Terrorism

The Anti-Jihadist Jihad

|

If you rushed to announce that the terrorist attacks in Norway were "a sobering reminder for those who think it's too expensive to wage a war against jihadists," you're having your "Send the body to Glenn Beck" moment. It's not just that Anders Behring Breivik is not a jihadist. It's that he hails from the wing of the right that defines itself by its opposition to jihad, and to the leftists that it sees as jihad's enablers. That was clear enough from Breivik's Web comments that I blogged on Friday, but now there's more evidence: Breivik turns out to be the author of a long manifesto [pdf], and it reveals an Islamophobe opposed to immigration and obsessed with dhimmitude and "cultural Marxism." (Just to confuse matters, it is also partly plagiarized from the Unabomber.)

Interestingly, Breivik is still getting tagged with the wrong labels, as reporters unfamiliar with the nuances of the far right reach for words that don't really fit his particular constellation of views. He is described as a "fundamentalist," but his manifesto states that he's "not going to pretend I'm a very religious person." He is described as a "neo-Nazi," but he denounces Islamic oppression of Jews, identifies himself as pro-Israel, and expresses concern about anti-Semitic hate crimes. Øyvind Strømmen comments:

Breivik was inspired by an internet community who brands itself "counter jihadist", a community espousing an ideology that may be considered as extreme right-wing, which also has connections to European neo-fascism. It's a community I have been following fairly closely for a number of years. I am not surprised that the spirit of this community has now resulted in an act of terror in Norway. What is surprising is the scale, the scope of the terrorist attacks. The number of casualties exceeds the Al Qa'ida attack in London a few years ago. Although there are examples of terrorist attacks perpetrated by similarly motivated people in the past, they have not approached the scale of this incident.

In related news: Remember that odd moment when a purported group called "Assistants of the Global Jihad" claimed responsibility for the attacks? Here's what happened.

NEXT: Allen Kephart Taser Death Evidence Shuffle

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I imagine that this is all very disappointing for the neocon crowd. They were no doubt praying that the perp would be Iranian.

    OTOH I wonder if the lefties will find something they like. I don’t doubt that they’ll try to stretch it into something that helps one of their pet causes.

    1. Wow…out of the thousands of terroeist acts TWO were not by goat fuckers! I sure as hell am not a neocon and I think all religion is stupid, but Islam is really stupid and dangerous!

      1. make that….terrorist…

      2. I hate hate HATE goat-fucking terrorists! The Norwegians were lucky to have encountered a decent God-fearing Christian sheep-fucking terrorist instead. I mean, it sucks that innocent people died and all, but at least they died in the name of a decent, worthwhile god instead of some bullshit camel-humping heathen deity. That would’ve been just awful.

        1. Sheep go to Heaven, goats go to Hell.

          1. Don’t care much where their spirits go so long as their bodies end up on my dinner plate (preferably cooked rare with a nice Chianti to wash it down)!

            1. And not too heavy on the garlic please.

              1. Light on the Garlic?

                Are you some kind of fucking SAVAGE?!?

        2. Yes Jennifer everyone in a group you don’t like is individually responsible for the worst actions of the most depraved of that group.

          Collective responsibility, what a libertarian concept. Let’s just round everyone who doesn’t claim to be an atheist up and kill all of them. Then there wouldn’t be anymore terrorism right?

          1. I read what Jennifer said as being critical of terrorism specifically rather than any group.

            In fact, she was denigrating terrorists regardless of their religion. I don’t see how you get to what you wrote, John, from what she wrote.

          2. To quote Don Marquis, greatest American poet of the twentieth century, who wrote this in 1935:

            ….when a pig is eaten by a wolf
            he realizes that something is wrong with the world
            but when he is eaten by a man
            he must thank god fervently
            that he is being useful to a superior being
            it must be the same way
            with a colored man who is being lynched
            he must be grateful that he is being lynched
            in a land of freedom and liberty
            and not in any of the old world countries
            of darkness and oppression
            where men are still the victims
            of kings iniquity and constipation …

            And now, when an innocent Westerner dies in a terrorist attack, we should all be grateful that at least they weren’t killed by some icky goat-fucking sandhumper. It’s called “progress.”

          3. Except for the terrorism by the state, which would continue uninterrupted.

            1. Whoa, Hyperion, well said!!!!

          4. I’m pretty sure you used to have a working sarcasm detector.

            1. There’s an app* for that.

              *see #1

        3. It’s alleged sheep fucker, Jennifer. We wouldn’t want the Reason legal team fighting off libel charges again.

          Oh yeah, used your “government cock isn’t going to suck itself” line on here the other day. That phrase comes in handy in so many different situations.

        4. J, I love you and all, but the “six foot, blonde, blue eyed” murdered has written in his own hand that he is not particularly religious. You are correct un your stated distaste of camel-humping, though. Poor camels.

        5. They are “goat-raping,” not “goat-fucking.” I think I can speak for most of the goat community when I say that goats don’t like it outside of some goat cults. The preferred term for that is “ritual goat copulation syndrome.” And not to slur the sheep, but from what I understand, some sheep are into it. I don’t know enough camels to have an opinion one way or the other. I understand that you may not be aware of the goat community, but please understand, we have feelings too, and we just want to be as rape free as we can, but we are working on a medication for RGCS, so all of this “goat-raping,” can turn into “goat-fucking.” Thank you for listening.

          1. kabobs

        6. Fucking Christian terrorists must be bombed, Christianity is cancer , it must be destroyed .

      3. Creepscums terrorists have bombed many countries killed millions of people, they are the worst people in the world.

    2. So . . .

      much . . .

      opportunity!

