Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik
3 views
Skip to first unread message
RH
Apr 29, 2012, 3:44:44 PM4/29/12
to
Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik
Robert Henderson
The trial of the mass killer Anders Breivik in Oslo is remarkable. It
is not Breivik who is fearful but the Norwegian political mainstream
trembling their way towards what they hope will be a politically
correct ending to the story with Breivik declared mad, viz:
“The prosecutors are still beginning the trial calling for Breivik to
be transferred to compulsory mental health treatment, not prison,
despite a new psychiatrists report last week ruling him sane enough to
be criminally responsible.
But they reserve the right to make a submission to have this changed
to a call for a prison sentence, based on information that comes up in
the trial.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/
9206193/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-one-as-it-
happened.html)
Not, of course, that they would use the word mad because that would be
politically incorrect.
Liberals are desperately struggling to fit the man into their
fantasy world where everyone is wondrously multicultural and
gleefully accepting of whatever change is forced upon them by mass
immigration or the denial of human nature and difference which is the
essence of political correctness. This entails a blind refusal to
engage with Breivik’s declared motives and general criticism of
modern Norwegian society (and by extension the developed world
generally) . In a nutshell, they do not know how to rationally
respond to a man who challenges everything they believe in and can
only deal with the existence of Breivik by turning him into a being
who is either not worthy of consideration or a fabulous monster who
can be viewed in the same way that the audience for a nineteenth
century freak show would look at the unfortunate beings on display.
The refusal to engage with Breivik is epitomised by the mass public
singing during the trial of a song which Breivik claims is part of
indoctrination of Norwegians. The song Children of the Rainbow
contains lyrics such as these:
“A sky full of stars, blue sea as far as you can see
An earth where flowers grow, can you wish for more?
Together shall we live, every sister, brother
Young children of the rainbow, in a fertile land”
(http://www.policymic.com/articles/7556/norway-fights-against-mass-
killer-breivik-by-singing-children-of-the-rainbow/related.
In propaganda terms, what is the difference between getting Norwegian
children to sing that and the Hitler Youth leading renditions of the
Horst Wessel song ?
Three tactics have been used to negate the danger Breivik
represents: say he is insane, seek to censor his testimony on the
ground that he will use the trial to promote his political ideas or
attempt to diminish him and his ideas by deriding him as a person.
This mentality is echoed by liberals everywhere. Consequently, even
outside of Norway there is precious little attempt to present
reasoned argument against what Breivik is claiming. Instead liberals
generally have offered feeble personal abuse of his person, bald
assertions that his arguments are wrong and delusional and claims
that he must be mad.
Why are liberals so desperate not to address the issues Breivik has
raised? Because they know in their heart of hearts that their
declared political ends are no more than aspirations; that despite
decades of politically correct propaganda and the punishment of those
who dissent from the ideology with the criminal law or non-criminal
sanction’s such as loss of employment, humans still feel what they
have always felt, a strong sense of tribal identity and
territoriality. Liberals know this in the most certain way because
they , like everyone else, have the feelings which lead human beings
to naturally think in terms of membership of a group. This commonly
makes them arrange their lives so that they can avoid all the ethnic
and racial diversity they extol as wonderfully enriching, a trait
most notably seen in “white flight” from areas of heavy immigrant
settlement.
It might be thought that the secret fears expressed in their hypocrisy
in avoiding the joy of diversity would make the sustaining of their
ideology impossible. Not a bit of it. Liberals can always tell
themselves that they are still on a journey towards the promised
politically correct land and find excuses for why they live (in
England) a very white and very English world . (The favourite white
liberal excuse for denying themselves the experience of the joy of
diversity is that it is a matter of class which causes them to end
up well away from the diversity. This is, the white liberal claims,
is because they are richer than most and ethnic minorities are
poorer than most and the two groups are accordingly sorted into
different neighbourhoods by wealth not race or ethnicity. It is an
argument which does not seem to provide a very adequate garment to
cover the hypocrisy of the likes of the leftist folk singer Billy
Bragg who removed himself from his Essex origins as the place became
invaded by ethnic minorities and went to live in Dorset, arguably the
whitest and most English of counties).
When people support an ideology which they know is false or at the
least not objectively demonstrable, they invent excuses for reality
not being in accord with the ideology. In the case of modern liberals
they argue that human nature does not exist and behaviour is simply a
consequence of social conditioning. They then follow the logic of
that belief to say that all that is required to change (to liberals)
harmful behaviour is to alter the conditioning. When their attempts
to re-condition humans in a politically correct way fail, as they
always do, the liberal’s response is simple: the conditioning has not
gone on long enough or has not be powerful enough to effect the
required alterations in human behaviour. This provides an excuse to
continue with and enhance the re-conditioning by ever more draconian
restrictions on how people may behave. The liberal’s chosen vehicle
for the re-conditioning is the ideology we now know as political
correctness or, to the politically and academically inclined,
cultural Marxism.
