Terrorist Attack in Oslo, Norway

[Kathryn]

You really can't be far right and libertarian simultaneously. You can SAY you are, but saying it don't make it true. Those two positions contradict each other.

And extreme fundamentalism is dangerous in any ideology - religious or non religious.

 

[Revoltingest]

I have never heard of Neo Nazis being left wing in Europe. Although the first Nazis were by definition National socialists This was an extreme right wing philosophy and was the antithesis of Communism and left wing socialism.
To day neo Nazis in Europe fill much the same slot as Christian fundamentalist far right Libertarian Republicans do in America.

Words really should be strung together in a particular order which makes sense.
It also helps to use common definitions for them.
Give that a try, & perhaps we can discuss something.

But back to the main point, it's rather early to start baseless blaming of your political foes for the killings.

 

[Father Heathen]

far right Libertarian

You should probably know the actual definition of a term before tossing it around:

Libertarianism | Define Libertarianism at Dictionary.com

Tell me how that could possibly fit with Christian fundamentalism? That's just as silly as suggesting that nazis are or could be leftists.

 

[Marble]

If anybody is interested, I found the so-called "manifest" of Anders Behring Breivik, it is on Google docs.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If anybody is interested, I found the so-called "manifest" of Anders Behring Breivik, it is on Google docs.

It should be noted though that large parts of his so called "manifest" is a cut & paste job with just some words changed.
In other words, it is mostly racist and antisocial propaganda that one is unlikely to learn much from.
I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.

 

[Copernicus]

There is a tendency to dismiss this kind of act as merely the behavior of a single deranged lunatic. That was certainly true of the Loughner mass murder, although lefties and righties attempted to place him in the other guy's camp for a while. Loughner is a genuine lunatic who was inspired by right wing hate speech towards a Democrat, but I don't think he inspired anyone. Nobody can dispute that mass murderers can come from either side of the political spectrum. Hitler was a right wing extremist and Stalin a left wing one. What is important to remember is that this kind of lunacy is contagious. The holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis was not the act of a single madman, but a society gone stark raving mad. So I don't think that we can just dismiss these acts as pure aberrations. These nuts actually have groupies among what we would consider saner individuals. Just as Breivik saw McVeigh as an inspiring figure, there will be others who are inspired by what the murderer himself described as a "gruesome but necessary" act.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It should be noted though that large parts of his so called "manifest" is a cut & paste job with just some words changed.
In other words, it is mostly racist and antisocial propaganda that one is unlikely to learn much from.
I wouldn't waste my time if I were you.

In the past two days I noticed you use this word, "antisocial", and I also noticed it in a BBC program. To my American ear, the use of this word sounds peculiar, because this word is almost never used in American political discourse. I'm guessing it's because the word suggests being "against socialism", which is not considered to be automatically a bad thing in mainstream America, unlike "anti-American" or "undemocratic".

I just thought that was interesting ...

 

[Revoltingest]

"Antisocial' is a commonly used word to describe hostile types who don't get along with others & loners.
I've never heard it used regarding socialism.

For the longest time, I read your moniker as "Mr Sprinkles".

 

[jarofthoughts]

In the past two days I noticed you use this word, "antisocial", and I also noticed it in a BBC program. To my American ear, the use of this word sounds peculiar, because this word is almost never used in American political discourse. I'm guessing it's because the word suggests being "against socialism", which is not considered to be automatically a bad thing in mainstream America, unlike "anti-American" or "undemocratic".

I just thought that was interesting ...

In this context it means that he was opposed to society in general and as explained above it is often used on people of a hostile disposition towards other people, but it is also true that he was anti-socialism, or as he considered it, "anti-marxism".
Norway is a country built largely on socialist ideals, and seeing as he was hostile to that society that means that he was in fact both potential interpretations of the word.
Modern socialism can of course mean many different things and Norway, like most European countries, has a mix of socialism and capitalism, as does the US of course.

I was likewise somewhat puzzled about what is generally meant by the expression 'anti-American' or 'un-American' until I had an American friend explain it to me.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

"Antisocial' is a commonly used word to describe hostile types who don't get along with others & loners.
I've never heard it used regarding socialism.

Right. Of course. But in context, "this propaganda is racist and antisocial" or "this policy is antisocial", the word doesn't conjure in my mind psychologically deranged behavior. It sounds to my ear like it's being used in a way similar to the words "anti-American" or "undemocratic", or "anti-equality". And a Google News search for "antisocial" seems to turn up a lot of UK websites ..... I dunno, maybe I'm just imagining things .... I just can't envision mainstream U.S. political commentators calling a policy, or political statement, "antisocial" this way. And one definition of the word is:

opposed or detrimental to social order or the principles on which society is constituted​

Imagine a liberal European or Obama saying there is a social order and principles on which society is constituted, and those principles include multiculturalism and equality. And if you oppose multiculturalism and equality your behavior is labeled "antisocial", which is universally considered a bad word, as bad as "undemocratic" or "anti-American". We are all equal, comrade! A lot of mainstream/conservative Americans would recoil in horror from this kind of language, the more conservative ones would call it Marxist/socialist language. That's how it seems to me anyway ..... I could be imagining things ....