    3. What’s a neocon as opposed to a regular, boring, everday conservative?

    1. Hmmm… the server squirrels accept “D?NDEROOOOOOOO!!!!!!”, but tells me I need to write in English when I ask if Breivik is a “te?b?gger”…

      1. I tried to replace all of the O’s with ?’s, but the squirrels denied me.

        1. I guess that means we’re never going to see the blinking umlaut tag be implemented in the comments…

          1. Tried it. Got this message.

            Your comment does not appear to be written in an English script. Please comment in English.

            1. Kind of makes though editorials against ‘English Only’ eateries seem a bit hypocritical now, doesn’t it?

              1. Isn’t adding extraneous umlauts to words for the sole sake of coolness a basic feature of the English language?

                Why does the server squirrel hate America?

                1. Why does the server squirrel hate America?

                  It just hates us. As do all right-thinking and upright squirrels (and people).

                2. Apparently, the server squirrel is not set to eleven.

            2. ?Por que solo Ingles permitido?

      2. I’m not a teabagger. I’m a person, who is a member of the teaparty, and that makes me a teaparty member.

  2. Just looking at pictures of the clown screams kryptonite-to-women. Like most these types, there are women problems here, deep ones.

    Or to be more specific, lack-of-women problems…at least when not counting Mother.

    1. Your two bit Psychoanalysis is silly and has no merit.

      1. isn’t that redundant?

        1. Something could definitely be lacking in merit, yet not be silly. Somewhat less likely, something could be silly and yet still be meritorious.

  3. How much do you guys want to bet left-leaning media is going to say he was a libertarian as a potential cause for the act?

    1. For a really good laugh, read item 3. So that’s why the debt ceiling gets raised. I’ve always wondered.

      What makes that post relevant to yours is the last item just casually tossed in. I just knew that rabble rousing would lead to something tragic!

      http://dyn.politico.com/member…..rentPage=4

      I believe that by now it should be clear to anybody that the following measures are imperative:

      1. increase taxes, especially on people who can actually afford to pay higher taxes, like for example the rich.

      2. cut spending as much as possible. cut social help to one meal per day, basic accomodation, basic healthcare (to prevent people from dying to save $2 per person and to prevent epidemics), basic education. Also, cut transfers to airline companies and to the oil industry.

      3. increase the debt ceiling, which is required to keep it constant in real terms because of inflation. Also, those who already own US gov’t debt lose money because of inflation, so this debt helps US in this moment.

      If such an advanced society is unable to understand these simple 3 points, then they deserve to go down. This will affect other countries, which also deserve what will come to them.

      It appears that the Norwegian killer was linked to the Tea Party: he posted on some of their forums or something. Be proud with it.

    2. Well, if they want to make that argument, they can point to the unfortunate fact that he cites Mises and Hayek favorably a small number of times, as I just noted in a blog post.

      http://www.coordinationproblem…..festo.html

      1. He was really impressed with Kasporov’s reinvention of the King’s Knight Gambit so I’m gonna go send some FBI guys to rough up those assburger fests and tell us what they know.

    3. They will say that he is a RIGHT WING extremist. I guess that because… that is what they are already saying. And, to them right wing extremist and Libertarian is one and the same.

      1. Remember that the media considers themselves to be the moderates and so ANYONE to the right is thought to be an extremist!

        1. Yeah, every time I hear the words ‘centrists’ or ‘moderates’, I have to suppress a strong gag reflex, especially when either is preceed with the D word.

  4. Reading his stuff, first in Norwegian and then the manifesto, he appears to me as a Euro-paleocon nationalist who fancies himself as some sort of knight or crusader striking at the enablers of multiculturalism – a Labor Party summer camp. What kind of a “knight” slaughters defenseless kids, I don’t know. You’d think a halfway articulate person would consider the universal backlash against anything and everything he associated himself with. His stated enemies will be riding their moral high horse about this for decades.

    1. What kind of a “knight” slaughters defenseless kids, I don’t know.

      I do — if I have to.

      1. Ahem

        1. You can’t beat me.

          1. Got the wrong one, sucker!

            1. this

      2. Guys, let’s talk about Firefly instead!

    2. And of course the historical Crusader knights slaughtered plenty of defenseless children, many of whom weren’t even Muslim.

      1. Slaughtering innocents was a big portion of a knight’s job.

        1. To be fair, it was a lot safer for the brave knights, risking their lives to protect their land and people, to kill innocent children than actually go after mercenaries, highwaymen, or dragons.

        2. this too

      2. Tulpa, yeah. The Crusades sucked. First the Muslims attacked and killed all the Christians and Jews. Then the Christians attacked and killed all the Muslims and Jews. It went back and worth like this for a couple of centuries.

    3. If they get in between my drones and a terrorist, defenseless kids are dead meat.

    4. Hear hear! If you’re going to kill defenseless kids from lesser cultures, you should at least join the military first.

  5. “[I’m] not going to pretend I’m a very religious person.” He is described as a “neo-Nazi,” but he denounces Islamic oppression of Jews, identifies himself as pro-Israel, and expresses concern about anti-Semitic hate crimes.

    There’s something charming about the nutcaes in the world. They’re always trying to confuse us.

    Also I wonder if those who demonize Jews and Israelis are going to claim he’s more proof that Israel needs to be destroyed for the good of the world. Or maybe that that last sentence proves I’m in cahoots with him and a far right loony?

    1. I already read some conspiracy theories that he’s a Mossad agent.

  6. You have to love how the media really lacks terms to define actual political views. “Right wing=Neo Nazi Libertarian” “Left wing=Hippie Marxist” and “Islamic=ISOLATED INCIDENT!!!”

  7. Both “fundamentalist” and “Nazi” are little more than meaningless epithets tossed at those on the right, with little connection to historical fundamentalists or Nazis.

    To some extend “Marxist” and “commie” serve the same function for opponents of the left.