But although they can find excuses for why things are not as they are
supposed to be according to the politically correct canon, liberals,
even the most committed believers, also have a terrible fear that if
people point out that the liberal emperor has no clothes before the
politically correct promised land is reached, it could cause a
revolution which might at best overthrow what they fervently want or,
more venally , could result in dire consequences from themselves as
the rage of those who have suffered from the enforcement of political
correctness and mass immigration is let off the lease. At the very
least all the highly paid jobs which rely on the dominance of
political correctness would vanish. This would remove the livelihoods
of a very large proportion of those who sincerely believe in political
correctness and even more from those who pay lip-service to
political correctness simply to obtain one of the politically correct
sinecures. There is a very large vested interest in maintaining
political correctness once it has become the ideology of those with
power.
If political correctness was simply a marginal political creed it
would be harmless. Unfortunately, it has become the elite ideology of
most of the Western world. That makes it toxic and potentially
dangerous enough to destroy the societies in which it has gained such
a hold, most particularly through its permitting of mass immigration
and promotion of multiculturalism. It is catastrophically pernicious
because it is totalitarian in its nature for it reaches into every
aspect of life and insists that the only acceptable opinion in any
situation is the politically correct one.
The ills of mass immigration and the enforcement of multiculturalism
require little comment beyond the obvious facts that mass immigration
that the injection into a society of huge numbers of those who either
cannot fully assimilate for reasons of racial difference or will not
assimilate from a determination to retain the imported ancestral
culture must of itself be immediately divisive and, eventually, if
immigration it continues long enough, potentially result in the
original population becoming a minority in their own land and their
own culture, at the least, badly mangled by that stark change in
fortune.
The state promotion of immigrant cultures and the suppression of
indigenous interests facilitates the process of the destruction of a
homogeneous society, but this may be an effect rather than a cause
of the mass immigration. Rather than being the result of a conscious
plot as the proponents of Cultural Marxism believe, it could be a
response to the permitting of mass immigration through negligence or
cowardice by political elites who then try to justify what has
happened, control native dissent and attempt to deal with the
inevitable ills brought by mass immigration by developing a philosophy
such as multiculturalism which pretends that there is no such thing
as tribalism in the human DNA and everything is for the best in all
possible multicultural worlds. It does not solve the problem but it
provides the elite with a narrative for what has happened which
diverts blame away from them at least temporarily.
Read more at http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/why-liberals-are-terrified-by-anders-breivik/
Robert Henderson
The trial of the mass killer Anders Breivik in Oslo is remarkable. It
is not Breivik who is fearful but the Norwegian political mainstream
trembling their way towards what they hope will be a politically
correct ending to the story with Breivik declared mad, viz:
“The prosecutors are still beginning the trial calling for Breivik to
be transferred to compulsory mental health treatment, not prison,
despite a new psychiatrists report last week ruling him sane enough to
be criminally responsible.
But they reserve the right to make a submission to have this changed
to a call for a prison sentence, based on information that comes up in
the trial.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/
9206193/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-trial-day-one-as-it-
happened.html)
Not, of course, that they would use the word mad because that would be
politically incorrect.
Liberals are desperately struggling to fit the man into their
fantasy world where everyone is wondrously multicultural and
gleefully accepting of whatever change is forced upon them by mass
immigration or the denial of human nature and difference which is the
essence of political correctness. This entails a blind refusal to
engage with Breivik’s declared motives and general criticism of
modern Norwegian society (and by extension the developed world
generally) . In a nutshell, they do not know how to rationally
respond to a man who challenges everything they believe in and can
only deal with the existence of Breivik by turning him into a being
who is either not worthy of consideration or a fabulous monster who
can be viewed in the same way that the audience for a nineteenth
century freak show would look at the unfortunate beings on display.
The refusal to engage with Breivik is epitomised by the mass public
singing during the trial of a song which Breivik claims is part of
indoctrination of Norwegians. The song Children of the Rainbow
contains lyrics such as these:
“A sky full of stars, blue sea as far as you can see
An earth where flowers grow, can you wish for more?
Together shall we live, every sister, brother
Young children of the rainbow, in a fertile land”
(http://www.policymic.com/articles/7556/norway-fights-against-mass-
killer-breivik-by-singing-children-of-the-rainbow/related.
In propaganda terms, what is the difference between getting Norwegian
children to sing that and the Hitler Youth leading renditions of the
Horst Wessel song ?
Three tactics have been used to negate the danger Breivik
represents: say he is insane, seek to censor his testimony on the
ground that he will use the trial to promote his political ideas or
attempt to diminish him and his ideas by deriding him as a person.
This mentality is echoed by liberals everywhere. Consequently, even
outside of Norway there is precious little attempt to present
reasoned argument against what Breivik is claiming. Instead liberals
generally have offered feeble personal abuse of his person, bald
assertions that his arguments are wrong and delusional and claims
that he must be mad.
