies, and the like committed by the Black Panthers? Do you know that far-left author Gore Vidal defended Timothy McVeigh and attended his execution? Do you know that the Occupy movement is plagued with anti-Semitism and has already killed at least one person and committed dozens of rapes while spreading third world diseases?

The political left's long history of violence and brutality has no equal in the history of civilization. Can you even remember the rhetoric used by leftists in the sixties? Do you recall the Stockholm Conference in 1979, where the world's leading left-wing intellectuals gathered to support the restoration of Khmer Rouge rule in Cambodia? Did you read Noam Chomsky and Ed Herman's infamous Cambodian genocide denial, "Distortions At Fourth Hand," wherein they argued that Communist Cambodia was "comparable to France after liberation from the Nazis" and that everyone Pol Pot killed was the moral equivalent of a Nazi collaborator (the Americans being the Nazis)? Today, of course, the Documentation Center of Cambodia has uncovered and examined the remains of 1.39 million Cambodians buried near KR execution centers whose cause of death has been determined to be virtually exclusively execution by the regime, and the overall death toll is estimated to be two to three times that figure for all causes. Subtracting several hundred thousand deaths to account for normal mortality, and using the demographic analysis of Patrick Heuveline, modern scholars estimate that 2.2 million Cambodians were killed by the regime out of an expected 1979 population of 8.4 million. Marek Sliwinski calculates 40,000 Cambodians were killed by the American bombing, most of them Communist fighters. But Chomsky declared that American culpability was "roughly in the same range." He took the Communist figure of 600,000 dead in the civil war (more than twice the real figure) and attributed all deaths, military and civilian, on all sides, solely to America. He found a press release saying that Ford predicted a million Cambodians would likely be killed by the Communists and that the US should therefore continue to aid the Lon Nol regime, rewrote it so that it said "a million people would die if the US cut off aid," and then praised Pol Pot for preventing the catastrophe! Never mind that the US had an unconditional offer to aid Cambodia and that the Communists cut off the aid. Chomsky claimed Pol Pot's crimes were "inflated by a factor of a hundred" then "inflated by a factor of a thousand"-and back again. He later admitted to 750,000 executions. But he still maintains, like a Holocaust denier on Allied bombing, that the American war caused most of the destruction. Try to find a Cambodian who knew a victim of US bombing. The bombing was indiscriminate, and did not wipe out whole families and communities like the KR, but it's very difficult to do. But talk to anyone in Cambodia and they all have stories about the inconceivable terrors of Communist rule. Compare the number of graves found by the Documentation Center of Cambodia for the American bombing versus the genocide, and we'll see exactly whose crimes were inflated by a factor of a hundred.

Gareth Porter defended the KR in Cambodia: Starvation and Revolution, after previously denying the North Vietnamese land reform bloodbath. (In fact, Robert F. Turner, Hoang Van Chi, and R.J. Rummel have demonstrated that it resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands-but support for Ho Chi Minh remains popular on the left. Just as students still wear shirts celebrating Che Guevarra, a mass murdering terrorist who called for nuclear war with the US during the Cuban missile crisis.) Professors in the seventies rallied behind Pol Pot and Mao (who we now know killed close to 80 million Chinese), waving the latter's Little Red Book in the air at protests alongside the kids they were indoctrinating. Some intellectuals even visited Pol Pot, only to get killed by him. Chomsky was the least ideological, and so he stayed behind-he knew, on some level, that everything he had said was a lie. (And he never keeps his story straight: "Barron and Paul...rely on 'specialists' at the State and Defense Departments...Elsewhere in the media, similar figures are bandied about, with equal credibility." - Chomsky, 1977, in The Nation. "You might recall, perhaps, that we were probably the only commentators to rely on the most knowledgeable source, State Department intelligence." - Chomsky, 2002, on Znet.) See the work of Sophal Ear, a Cambodian American who lived in Cambodia during the genocide, for more. Note that the Cambodian-American community is known for its staunch conservatism.

But Pol Pot was educated in France, and is the product of leftist "intellectuals." The left always adopts a siege mentality and tries to cheat reality when their utopian schemes fail, as they invariably do. The New York Times denied the Ukrainian genocide. Human rights in Chile received 8 times more media coverage than human rights in Cambodia during the genocide; the Vietnamese invasion brought with it a ton of publicity, but denial of the hundreds of thousands they killed. Harvey Milk wrote to President Carter about the "apparent bold-faced lies" being spread about his pal Jim Jones, who soon after killed 900 people. Jones was friends with Rosalyn Carter, who also befriended serial killer and staunch liberal activist John Wayne Gacy. The list goes on and on. The left never apologizes. Liberals joke on a regular basis about their desire to kill George Bush and Dick Cheney, perhaps because Saddam Hussein was a Socialist dictator. Most unnecessary American wars have been the product of Democrats-WW1, WW2, Korea, Vietnam, Libya. Socialist Germany started both World Wars. Jared Lougher turned out to be a radical leftist, "very liberal" and known for his hatred of President Bush, according to his girlfriend. The Tea Party has turned out to be the most tolerant, restrained, and nonviolent protest group in American history.