    1. …nowadays to smear other statists who don’t share their sense of style…

    2. When our resident socialist who deny that label advocate the nationalization of commercial banking as they have done you can no longer take their denial seriously. In the heady months after the ’08 collapse many liberals believed capitalism was on its last legs started talking about embracing socialism. Read the infamous Newsweek editorial ‘We’re All Socialist Now’ for an incredible zeitgeist backspin.

      When a soft lefty turns into a full blown Marxist, it occurs in the blink of an eye. If the Moment passes, he will shift back to his semi-dormant form.

    3. I’m friend and aquainted with shitloads of lefties. Most with a grad degree will tell you they’re “Marxists”. Testing to see is just fronting will lead to some pretty boring conversations with those that really know their shit, so I just take them at their word.

    4. If you scratch a leftist, you’ll find a marxist underneath

      1. Scratch a leftist and you’ll find envy and jealousy underneath. Scratch a marxist and you’ll find a dog in the manger.

        1. When real Marxists take over, they shoot all the college lefties first – because they are whiny pains in the ass.

          1. Hmmm…if the Marxists would just print that idea in the various manifestos they hand out then they would have a lot more people supporting them!

  8. “He is described as a “neo-Nazi,” but he denounces Islamic oppression of Jews, identifies himself as pro-Israel…”

    It’s his hatred of Islam and the left for allowing Muslims to come to Europe that’s behind all of it–but his brand of Islamophobia seems to be very much in the spirit of Pim Fortuyn and Theo van Gogh (the murdered film director)…

    The reason the left can’t digest what this nut was saying is because it reads the same as many on the left’s critique of Muslims and Islam. If you’re on the left arguing that faith in Islam is incompatible with Western liberal traditions and culture, then you believe what this maniac believed.

    …which underscores the most important point to be made here–it isn’t anybody’s ideology that’s the problem. There is no violent ideology–violence only happens in action. Violence isn’t something you think–it’s something you do.

    What this maniac thought wasn’t the issue–it’s what he did that was the issue.

    Once you go violent, no one should care what you really thought anymore. There is no reasonable justification for doing what this man did. Searching for one is futile and probably sick. And it ignores the most important fact, which is that violence of this kind is meaningless.

    If rational people react to appropriately to this tragedy, then this maniac will have accomplished nothing. There’s nothing to learn from what this sicko thought. There’s something to learn from what he did though–it’s that violence of this kind is meaningless and pointless.

    1. “If you’re on the left arguing that faith in Islam is incompatible with Western liberal traditions and culture, then you believe what this maniac believed.”

      That’s the crux of it right there–the reason so many people on the left are tone deaf on this guy is because they believe in much of what he believed.

      Maybe they’re subconsciously trying to draw some meaningful distinction between what he believed and what they believed–but it’s a false distinction.

      The only meaningful difference between him and them is the violence he perpetrated. No other distinction matters.

    2. I’m sure the most opinionated people on the intertubes are going to be shouting each other down over the next few weeks blaming everything from video games to Rupert Murdoch to The Smurfs, but that was put so succinctly and is so true that the discussion may as well end here. This man was just a freakin’ loony OK?

      1. But coward if we can’t exploit death and tragedy for political advantage, what fun is that?

    3. What this maniac thought wasn’t the issue–it’s what he did that was the issue.

      Yeah but, if we don’t know what he was thinking, we don’t know whether to charge him with a hate crime.

    4. Once you go violent, no one should care what you really thought anymore.

      Exactly. Would the people be any less dead or this be any less of a tragedy if the guy were a Libertarian?

    5. Once you go violent, no one should care what you really thought anymore.

      So I guess Nazis and Communists and Maoists shouldn’t have the violent actions of Hitler and Stalin and Zedong thrown in their faces then?

      To the extent that “what you really thought” is causally linked to your violence, yes it does matter.

      1. There isn’t any ideology that can’t be taken to a violent extreme–except maybe pacifism.

        1. True, but there are differences in how far the “violent extremes” really are from the original. You don’t have to push Naziism too far to wind up sanctioning mass murder, for instance.

        2. Even pacifism can lead to extreme violence. Just look at Constantine’s record.

    6. …which underscores the most important point to be made here–it isn’t anybody’s ideology that’s the problem. There is no violent ideology–violence only happens in action. Violence isn’t something you think–it’s something you do.

      What this maniac thought wasn’t the issue–it’s what he did that was the issue.

      Once you go violent, no one should care what you really thought anymore. There is no reasonable justification for doing what this man did. Searching for one is futile and probably sick. And it ignores the most important fact, which is that violence of this kind is meaningless.

      + 10

    7. Also, that putting a bunch of kids in an enclosed area without some sort of armed security nearby is begging for a psychopath to slaughter them, whether a reverse jihadi or a deranged teenager.

  9. Can we call him a postmodern terrorist? The guy was obsessed with the STDs of people near to him. He looked more like a recovering hedonist than anything else.

    1. The guy was obsessed with the STDs of people near to him. He looked more like a recovering hedonist than anything else.

      Astute observation. I use to know a guy exactly like that. Highly conservative, blew tons of money on whores, and obsessed with STDs to the extent of getting tested regularly for AIDS. He would be the last person on the planet I would even consider capable of harming another human being, but I did have to talk him out of a suicide attempt.

  10. Obviously if we didn’t have jihadists we wouldn’t have counter-jihadists. Plus, striking lines through all of your o’s shows a kind of cultural violence simmering just beneath the surface ready to expl?de.

  11. Uh oh! Those “Christian terrorists” Shirley Jackson Lee warned us about have finally begun to arrive!

  12. I haven’t read this guy’s manifesto, and don’t plan to.

    However, that this guy is murdering psychopath who opposed Islamism does not make opposition to Islamism wrongheaded anymore than the actions of Joseph Stack (flying his airplane into an Austin, Texas office building) make opposition to the current income tax system wrongheaded.