Why are liberals so desperate not to address the issues Breivik has
raised? Because they know in their heart of hearts that their
declared political ends are no more than aspirations; that despite
decades of politically correct propaganda and the punishment of those
who dissent from the ideology with the criminal law or non-criminal
sanction’s such as loss of employment, humans still feel what they
have always felt, a strong sense of tribal identity and
territoriality. Liberals know this in the most certain way because
they , like everyone else, have the feelings which lead human beings
to naturally think in terms of membership of a group. This commonly
makes them arrange their lives so that they can avoid all the ethnic
and racial diversity they extol as wonderfully enriching, a trait
most notably seen in “white flight” from areas of heavy immigrant
settlement.
It might be thought that the secret fears expressed in their hypocrisy
in avoiding the joy of diversity would make the sustaining of their
ideology impossible. Not a bit of it. Liberals can always tell
themselves that they are still on a journey towards the promised
politically correct land and find excuses for why they live (in
England) a very white and very English world . (The favourite white
liberal excuse for denying themselves the experience of the joy of
diversity is that it is a matter of class which causes them to end
up well away from the diversity. This is, the white liberal claims,
is because they are richer than most and ethnic minorities are
poorer than most and the two groups are accordingly sorted into
different neighbourhoods by wealth not race or ethnicity. It is an
argument which does not seem to provide a very adequate garment to
cover the hypocrisy of the likes of the leftist folk singer Billy
Bragg who removed himself from his Essex origins as the place became
invaded by ethnic minorities and went to live in Dorset, arguably the
whitest and most English of counties).
When people support an ideology which they know is false or at the
least not objectively demonstrable, they invent excuses for reality
not being in accord with the ideology. In the case of modern liberals
they argue that human nature does not exist and behaviour is simply a
consequence of social conditioning. They then follow the logic of
that belief to say that all that is required to change (to liberals)
harmful behaviour is to alter the conditioning. When their attempts
to re-condition humans in a politically correct way fail, as they
always do, the liberal’s response is simple: the conditioning has not
gone on long enough or has not be powerful enough to effect the
required alterations in human behaviour. This provides an excuse to
continue with and enhance the re-conditioning by ever more draconian
restrictions on how people may behave. The liberal’s chosen vehicle
for the re-conditioning is the ideology we now know as political
correctness or, to the politically and academically inclined,
cultural Marxism.
But although they can find excuses for why things are not as they are
supposed to be according to the politically correct canon, liberals,
even the most committed believers, also have a terrible fear that if
people point out that the liberal emperor has no clothes before the
politically correct promised land is reached, it could cause a
revolution which might at best overthrow what they fervently want or,
more venally , could result in dire consequences from themselves as
the rage of those who have suffered from the enforcement of political
correctness and mass immigration is let off the lease. At the very
least all the highly paid jobs which rely on the dominance of
political correctness would vanish. This would remove the livelihoods
of a very large proportion of those who sincerely believe in political
correctness and even more from those who pay lip-service to
political correctness simply to obtain one of the politically correct
sinecures. There is a very large vested interest in maintaining
political correctness once it has become the ideology of those with
power.
If political correctness was simply a marginal political creed it
would be harmless. Unfortunately, it has become the elite ideology of
most of the Western world. That makes it toxic and potentially
dangerous enough to destroy the societies in which it has gained such
a hold, most particularly through its permitting of mass immigration
and promotion of multiculturalism. It is catastrophically pernicious
because it is totalitarian in its nature for it reaches into every
aspect of life and insists that the only acceptable opinion in any
situation is the politically correct one.
The ills of mass immigration and the enforcement of multiculturalism
require little comment beyond the obvious facts that mass immigration
that the injection into a society of huge numbers of those who either
cannot fully assimilate for reasons of racial difference or will not
assimilate from a determination to retain the imported ancestral
culture must of itself be immediately divisive and, eventually, if
immigration it continues long enough, potentially result in the
original population becoming a minority in their own land and their
own culture, at the least, badly mangled by that stark change in
fortune.
The state promotion of immigrant cultures and the suppression of
indigenous interests facilitates the process of the destruction of a
homogeneous society, but this may be an effect rather than a cause
of the mass immigration. Rather than being the result of a conscious
plot as the proponents of Cultural Marxism believe, it could be a
response to the permitting of mass immigration through negligence or
cowardice by political elites who then try to justify what has
happened, control native dissent and attempt to deal with the
inevitable ills brought by mass immigration by developing a philosophy
such as multiculturalism which pretends that there is no such thing
as tribalism in the human DNA and everything is for the best in all
possible multicultural worlds. It does not solve the problem but it
provides the elite with a narrative for what has happened which
diverts blame away from them at least temporarily.