Let me put it this way: we know lots of examples where mainstream U.S. political commentators (of all political stripes) denounce a policy, or a behavior, or a statement, as "un-American" or "undemocratic", or otherwise opposed to the principles and values of the Constitution. Find me an example where, in the same breath, they use the word "antisocial". If you can find some examples then I must be imagining things .....

 

[Revoltingest]

Right. Of course. But in context, "this propaganda is racist and antisocial" or "this policy is antisocial", the word doesn't conjure in my mind psychologically deranged behavior.

"Antisocial" is too gentle a word for this mass murderer.
They should be calling him a sociopath, given his lack of empathy for others.
Clinically speaking, he's a sicko.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

You should probably know the actual definition of a term before tossing it around:

Libertarianism | Define Libertarianism at Dictionary.com

Tell me how that could possibly fit with Christian fundamentalism? That's just as silly as suggesting that nazis are or could be leftists.

That definition is exactly what I meant.
This particular Norwegian defined himself as Libertarian and fundamental Christian.
A European has no difficulty in seeing this connection.

I have noticed many Republicans on this forum Identify with Libertarianism and their free market small government views confirm this.

Today...Vince Cable, the business secretary, has attacked 'right-wing nutters' in the US Congress for rejecting a debt deal, saying they pose a bigger threat to the world economy than the eurozone crisis.

Vince Cable launches attack on 'right wing nutters' over US debt deal - Telegraph

Vince cable is a leading financial/economic Guru who taught many of our leading political, financial and economic leaders when he was an academic.
He tend to say thing exactly as they are, which does not make him popular, but time usually proves him right. As it has over Murdoch.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Words really should be strung together in a particular order which makes sense.
It also helps to use common definitions for them.
Give that a try, & perhaps we can discuss something.

But back to the main point, it's rather early to start baseless blaming of your political foes for the killings.

Sorry it works for me.
We do see many things quite differently over here...

 

[Revoltingest]

That definition is exactly what I meant.
This particular Norwegian defined himself as Libertarian....

I hadn't heard that. Do you have a link?
The Wikipedia article on him suggests he's no fan of the Norwegian party which pushes some libertarian values (although he once belonged).

Perhaps we should also blame other groups to which he belongs or claims sympathy:
- White folk
- Men folk
- Businessmen
- Norwegians
- Freemasons
- Farmers
- Economic liberals
- Zionists
- Winston Churchill fans
- People who brush their teeth
Naw...I think we shouldn't look for groups to blame for the actions of a lone ultra-violent & crazy criminal.

Needless to say, murdering people runs counter to the libertarian credo....My right to swing my arms ends where my neighbor's nose begins.
But anyone can claim to be one of us. Hell, even Howard Stern once said he's one of us. Maybe he was thinking of "libertine".
Shame on people who are trying to make political hay on this tragedy.

 

[Copernicus]

While Breivik now appears to have taken this action entirely on his own, it would be a serious mistake to think of him as merely a loner. He had a support group, and he was very active in it. He was strongly influenced by right wing propaganda from the US, and there is something very significant about this event. For all of his hatred of Muslims, Breivik did not bomb a mosque or shoot up a Muslim youth camp. He went after those he considered a far worse enemy--liberal politicians and a liberal youth camp. The same kind of rhetoric that infected McVeigh's and Loughner's deluded minds had gotten through to him. He wanted to commit violence against those on the left who were connected with liberal politics.

 

[Revoltingest]

But until we know who supported him, we don't know who supported him.
The man appears to be a Rorschach test for people with political axes to grind.

 

[YmirGF]

The man appears to be a Rorschach test for people with political axes to grind.

A very astute comment, RevoltingOne. Kudos.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, stop it! I'm insufferably self-satisfied as it is.

 

[Copernicus]

But until we know who supported him, we don't know who supported him.
The man appears to be a Rorschach test for people with political axes to grind.

You could have said that about the Nazi holocaust, as well. All of those people in uniforms systematically murdering innocent civilians were just generic haters. But the fact is that the worst rhetoric these days is coming not from the left, but from the right. And it is no coincidence that Loughner picked a Democratic politician at a Democratic rally to shoot up. Nor is it a random event that Breivik chose to bomb government buildings and go after children of liberal supporters of that government. Who supported Breivik? Materially, he may have just done it all himself. Emotionally and intellectually--right wing hate groups were where he got his real support.

 

[Revoltingest]

You could have said that about the Nazi holocaust, as well. All of those people in uniforms systematically murdering innocent civilians were just generic haters. But the fact is that the worst rhetoric these days is coming not from the left, but from the right. And it is no coincidence that Loughner picked a Democratic politician at a Democratic rally to shoot up. Nor is it a random event that Breivik chose to bomb government buildings and go after children of liberal supporters of that government. Who supported Breivik? Materially, he may have just done it all himself. Emotionally and intellectually--right wing hate groups were where he got his real support.

If you want to play that game, he self identifies as an economic liberal (according to Wikipedia), so he could be seen as a left leaning terrorist.
He went after his own because of their social agenda. See...we can read whatever we want into this malefactor. Pointless.