Hitler was renowned for his hatred of capitalism, "with its unfair wages and exploitation of workers." All the leftist intellectuals of Germany embraced him, from Martin Heidegger on down. It's no coincidence that Karl Marx and Immanuel Kant and Herbert Spencer all came out of Germany-or that Germany had the largest welfare state in the Western world-or that Germany's rhetoric in WW1 was chillingly similar to that of the Nazis. The Soviet Union was even worse, but the left defended it on economic grounds, even though Soviet standard of living was merely one-third that of the United States and depended to a staggering degree on stealing the wealth of productive businesses and enslaved nations, and the average welfare mother in the US received more money from the government than the average Soviet worker earned in a year.

So now they've finally found a genuine right-wing terrorist. Good for them. But all one needs to do is consider the initiation of force by that state, and that it must be justified and rarely is, and that all left-wing programs require it. They say they want to mold us all into total sameness or "equality," redistribute wealth, control the "mixed economy" for the "greater good" (like Hitler), inflate the currency, censor their "dangerous" foes, provide our healthcare via a government monopoly, and choose for us where we may send our children to school and what foods we may consume and what light bulbs we may use. Social/religious conservatives and their populist friends on the economic left may commit crimes; but unregulated capitalism is the only system in human history that opposes the initiation of force and is inimical to all forms of violence and tyranny.

Quite right Ms Murrin. Chairman Mao summed it up perfectly with his famous quote that:- "Political power comes out the barrel of a gun."

Well said Linda. However you will be bombarded with 'No's on this thread as most people on this thread think Che Guevara was a decent kind of bloke, Chairman Mao was a great philosopher and Stalin a right wheeze.

Hi Linda

Just a couple of queries.

"Communist prison Jonestown" - in what way was it "Communist", as opposed to a commune?

"unnecessary American wars have been the product of Democrats- ... WW2". American involvement in WW2 unnecessary? Really?

"Socialist Germany started both World Wars". In what way was Hitler's Germany socialist as opposed to National Socialist?

I infer that you are not a fan of Noam Chomsky!

"The idea of the political right as a violent force is pure nonsense...The political left's long history of violence and brutality has no equal in the history of civilization"

Hate to bring Godwin's Law to the fore, but Hitler, Mussolini for leaders. And there will undoubtedly be more 'Average Joes' who are right wing and dangerous i.e. a group of neo-nazis in Germany who killed 9 immigrant shopkeepers, the KKK.

"the mass murderers perpetrated by left-wing hippies for "peace and love" in America in the sixties"

Such as who ?

"The massacre of the rich and famous by Charles Manson"

Who was actually insane and off his face on drugs ? More likely the drugs caused him to be a murderer than having left leanings.

"has already killed at least one person and committed dozens of rapes while spreading third world diseases"

Who ? And what are 'third world' diseases ??

"Most unnecessary American wars have been the product of Democrats-WW1, WW2"

They're not 'American' wars - they are 'World' wars. And America entered the 2nd World War due to attack from the Right Wing Japanese.

"Socialist Germany started both World Wars"

Germany didn't start World War 1 - do some research. And Nationalist Socialist Germany started WW2, but Nazism is a Right Wing group, not left.

"Hitler was renowned for his hatred of capitalism...All the leftist intellectuals of Germany embraced him, from Martin Heidegger on down"

Nor did he like Communists. In the beginning he had support, but then it got to the stage where you HAD to support him otherwise you'd at least lose your job, if not be imprisoned. My great-grandfather was arrested in the dead of night and taken to a concentration camp for being a Marxist, he was kept there for 6 weeks to be 're-educated'. Hitler also did away with the Unions.

"Social/religious conservatives and their populist friends on the economic left"

A social or religious conservative wouldn't be friends with 'the left'. The social or religious liberal may have their friends on the left, but the likelihood is that a conservative would keep their friends on the right.

Indeed Ms Murrin.
The left has always been fond of coercive violence - that they project this onto "the right" (which seems to mean whoever they currently disagree with) merely illustrates their apparently bottomless capability for cognitive dissonance.
The characterisation of Brevik as "right wing" would be "brave" if it were not reflexive - his ideology appears so convoluted and chaotic as to make it virtually impossible to assign it to any genuine politcal faction.

[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

The Nazi's where a socialist group as are the BNP this is not a view point but a matter of fact.