Read more at http://livinginamadhouse.wordpress.com/2012/04/29/why-liberals-are-terrified-by-anders-breivik/
DVH
Apr 29, 2012, 4:11:26 PM4/29/12
to
"RH" <anywh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc360d43-32bb-4061...@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> The refusal to engage with Breivik is epitomised by the mass public
> singing during the trial of a song which Breivik claims is part of
> indoctrination of Norwegians. The song Children of the Rainbow
> contains lyrics such as these:
>
> “A sky full of stars, blue sea as far as you can see
>
> An earth where flowers grow, can you wish for more?
>
> Together shall we live, every sister, brother
>
> Young children of the rainbow, in a fertile land”
Their luxury is entirely due to oil.
As already pointed out, they're lotus eaters.
"In Greek mythology, the lotus-eaters ... were a race of people living on an
island near North Africa dominated by lotus plants. The lotus fruits and
flowers were the primary food of the island and were narcotic, causing the
people to sleep in peaceful apathy."
Andy Wainwright
Apr 29, 2012, 5:24:39 PM4/29/12
to
crime any worse than Breivik's? Murderers who target the young are going
to be seen as bad guys by all but total mental cases.
The thought of people winning power who see a child murderer as a hero
figure does scare the crap out of a lot of people, right as well as left.
Farmer Giles
Apr 29, 2012, 5:33:32 PM4/29/12
to
abelard
Apr 29, 2012, 5:42:28 PM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:33:32 +0100, Farmer Giles <gi...@nospam.com>
wrote:
why is that? because it's the only one you've heard of?
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
wrote:
--
web site at www.abelard.org - news comment service, logic, economics
energy, education, politics, etc over 1 million document calls in year past
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
all that is necessary for [] walk quietly and carry
the triumph of evil is that [] a big stick.
good people do nothing [] trust actions not words
only when it's funny -- roger rabbit
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
saracene
Apr 29, 2012, 5:51:59 PM4/29/12
to
On Apr 29, 10:42 pm, abelard <abela...@abelard.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:33:32 +0100, Farmer Giles <gi...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 29/04/2012 21:11, DVH wrote:
> >> "RH"<anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:33:32 +0100, Farmer Giles <gi...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On 29/04/2012 21:11, DVH wrote:
> >>news:cc360d43-32bb-4061...@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> The refusal to engage with Breivik is epitomised by the mass public
> >>> singing during the trial of a song which Breivik claims is part of
> >>> indoctrination of Norwegians. The song Children of the Rainbow
> >>> contains lyrics such as these:
>
> >>> “A sky full of stars, blue sea as far as you can see
>
> >>> An earth where flowers grow, can you wish for more?
>
> >>> Together shall we live, every sister, brother
>
> >>> Young children of the rainbow, in a fertile land”
>
> >> The absurdity increases: only 3% of Norway is cultivated.
>
> >> Their luxury is entirely due to oil.
>
> >> As already pointed out, they're lotus eaters.
>
> >> "In Greek mythology, the lotus-eaters ... were a race of people living on an
> >> island near North Africa dominated by lotus plants. The lotus fruits and
> >> flowers were the primary food of the island and were narcotic, causing the
> >> people to sleep in peaceful apathy."
>
> >A more pertinent Greek Myth from you would be the story of the Trojan Horse.
>
> why is that? because it's the only one you've heard of?
>
> --
What about Pasiphae?
>
> >>> The refusal to engage with Breivik is epitomised by the mass public
> >>> singing during the trial of a song which Breivik claims is part of
> >>> indoctrination of Norwegians. The song Children of the Rainbow
> >>> contains lyrics such as these:
>
> >>> “A sky full of stars, blue sea as far as you can see
>
> >>> An earth where flowers grow, can you wish for more?
>
> >>> Together shall we live, every sister, brother
>
> >>> Young children of the rainbow, in a fertile land”
>
> >> The absurdity increases: only 3% of Norway is cultivated.
>
> >> Their luxury is entirely due to oil.
>
> >> As already pointed out, they're lotus eaters.
>
> >> "In Greek mythology, the lotus-eaters ... were a race of people living on an
> >> island near North Africa dominated by lotus plants. The lotus fruits and
> >> flowers were the primary food of the island and were narcotic, causing the
> >> people to sleep in peaceful apathy."
>
> >A more pertinent Greek Myth from you would be the story of the Trojan Horse.
>
> why is that? because it's the only one you've heard of?
>
> --
abelard
Apr 29, 2012, 6:11:14 PM4/29/12
to
that's some sort of sticky tape isn't it?
tim....
Apr 30, 2012, 3:54:37 AM4/30/12
to
"RH" <anywh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cc360d43-32bb-4061...@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik
ISTM that the only thing that terrifies Norwegians is their stupid liberal
law that has a maximum sentence of (IIRC) 28 years however bad the crime.
So given that this guy is youngish, at some point in the future they are
going to have to let him out.
I'm not a great believer in excessive penal servitude as punishment, but
that isn't the only reason that you put people in jail.
what a nonsense.
tim
Mel Rowing
Apr 30, 2012, 4:10:25 AM4/30/12
to
On Apr 30, 8:54 am, "tim...." <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> "RH" <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
This betrays the otherwise obvious shortcomings of a penal sytem that
sets limits on the severity of punishments. There is always going to
come a time when the enormity of the crime challenges the
appropriateness of these limits.