    Anybody advocating attacks like those committed by Breivik is certainly an instigator of hateful violence. BUT, so are the likes of Abu Hamza, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and Hassan Nasrallah.

    The real test of whether it is accurate and honest to view this guy as a political radical carrying out a rational but heinous course of action OR to view this guy as a genuinely insane person who seized upon an appealing narrative of countering an Islamist scourge can be determined by looking at the likely effectiveness of his actions toward achievement of his goals. In other words, is there any possible way that a reasonably intelligent person could have expected these attacks to advance his stated political goals?

    No. Absolutely not.

    Therefore, I think it is apparent this guy is simply far-orbit nuts and any political ideology he has adopted as a narrative is just an adornment he has selected more less like a fashion statement. Perhaps he wanted to be important. Perhaps he is an attention-junkie. Who knows? But whatever pathology is at work, it is that pathology, and his lack of valuing human life, that lies at the heart of these attacks. Ideology is largely irrelevant.

    The same is true for many Islamists. I’ve referenced it many times before, but I still highly recommend the article Al Qaeda’s Fantasy Ideology, by Lee Harris, published in Policy Review (Hoover Institution, Stanford). The narratives adopted by Islamists are largely just fashion statements – it is their desire to “be somebody” combined with personal attractions to violence and disregard for the value of life that drives their actions. However, these purveyors of religious incitement to violence are far more prolific and effective in their work than those who have apparently sprung up in a radical backlash movement against them.

    I must admit that my first assumption (and it was a STRONG assumption) was, “Of course, yes, they’ve done it again. The murdering goon-squads of jihad have again killed people senselessly.” However, from where did this assumption arise? Was it from “hate radio” or the Tea Party Movement? No. Was it from “Islamophobia”? No. It was an assumption arising from the pattern of attacks set previously by Islamists – the use of vehicle-borne IEDs, nearly simultaneous attacks, mass shooting, the use of police or military uniforms. These are all characteristics of prominent attacks committed in the recent past by Islamists.

    So, Islamism remains a threat. Islamism remains a movement opposed to Western representative democracy. Islamism remains a movement that encourages its adherents to commit acts of violence against both non-Muslims and mainstream Muslims alike. These attacks do not change this.

    If the groups (with which I am not very knowledgeable) that Breivik is reportedly associated with (English Defence League, for example) are advocates of violence against Muslims or liberals (what a strange set of bedfellows!) then certainly any such movement is also a threat – not just to Muslims and liberals but also to the very same Western representative democracies threatened by Islamism.

    One thing you bet on – power hungry politicians will seize every opportunity (whether from an Islamist terror attack or otherwise) to extend the powers of government and curtail the rights of the individual. That’s the most dangerous thing right now.

    1. What on earth is “Islamism”?

      I don’t recall the IRA’s philosophy being called “Catholicismism” despite the faux-religious justifications used by that terrorist organization.

      If “opposition to Islamism” is opposition to those who perpetrate or plan violence in the name of Islam, I join you in that opposition (as would all of us here). The danger is that “opposition to Islamism” is just a trojan horse for “opposition to Islam”, aka religious bigotry, and some of the rhetoric from those claiming to oppose “Islamism” gives off a strong stench of bigotry. That sort of opposition was as wrong before the Oslo attacks as it is now.

      1. Islamism is a term coined (to my knowledge) shortly after the 9/11 attacks. It is a portmanteau created by combining the word Islam and the word fascism.

        Specifically, Islamism refers to those fanatics who demand the establishment of Islamic theocracy and who reject and actively work to undermine and overthrow other forms of government.

        Examples of Islamists include Abu Hamza, the late Osama bin Laden, and Ayman a-Zawahiri.

        As far as your reference to the IRA and Catholicism, the IRA was not conducting terrorism for Catholicism. I assume your comment is a sophomoric attempt at associating Catholicism with terrorism and to excuse terrorism committed by Islamists by way of some form of moral equivalence.

        You’re a twit.

        1. Of course, if you WEREN’T making a snide swipe at Catholics (I’m not Catholic, BTW), then you’re not a twit and I’ll answer the question further…

          The IRA were/are a bunch of deranged leftist murderers who got off doing things like blowing up schoolbuses full of kids. The whole Catholic-Protestant thing is, I think, mostly just demographic coincidence. (I’m not Irish or British, either.)

      2. Exactly. It seems that over the past few years, whenever a person who is not muslim commits a mass killing, there is quite a bit of soft apologism that ensues, urging us to regard this person as an isolated incident and not to hold others who share his beliefs. This is not unreasonable. What is is that the same people would never claim muslims committing a terrorist are “just loony” maniacs.

        1. Did you read the post?

          And, the IRA was not a religiously-motivated organization. It doesn’t fit in with your moonbat Starbucks worldview, but it is a fact that the IRA was NOT a religious organization.

          Al Qaeda is.

          Hezbollah is.

          Hamas is.

          Lashkar e-Taiba is.

          Abu Sayyaf is.

          Get a clue – you’re a fucktard.

          1. I think if you read up on why Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, and Hammas you would find they are more nationalist organisations then MOOOSLLAMMIIISST

          2. I wasn’t responding to your post you dicksucking idiot, I was replying to Tulpa. I neither agreed nor disagreed with his stance on IRA/Catholicism (I actually disagree) – I was commenting on his point about religious bigotry.

            You’re a pathetic excuse for a troll. Get a fucking life.

      3. I don’t recall the IRA’s philosophy being called “Catholicismism” despite the faux-religious justifications used by that terrorist organization.