In this situation it would have been better had those policemen who
were sent to that island to capture him had killed him "in an exchange
of fire" Think then of all the oxygen that would have been stifled
from his "cause" and nobody would have given a damn about him.
> "RH" <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
sets limits on the severity of punishments. There is always going to
come a time when the enormity of the crime challenges the
appropriateness of these limits.
In this situation it would have been better had those policemen who
were sent to that island to capture him had killed him "in an exchange
of fire" Think then of all the oxygen that would have been stifled
from his "cause" and nobody would have given a damn about him.
RH
Apr 30, 2012, 4:15:33 AM4/30/12
to
Farmer Giles
Apr 30, 2012, 4:18:42 AM4/30/12
to
On 29/04/2012 22:42, abelard wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:33:32 +0100, Farmer Giles<gi...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 29/04/2012 21:11, DVH wrote:
>>> "RH"<anywh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cc360d43-32bb-4061...@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> The refusal to engage with Breivik is epitomised by the mass public
>>>> singing during the trial of a song which Breivik claims is part of
>>>> indoctrination of Norwegians. The song Children of the Rainbow
>>>> contains lyrics such as these:
>>>>
>>>> “A sky full of stars, blue sea as far as you can see
>>>>
>>>> An earth where flowers grow, can you wish for more?
>>>>
>>>> Together shall we live, every sister, brother
>>>>
>>>> Young children of the rainbow, in a fertile land”
>>>
>>> The absurdity increases: only 3% of Norway is cultivated.
>>>
>>> Their luxury is entirely due to oil.
>>>
>>> As already pointed out, they're lotus eaters.
>>>
>>> "In Greek mythology, the lotus-eaters ... were a race of people living on an
>>> island near North Africa dominated by lotus plants. The lotus fruits and
>>> flowers were the primary food of the island and were narcotic, causing the
>>> people to sleep in peaceful apathy."
>>>
>>
>> A more pertinent Greek Myth from you would be the story of the Trojan Horse.
>
> why is that? because it's the only one you've heard of?
>
Whoooosh!
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 22:33:32 +0100, Farmer Giles<gi...@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 29/04/2012 21:11, DVH wrote:
>>> "RH"<anywh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:cc360d43-32bb-4061...@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>>> The refusal to engage with Breivik is epitomised by the mass public
>>>> singing during the trial of a song which Breivik claims is part of
>>>> indoctrination of Norwegians. The song Children of the Rainbow
>>>> contains lyrics such as these:
>>>>
>>>> “A sky full of stars, blue sea as far as you can see
>>>>
>>>> An earth where flowers grow, can you wish for more?
>>>>
>>>> Together shall we live, every sister, brother
>>>>
>>>> Young children of the rainbow, in a fertile land”
>>>
>>> The absurdity increases: only 3% of Norway is cultivated.
>>>
>>> Their luxury is entirely due to oil.
>>>
>>> As already pointed out, they're lotus eaters.
>>>
>>> "In Greek mythology, the lotus-eaters ... were a race of people living on an
>>> island near North Africa dominated by lotus plants. The lotus fruits and
>>> flowers were the primary food of the island and were narcotic, causing the
>>> people to sleep in peaceful apathy."
>>>
>>
>> A more pertinent Greek Myth from you would be the story of the Trojan Horse.
>
> why is that? because it's the only one you've heard of?
>
Farmer Giles
Apr 30, 2012, 4:31:11 AM4/30/12
to
Mel Rowing
Apr 30, 2012, 4:24:59 AM4/30/12
to
I'll even allow myself a :>)
abelard
Apr 30, 2012, 6:31:55 AM4/30/12
to
hold him if they still don't believe in his saintlinees and
goodwill
The Todal
Apr 30, 2012, 6:37:58 AM4/30/12
to
the British Liberal Democrat party, who have not expressed any
collective view. I think "liberals" must be your own unique concept, a
vision you have the sort of people you don't like, of excessively
compassionate and politically correct people who aren't in fact members
of any one party or organisation. Hah! you say to them, see where your
compassion and your political correctness have brought you! All your
fault, liberal people.
In reality, the people struggling to fit Breivik into their concept of
the world are people of all political views including the most
reactionary of us. And I doubt if you can have read the words of the
Horst Wessel song if you compare it to a silly bland poem about children
of the rainbow.
I could as easily say that racist bigots are "terrified" by Breivik
because he has acted on what they all secretly believe to be right -
having decided that his nation was capitulating to Muslim world
domination and that political parties including the various youth wings
were to blame, Breivik struck back by massacring those whom he belived
to be to blame, and it is seen as the action of a madman or evil man.
The racist bigots may say that they would prefer not to kill people but
instead to persecute and drive out the minority groups, but that is just
a question of degree.
Paul Hyett
Apr 30, 2012, 11:49:37 AM4/30/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 at 12:44:44, RH <anywh...@gmail.com> wrote in
uk.politics.misc :
>Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik
>
>Robert Henderson
>
Who *wouldn't* be terrified by a raving lunatic with a gun!
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
uk.politics.misc :
>Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik
>
>Robert Henderson
>
--
Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
The Todal
Apr 30, 2012, 12:19:46 PM4/30/12
to
On 30/4/12 16:49, Paul Hyett wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 at 12:44:44, RH <anywh...@gmail.com> wrote in
> uk.politics.misc :
>
>> Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik
>>
>> Robert Henderson
>>
> Who *wouldn't* be terrified by a raving lunatic with a gun!
Okay, I admit that racist bigots who moreover believe in the right to
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 at 12:44:44, RH <anywh...@gmail.com> wrote in
> uk.politics.misc :
>
>> Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik
>>
>> Robert Henderson
>>
> Who *wouldn't* be terrified by a raving lunatic with a gun!
bear arms and are ready and willing to shoot black boys on sight if they
trespass on the front lawn, won't really be terrified by Anders Breivik.
Because if you don't have much brain tissue in your head, the
neurological receptors for terror are missing.
saracene
Apr 30, 2012, 12:53:34 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 30, 9:10 am, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 8:54 am, "tim...." <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "RH" <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:cc360d43-32bb-4061...@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik
>
> > ISTM that the only thing that terrifies Norwegians is their stupid liberal
> > law that has a maximum sentence of (IIRC) 28 years however bad the crime.
>
> > So given that this guy is youngish, at some point in the future they are
> > going to have to let him out.
>
> > I'm not a great believer in excessive penal servitude as punishment, but
> > that isn't the only reason that you put people in jail.
>
> > what a nonsense.
>
> This betrays the otherwise obvious shortcomings of a penal sytem that
> sets limits on the severity of punishments.
As did ours when they abolished hanging drawing and quartering.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "RH" <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:cc360d43-32bb-4061...@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik
>
> > ISTM that the only thing that terrifies Norwegians is their stupid liberal
> > law that has a maximum sentence of (IIRC) 28 years however bad the crime.
>
> > So given that this guy is youngish, at some point in the future they are
> > going to have to let him out.
>
> > I'm not a great believer in excessive penal servitude as punishment, but
> > that isn't the only reason that you put people in jail.
>
> > what a nonsense.
>
> This betrays the otherwise obvious shortcomings of a penal sytem that
> sets limits on the severity of punishments.
That they should return to the place from whence they came, from
thence be drawn to the Common place of Execution upon Hurdles, and
there to be Hanged by the Necks, then cut down alive, their Privy-
Members cut off, and Bowels taken out to be burned before their Faces,
their Heads to be severed from their Bodies, and their Bodies divided
into four parts, to be disposed of as the King should think fit.
Here's Pepys:-
Saturday 13 October 1660
To my Lord’s in the morning, where I met with Captain Cuttance, but my
Lord not being up I went out to Charing Cross, to see Major- general
Harrison hanged, drawn, and quartered; which was done there, he
looking as cheerful as any man could do in that condition. He was
presently cut down, and his head and heart shown to the people, at
which there was great shouts of joy.
Hotblack Desiato
Apr 30, 2012, 1:15:15 PM4/30/12
to
"Andy Wainwright" wrote in message news:jnkbir$v7m$1...@dont-email.me...
On 29/04/2012 20:44, RH wrote:
> Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik
>
>Ian Huntley killed a lot less young people than this nut- what makes his
>crime any worse than Breivik's? Murderers who target the young are going to
>be seen as bad guys by all but total mental cases.
> The thought of people winning power who see a child murderer as a hero
> figure does scare the crap out of a lot of people, right as well as left.
Indeed, and what if Anders was a Muslim, shooting people for his own equally
>crime any worse than Breivik's? Murderers who target the young are going to
>be seen as bad guys by all but total mental cases.
> The thought of people winning power who see a child murderer as a hero
> figure does scare the crap out of a lot of people, right as well as left.
vehemently held socio/political beliefs?
A darkie kills innocents: All these bloody Muslims are all terrorist scum
who should be nuked
A Caucasian kills innocents: The poor dear is misunderstood by whinging
lefties... AND All these bloody Muslims are all terrorist scum who should be
nuked
RH
Apr 30, 2012, 1:21:56 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 30, 4:49 pm, Paul Hyett <p...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 at 12:44:44, RH <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote in
> On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 at 12:44:44, RH <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote in
> uk.politics.misc :
>
> >Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik
>
> >Robert Henderson
>
> Who *wouldn't* be terrified by a raving lunatic with a gun!
> --
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
That is isn't what terrifies liberals about Breivik... RH
>
> >Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik
>
> >Robert Henderson
>
> Who *wouldn't* be terrified by a raving lunatic with a gun!