        Tulpa, that’s because Catholics don’t have legions of politically correct folks demanding that we not insult Catholicism. Given that the Catholic Church never sanctioned the attacks of the IRA, it would be accurate to describe the IRA as “Catholicists” following “Catholicismism”.

        I think it’s reasonable to distinguish rogue groups that do things in the name of a religion from the official followers of the religion regardless of the religion in question. The best way to do this is to make comments about specific incorporated religious bodies instead of blanket statements about all followers of a religion.

        For example, I can say that the Union of Reform Judaism is prone to environmental hysterics after reviewing their stance on Global Warming. It’s not anti-Semitic, to say this, because I’m criticizing an incorporated group rather than a religion based class.

  13. Why can’t he just be a nut case?

    1. How can you possibly use that politically to further your political agenda continuting to destroy peoples rights and take away their freedoms? Nope, he is a right wing extremist.

      1. continuing…

    2. He IS a nut-case. That was my point – I just think it needs some illustration as how one comes rationally to that conclusion.

      Besides my disgust with the event itself, I am angry with leftist claims that Breivik did this because “he is a Christian fundamentalist” (he is not) and a “right wing extremist” (where the media uses the term “right wing” they do not mean to use an historically correct version of the term, but rather to associate him with everyone who opposes socialism).

      In other words, it needs to be pointed out that the the folks you hear screaming “right-wing fundamentalist” are almost entirely socialists who are exploiting this horrendous event in order to slander all who reject socialism.

    3. He’s a nutcase and a complete fool.

      Thanks to him, it will now be harder to properly critisize Islam and Norway’s immigration policies. What an ass.

  14. He is described as a “fundamentalist,” but his manifesto states that he’s “not going to pretend I’m a very religious person.” He is described as a “neo-Nazi,” but he denounces Islamic oppression of Jews, identifies himself as pro-Israel, and expresses concern about anti-Semitic hate crimes.

    So basically he doesn’t hold any coherent world view points. It is almost like he is a homocidal lunatic or something.

    1. Boy howdy.

    2. He does hold a coherent world view (anti Islam, anti cultural-marxism, anti-feminism, anti-acpitalism pro-nationalism) It’s just not a neo-nazi world view. It’s a world view that’s pretty common for anumber of self provalimed European anti-Jihad groups.

    3. What? That’s just illustrating the failure to properly label him, not any inconsistencies in his viewpoint itself. Does one have to be religious to hate Muslims?

  15. I am not surprised that the spirit of this community has now resulted in an act of terror in Norway.

    Breivik wrote “The primary goal of the shock attacks is not the immediate physical manifestation of the attack (destroying a few buildings, killing a few hundred traitors) but rather the indirect effects.”

    There’s no need to read the tea leaves about the “spirit” of a community. The guy proclaimed himself a future mass murderer in a manifesto nobody bothered to read.

    1. It was released the day of the attacks.

      1. Oh. Well I’ll have to remember to scan any early AM 1000 page manifestos I receive.

  16. He sounds only slightly more lucid than that guy who shot up the aerobics class in Pittsburgh a while back.

    1. Or the guy who shot Giffords. The dude shot scores of young children in the head. Do people really expect him to have a cogent world view?

      1. Don’t misrepresent the facts. Thes were not “young children”, they were teens/young adults.

        Its fucking retarded when somebody calls a 16 year old a “young child”. Just ask a teen if you don’t believe it.

        1. Oh ok. So I guess that makes it less bad or something. Seriously, who the fuck cares if they were five or twenty?

          1. The facts do.

          2. Further, why would YOU deliberately misrepresent them as “young children”(in an obvious ploy to maximize the preceived heinousness of the crime), if indeed there is no difference between a bunch of 5 year olds and a bunch of 20 year olds killed?

            I think you know why.

            1. in an obvious ploy to maximize the preceived heinousness of the crime

              They guy killed ninety something people. I would say he maximized the heinousness of it pretty well. And yeah, when you are over about the age of 30, all children from five to 18 are about the same.

              Are you retarded or something? Just slow?

              1. I don’t know where you’re from, but we’ve never heard anybody aside from hysterical liberal soccer moms refer to 18 year olds as “young children”.

                Like we said, perceived heinousness. It wasn’t good anough for you to say “people”, “kids”, or “victims”. That wouldn’t make the crime sound heinous enough, right?

                1. It’s what’s for dinner.

        2. Oh, of course we must all except Trollhard’s definition of “young” and stop using that icky word “children” to describe mostly adolescent human beings. Why? Cause fuck the victims, that’s why.

          May be hard for you to understand, but.. uh.. yeah a good chunk of those kids are going to be considered both “young” and “children”, especially by the grieving parents.

      2. Or the guy who shot Giffords. The dude shot scores of young children in the head. Do people really expect him to have a cogent world view?

        Islamists kill children does that mean that they also don’t have a a cogent world view?

    2. The really sad thing is that he was (probably) a competent and reasonably intelligent person who meticulously planned and carried out the worst thing he conceive of. He had no criminal record, and probably no other red flags – how do you defend against that?

      I’m actually still really shocked by this. Imagine him hunting down ~ 100 people to murder. Horrifying.

      1. how do you defend against that?

        treat everyone as a potential terrorist?

  17. Man charged with shooting officer “felt nothing”

    The 20-year-old man accused of shooting at Baltimore police officer with a rifle this week had long-term aspirations to shoot someone and remarked that he “felt nothing” after injuring the officer, court records show.

    Police arrested and charged Chey Jordan with attempted murder for the Tuesday night shooting, and Police Commissioner Frederick H. Bealefeld III said a motive for the attack was unclear. Bealefeld said, however, that in interviews with detectives, Jordan showed a strong disdain for police and had “no love lost for the Baltimore Police Department.”