> --
> Paul Hyett, Cheltenham
abelard
Apr 30, 2012, 1:30:36 PM4/30/12
to
On Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:15:15 +0100, "Hotblack Desiato"
<trash885...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Indeed, and what if Anders was a Muslim, shooting people for his own equally
>vehemently held socio/political beliefs?
>
>A darkie kills innocents: All these bloody Muslims are all terrorist scum
>who should be nuked
>A Caucasian kills innocents: The poor dear is misunderstood by whinging
>lefties... AND All these bloody Muslims are all terrorist scum who should be
>nuked
dear mister cold black potato, verily your post confused me...
<trash885...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Indeed, and what if Anders was a Muslim, shooting people for his own equally
>vehemently held socio/political beliefs?
>
>A darkie kills innocents: All these bloody Muslims are all terrorist scum
>who should be nuked
>A Caucasian kills innocents: The poor dear is misunderstood by whinging
>lefties... AND All these bloody Muslims are all terrorist scum who should be
>nuked
the message appears to be mashed....
Mel Rowing
Apr 30, 2012, 2:59:50 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 30, 5:53 pm, saracene <john....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 9:10 am, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 8:54 am, "tim...." <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > "RH" <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:cc360d43-32bb-4061...@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik
>
> > > ISTM that the only thing that terrifies Norwegians is their stupid liberal
> > > law that has a maximum sentence of (IIRC) 28 years however bad the crime.
>
> > > So given that this guy is youngish, at some point in the future they are
> > > going to have to let him out.
>
> > > I'm not a great believer in excessive penal servitude as punishment, but
> > > that isn't the only reason that you put people in jail.
>
> > > what a nonsense.
>
> > This betrays the otherwise obvious shortcomings of a penal sytem that
> > sets limits on the severity of punishments.
>
> As did ours when they abolished hanging drawing and quartering.
Who said anything about hanging drawing and quartering except you?
> On Apr 30, 9:10 am, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 30, 8:54 am, "tim...." <tims_new_h...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > "RH" <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> > >news:cc360d43-32bb-4061...@e42g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > >Why liberals are terrified by Anders Breivik
>
> > > ISTM that the only thing that terrifies Norwegians is their stupid liberal
> > > law that has a maximum sentence of (IIRC) 28 years however bad the crime.
>
> > > So given that this guy is youngish, at some point in the future they are
> > > going to have to let him out.
>
> > > I'm not a great believer in excessive penal servitude as punishment, but
> > > that isn't the only reason that you put people in jail.
>
> > > what a nonsense.
>
> > This betrays the otherwise obvious shortcomings of a penal sytem that
> > sets limits on the severity of punishments.
>
> As did ours when they abolished hanging drawing and quartering.
Why involve oneself in such gore when a bullet to the head would
achieve exactly the same result? The mode of execution is of no
importance.
As things stand, this character has turned his trial into a theatrical
performance. Isn't one entitled to know why?
Could it be that come what may he has the reassurance that he will
never be executed by any method. Further he knew this at the very
moment that the hideous plan crossed his mind. Could there not e a
connection here?
He literally has nothing to lose.
On the one hand he will be found insane when in the fullness of time
some quack will decide that he is cured. and ready to re-take his
place in society which eventually he will. Unfortunately, his victims
won't!
On the other he will be found guilty and presumably be committed to
prison for the maximum term except that Norwegian law insists the
maximium amount of time any convict can spend in prison is in the
order of 25 years after which he must be released to re-take his place
in society. Unfortunately the same law sets no limits on the length of
time his victims will spend dead. Neither does it set limits on extent
of the shock and the anguish he has inflicted upon the loved ones of
their victims possibly to be carried to the end of their lives.
Yet there are some who expect to be taken seriously when they argue
that his treatment is appropriate.
No wonder he smirks at the cameras. He's having a whale of a time.
saracene
Apr 30, 2012, 3:47:28 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 30, 7:59 pm, Mel Rowing <mel.row...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> Who said anything about hanging drawing and quartering except you?
You remarked on the "obvious shortcomings of a penal sytem that
>
> Who said anything about hanging drawing and quartering except you?
sets limits on the severity of punishments." and said " There is
always going to
come a time when the enormity of the crime challenges the
appropriateness of these limits."
Breivik said he would have accepted capital punishment. So it might
come a time when the enormity of the crime challenges the
appropriateness of these limits."
not have been a deterrent, anymore than it was for the Oklahoma
bomber. If a bullet in the head is worst you can conceive then you are
clearly setting limits to the severity of punishment.
saracene
Apr 30, 2012, 4:00:30 PM4/30/12
to
> Could it be that come what may he has the reassurance that he will
> never be executed by any method. Further he knew this at the very
> moment that the hideous plan crossed his mind. Could there not e a
> connection here?
Conceivably but not necessarily.