    Jordan was ordered held without bond at a bail review Friday morning. Nothing else happened.

    http://weblogs.baltimoresun.co….._offi.html

    1. A majority of the populace of inner city Baltimore do not have any fear of being struck by cars when walking directly into heavy traffic either. It’s just a total comprehensive attitude package deal I guess.

    2. The 20-year-old man accused of shooting at Baltimore police officer with a rifle this week had long-term aspirations to shoot someone and remarked that he “felt nothing” after injuring the officer

      What? Not even recoil?

  18. Anyone else remember the atheist chick who made the stink about how some guy had the nerve to ask her out on an elevator at some atheist gathering? Well here she is on a bloggingheads with Ann Althouse. The fact that any man was desparate or wierd enough to hit on her at all should be cause for her to believe in God.

    http://althouse.blogspot.com/2…..sking.html

    1. What are you talking about? The menstrual hair color maximizes the sexiness of her pasty jowls.

    2. When she opened her video statement with ‘ummm, I’m a man’, I thought she was serious. Only afterwards did I realize that she is a really ugly woman who upon the first time in her entire life that a guy actually hit on her, had to blog about it. Then she went home where she lives with her mom and 20 cats.

      1. ….is she a homophobe, then?

      2. Is this a competition of some sort? Sexist twit of the year. Fanfuckingtastic. Yer all in the running. The rest of the human race has asked that we all be excused to self-identify as bonobos so that we appear more sophisticated than you medieval knuckleheads.

    3. The fact that any man was desparate or wierd enough to hit on her at all should be cause for her to believe in God.

      No doubt that getting hit on by a guy with a pulse made here year.

      The dumb c–t hasn’t shut up about since it happened.

      1. Woman publicly describes an experience of getting hit on that felt more like getting creeped on. Advises men to avoid such behavior if they don’t want to come off creepy.

        Bafflingly, internet shitstorm ensues.

        Woman gets called “dumb cunt” by the kind of people whose knee-jerk reaction to women they dislike is to call them ugly, undesirable, and unfeminine.

        Quelle surprise.

        1. Or

          Ugly, unattractive woe-myn gets propositioned for the first time in her pathetic life.

          Experiences combination of pride, regret and self hatred, parlays non experience into internet sensation.

          To this day, regrets saying no to only honest advance she’s ever received.

        2. My knee-jerk reaction to ugly, undesirable and unfeminine women is to call them ugly, undesirable and unfeminine.

          Whether I like them or not.

          If zombie Ayn Rand shows up and starts bitching, I am going to say, “Wow, that is one ugly bitch.”

          But seriously:

          Her appearance is relevant here, because it impacts how we’re going to evaluate her claim that the guy hitting on her was, in fact, creepy.

          Unattractive people (women in particular) are much more likely to be bitter and hostile about interpersonal relationships. Her ugly mug makes it that much more likely that the “creepy” behavior was all in her mind, because her rage and despair at her low social value leads her to view men as enemies.

          Also, if she’s ugly it probably means that the guy who hit on her is a loser, and that makes it likely that he was not really a creep but simply incompetent. The guy who is low enough on the status pole to hit on a beast is probably not Mr. Smooth.

          For these two reasons I think discussing her appearance is relevant to the topic SHE raised.

          1. Ugly? I have no idea until I can check out her turd-cutter. We have doggy-style and double bagging for a Reason you know.

            1. Ah, the Reason comments, a hive of scum and villainy as usual, I see. Awesome as Reason is, on so many levels, if there’s a way, however tangential or irrelevant, to tack some wildly sexist comments onto an article, rest assured someone in the Reason comment section will find it. Makes a girl proud to be a Libertarian.

              Hilariously, they’re pretty much identical to comments coming from the sexually frustrated dudes commenting on Pick Up Artist forums.

    4. Rebecca Watson. Ugh.

      I used to listen to Skeptics Guide to the Universe every week. Loved it. But one day I was listening to her argue with Steve Novella about the difference between morals and ethics, and snapped. Haven’t been able to listen to it since then.

      She’s kind of horrible.

    5. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    6. John, this ranks very highly with the shitheadedest things you’ve written.

    7. John, this ranks very highly with the shitheadedest things you’ve written.

  19. He’s a European right-wing extremist. Which is something that’s very different from an American right-wing extremist.

    1. If he was a European right-wing extremist he would be quoting Evola or Yockey, not Spinoza or Kant.

      1. Besides, the European far right historically has had strong relationships with Arab rulers in countries like Egypt and Lybia.

  20. Why is everyone saying he’s “crazy” btw? The scary thing about a lot of his manifesto and comments on European blogs is how non crazy it is, just pretty standard European far-right views. It’s not like Jared Lee Loughner where we have incoherent rants about language as a currency or whatever.

    1. Ok, a wild guess here… most non-crazy people don’t go around shooting 90+ unarmed kids? Just a wild guess, you know…

      1. You can be a sociopath and be perfectly rational. It’s disturbing, but true. Saying “he’s just crazy!” makes us feel better but honestly it’s a cop out.

        Now there ARE people who do this who ARE crazy like Loughner, but people like this guy, McVeigh, the Unabomber? They’re not crazy, they’re very much connected to reality, they’ve just become evil.

        1. I get your point. But there is still something irrational that triggers this type of reaction. I mean, if these people were directly related to something that really got him into a rage.. you know like a crime of passion where the person kills family, police, a member of a rival gang, tribe, faction, etc. that has brought violence against someone close to him… then Ok. But, come on, these are random kids that the guy didn’t even know. There is no way that anyone that young has even had time to form a solid political philosophy.. let alone have influence about it… Guy is nuts, no rationality at all with this act.

          1. But, come on, these are random kids that the guy didn’t even know. There is no way that anyone that young has even had time to form a solid political philosophy.. let alone have influence about it… Guy is nuts, no rationality at all with this act.

            There was nothing random about his selection. The vast majority of those youth would have grown up to be Labor activist. He certainly snuffed out a few who would have changed their minds, as I did as a young Democrat (thank you, Mike Dukakis), but in the aggregate, they were precisely the right target. Divorced from morality, the utility of the act served his purpose. The elites that he despised suffered grievously, beyond belief, even.

            He was not Loughner or the Pittsburgh dude. The operative rationale here is cogent.

            Of course, what I’m saying is pretty cold blooded, but you know what, when a subject matter is divorced from politics, like in the case of the rationality of serial killers, everyone is on board to examine the motive. A lot of popular taste in books and movies are based upon satisfying that curiosity. Here, people are willing to settle for the boloney argument that he was just crazy. That fact is just as queer as anything else about this case.

          2. He killed the family of a rival gang.
            That was the whole point of his actions.

    2. People call him crazy because they cannot accept that a sane man can do evil. If that were the case, then they would be capable of evil as well (even if not at this scale), and everyone likes to imagine themselves a saint.

      1. Or, I could have just said “+1” to this. The banality of evil etc.

      2. Some people ignore the handi-work of their governments.

    3. I think the guy must be really Aspy. He was a successful entrepreneur and his political views seem pretty standard nativist right. But his plan to implement them is totally oblivious to human nature.

    4. It’s not like Jared Lee Loughner where we have incoherent rants about language as a currency or whatever.

      Loughner was an English professor?

    1. With bonus scolding in the comments. Delicious.

      1. Have you ever noticed that a lot, but NOT ALL, of women perceive ‘dirty’ or ‘funny’ looks from strangers? Is it paranoia, or are some women that attuned to body language?

        And if you read the stories it’s usually a restaurant employee. As in, “I asked my waitress for an extra napkin to clean up the amniotic fluids and she gave me the meanest look!”.

        The article and comments featured this phenomenon prominently.

        1. Its neither paranoia nor attention to body language. It is a feeling of self-importance and moral superiority, coupled with their own projection of how they would feel if they were the “other” encountering themselves.

        2. It’s a primitive instinct. Because in the primitive ancient pre-history of our species(not that we aren’t still primitive) females were sought out by the more agressive males for breeding and so had to be on the constant outlook. The more unattractive females have over the millenia learned to make it up in their minds that males are seeking them out, because they obviously are not getting enough attention. And of course, it’s just an unavoidable natural trait, encoded into their DNA, of the female gender that they have to get all smug and self righteous about it. I mean, how many guys do you see running around the office chattering about, or blogging about some ugly chick that had the nerve to hit on them last night, or even to look their way?

          1. I mean, how many guys do you see running around the office chattering about, or blogging about some ugly chick that had the nerve to hit on them last night, or even to look their way?

            I don’t know, but a lot of virtual ink is being spent by guys talking about a girl blogging about an ugly guy hitting on her.

            Really my question was asked independent of the article; it’s just something that I happened to notice among all different kinds of females.

            And why is it always restaurant employees?

            1. You’re right. A lot of women have a weird freakin’ relationship with aspects of the food service industry, and if you dig in your heart a bit, you’ll know why. Sexist spoiler alert. Possibly because:

              a) women are used to being in subservient service roles to the men in their lives when it comes to food and service, or in the case of modern women, feel like they’re in a subservient service role or should be, and therefore are constantly both judging the effectiveness of the service (damn it, it’s their night out — which is fair as fair is) and guilty about putting someone else in the subservient role that they feel they’re constantly in, or should be in
              b) because you can never overestimate the role that the jealousy factor plays in whether a woman dining with a man will start absolutely hating a waitress or hostess because she is 1) nice, or 2) (heaven forbid) good looking. Threat level eleven.
              c) because women network constantly, and when networking and commodity meet, they get thrown for a loop because of the uncertainty of the genuineness of the social interaction, much like a dolty male at a strip club

            2. It isn’t only restaurant employees. It’s rampant. As you just said ‘all different kinds of females’. It’s in the DNA…

              1. Oh, I meant the complaints are targeted at restaurant workers. As in, “me and my white boyfriend were getting dirty looks from the Mexican busboys.”

                Which in all my years working in the industry I have never heard a coworker of any race bitching about customers in an interracial relationship. Really all the people I have ever worked around care whether customers are polite and spend money. Your Mexican busboy doesn’t care if your boyfriend is white, just don’t snap your fingers at him like a dog, lady.

                1. I’m not sure where the threaded comment goes to, but I was taking into account that it indeed was complaining about the restaurant employee. I had no idea, however, that the point was centered around complaints from those who felt wronged because they felt like they’d been judged for having an interracial relationship.

                  Regardless, I think joshua still said it perfectly. It’s probably because restaurants present a whole confluence of issues, issues which may have an added actual or perceived economic, social, political, and historical context. “Target rich” is a great way to put it.

                2. In college there was no doubt in my mind that I would marry a Mexican. I didn’t want my culture to be diluted. I wanted to live in a Spanish-speaking household. I wore Ch? Guevara berets with rebozos and Tehuana blouses. I just stopped short of wearing a poncho and purchasing a donkey just to really make a point. I wanted my partner to understand my family, and not judge them for being so incredibly loud.

                  Funny lede there. Sounds like she is aware of the silliness of the mentality.

                  Authenticity is just so much bullshit.

                  My Mexican cousins (by marriage, I’m another kind of spic) are metalheads who are entirely oblivious of mono-cultural expectations.

                  1. My Mexican cousins (by marriage, I’m another kind of spic) are metalheads who are entirely oblivious of mono-cultural expectations.