> never be executed by any method. Further he knew this at the very
> moment that the hideous plan crossed his mind. Could there not e a
> connection here?
>
> He literally has nothing to lose.
>
> On the one hand he will be found insane
Don't you think he might be insane? What if he is? Would you happily
> He literally has nothing to lose.
>
> On the one hand he will be found insane
execute a poor loony?
> when in the fullness of time
> some quack will decide that he is cured. and ready to re-take his
> place in society which eventually he will. Unfortunately, his victims
> won't!
>
> On the other he will be found guilty and presumably be committed to
> prison for the maximum term except that Norwegian law insists the
> maximium amount of time any convict can spend in prison is in the
> order of 25 years after which he must be released to re-take his place
> in society.
> Unfortunately the same law sets no limits on the length of
> time his victims will spend dead. Neither does it set limits on extent
> of the shock and the anguish he has inflicted upon the loved ones of
> their victims possibly to be carried to the end of their lives.
>
> Yet there are some who expect to be taken seriously when they argue
> that his treatment is appropriate.
>
> No wonder he smirks at the cameras. He's having a whale of a time.
Turk182
Apr 30, 2012, 5:07:39 PM4/30/12
to
There is nothing terrifing about Breivik behind bars, it is only the
thought of him loose with weapons that is scary. His behaviour was
entirely predictable. We have many more like him, as we have Hitlers,
Blairs, Gandhis, Bransons and other exceptional beings - because
exceptional people come from exceptional backgrounds and environment
resulting in genius bad or genius good - and the only thing that
seperates them is just how they act out their genius.
We should all be pleased that we did not have Breiviks background, as
we could have been even worse.
Breivik is close to breakdown - there is a very narrow thread of
purpose that is keeping him strong - it is unlikely to last the full
trial, because people are being kind to him - and he did not expect
that! His mind was built around 'no empathy' to help him survive
childhood - now he has none for others and he doesn't know why and has
filled the hole in his heart around a cuase. - psychologicaqlly, he is
trying to execute something inside him, but when he is in touch with
the tragedy of his own life - he will realise what he has done and
could go into a psychosis.
He is 'mad', as we all are. But it is madness built around
eggagerated everyday prejudice and poor self-esteem - and that is
explainable - it is not irrational madness. Tony Blair also has
explainable problems which allowed his ego to take him to war, and had
Breikvik had be become a leader, we could have also seen death on an
industrial scale - as with Hitler.
Should he be on trial? No. He is not 'deraqgned mentally ill, but he
is arranged mentally ill, which is often mistaken for sanity. Sane
people do not kill dozens of people as a favour to the world. These
are extremely damaged people, who the public need protecting from -
but more than anything, we must learn where his upbringing failed him
- and do far more to ensure that the corrosion of humanity by parents
and media, stops.
Society is culpable, because we are breeding more like him - because
children's psychological rights are not protected in law, and because
parents are allow to destroy a child's self-respect before they reach
the age of 7.
Nothing you will hear in the media will even touch the truth of this
case - for it is a world that the media kneejerk away from, and are
completely ignorant of. They are only looking for easy, brightly
coloured, shrink-wrapped, buzzword, juicy answers - the word 'evil'
comes in very handy at such time. But 'evil' is shorthand for, 'we
don't want to think'.
Turk182
Mel Rowing
Apr 30, 2012, 5:20:10 PM4/30/12
to
On Apr 30, 10:07 pm, Turk182 <digitalradi...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 29, 8:44 pm, RH <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He is 'mad', as we all are.
You speak for yourself!
> On Apr 29, 8:44 pm, RH <anywhere...@gmail.com> wrote:
> He is 'mad', as we all are.
>But it is madness built around
> eggagerated everyday prejudice and poor self-esteem - and that is
> explainable - it is not irrational madness. Tony Blair also has
> explainable problems which allowed his ego to take him to war,
It was the British Government that went to war! You mention Tony Blair
a lot.
Perhaps you have some complex involving him?
Turk182
Apr 30, 2012, 5:29:55 PM4/30/12
to
and Campbell put ambition before lives.
Turk182
Mel Rowing
May 1, 2012, 4:00:21 AM5/1/12
to
No prime minister has the authority to take the country to war. He
does not hold absolute power. If he loses the support of his
government he goes. If the government loses the support of the HoC
then it goes. All the people round that cabinet table voted in support
of war even Claire Short who afterwards condemned the decision despite
the fact that she continued to serve in the cabinet. Robin Cook also
voted in favour despite the fact that shortly afterwards he resigned
from office telling blair that he could not support the Government in
the HoC.
The HoC was only reflecting public opinion which at the start of the
war was in favour. It was only in the stalemate that followed the
invasion that public support ebbed. Despite this Labour + Blair won
the next General election just as Bush won the Presidential election.
As I say you have a Bush/Blair complex!
In nay case, the discussion is supposed to be about Breivik who you
don't know and have never met. What exactly has Blair to do with him
or vice versa?
0 new messages