                    Mexican kids love metal, dude. I don’t understand it either

                    1. They would likely find that chica to be too unnerving to date. Activist chicks are too self conscious to be real on any level that is enjoyable to around.

                  2. In college there was no doubt in my mind that I would marry a Mexican. I didn’t want my culture to be diluted. I wanted to live in a Spanish-speaking household. I wore Ch? Guevara berets with rebozos and Tehuana blouses. I just stopped short of wearing a poncho and purchasing a donkey just to really make a point

                    There’s nothing Mexican about Che Guevara.

                    Her statement illustrates the idiocy of “hispanic” or “latino” identity.

                    Would an Irish woman wear a Beria or Heydrich T-Shirt to demonstate here European identity?

            3. And why is it always restaurant employees?

              The environment is target rich for observing the employee’s and BF’s reactions and facial expressions.

              Plus the social, economic, biological/sexual, and cultural implications of paying someone to serve you food provides the motive and opportunity for maximum JUDGEMENT to be pushed well past normal thresholds.

              1. It’s a very self-absorbed move to think that the Mexican busboy, who’s running his ass off and getting orders barked at him from a million different people, will take the time to be judgemental and flash you and yer honky boyfriend dirty looks.

                1. I’m thinking there was nothing racial about it. Her boyfriend just looked like a putz. Maybe he was wearing skinny jeans or something. That sets me off.

                  1. @alan

                    Or he was scoping the table. It can look as if front house people are staring at you when in fact they are assessing your table. Checking to see if drinks are filled, dinners finished, people ready to order/pay, etc. I see this when I go out. This is why sometimes the waitress seems to be looking right at you, but when you motion to her because you need something she acts as if you’re invisible. (or she’s mean and hates you)

                2. Agreed. The race/class/gendered indignation about “gazes” has given otherwise uninteresting people a reason to converse and gossip. Boring? People-watch and talk about someone else. Scared to really gossip out of fear of seeming catty? Wrap your personal shortcomings up in some righteous indignation, and you’ve got your excuse.

                  I always quote David Foster Wallace, but he was right when he said that political indignation merges with personal fun somewhere around Cleveland, and then picks up steam heading east.

              2. Isn’t the Waiter Rule a thing? Never date someone who treats the service staff like shit?

                It’s got its own page on tvtropes.org and everything.

                1. Once we had a waitress that came back into the kitchen to bitch about how rude this customer was treating her. She was shocked that he would act in such a way in front of his date. Twenty minutes late she came back and said, “He fucking asked me out!” We’d already forgotten about the rude customer and asked her what the hell she was talking about.

                  I guess that when rude guy’s date went to the restroom he got all smarmy and asked her if she wanted to get together later. When the date returned he regressed to rude asshole and acted if nothing had happened.

                  He left with his date, but not before writing his phone number on his credit slip.

                  So yeah, some truth to that Ashlyn.

                  1. People must be insane to be rude to those who prepare and serve their food.

                    1. Though I’m sure it has happened before, I’ve never personally seen, or been involved with someone’s food being fucked with. There are many ways to ruin a rude customer’s dining experience that are totally legal.

        3. Have you ever noticed that a lot, but NOT ALL, of women perceive ‘dirty’ or ‘funny’ looks from strangers? Is it paranoia, or are some women that attuned to body language?

          My guess is she is short. And everyone’s face looked at from below looks angry and mean. Plus everyone is technically look down at her. They have to because she is short.

          Also you will notice that taller women tend not to complain about mean looks people give them.

          1. That’s because women don’t look down as much as us guys do. They obviously care more about faces than shapely asses, unlike us guys…

          2. From the link to the original article

            Oh Hells Nah is a small and sassy Mexican woman

            I rest my case.

            Short man’s syndrome is not gender specific.

            I would like the female form of it to be named: Queen Shit of Fuck Mountain disease

          3. Oh my god.

            I’m 5’1″. You just rocked my understanding of all human social interaction.

            1. Oh my god.

              I’m 5’1″. You just rocked my understanding of all human social interaction.

              If you were taller my post would not have bothered you and you never would have responded with snark.

              1. 4″+ heels will get her above average.

      2. Most of the time, I forget that we’re an interracial couple.

        No shit? I dated a Puerto Rican girl for a few months and managed to never figure out that we were an “interracial” couple.

        1. Penguin/Puerto Rican relations are an ABOMINATION in the eyes of GOD!!

        2. I don’t know about inter-racial, but it always sucked when her parents would talk about me in a language I couldn’t understand. Although, there’s nothing better than watching a, um, conversation involving raised voices in 2 different languages where each side completely understands the other.

        3. My live in girlfriend has a PR background. But truth be told, she’s just a white girl with an extra sezzy chromosome.

          1. I never thought of people with BA’s in marketing to be of a different race, species maybe.

    2. I just want to say, interracial babies are the cutest. THE CUTEST.

      WHAT THE FUCK?!?! NO.

      It’s not meant to be patronizing at all, it’s true, I think they’re absolutely adorable.

      You’ve met all of them?! Wow what a busy life you must have!

      How can this be construed as a bad thing?

      It’s a bad thing because positive stereotypes are still stereotypes.

      comments like yours make me feel like you are describing a puggle and not human being.

      Umm…as a “biracial” baby it always makes me uncomfortable when people say this. It’s condescending and NOT a compliment.

      Dammit, Warty.

      1. Feminists are to my side of the isle what evangelicals are to yours, even to the point of having their outrage meters cranked to “11” twenty-four hours a day.

      2. Did no one throw a “hybrid vigor” hand grenade into the argument?

        1. White people, black people, brown people, yellow people, get rid of ’em all. All we need is a voluntary, free spirited, open-ended program of procreative racial deconstruction….. Everybody just gotta keep fuckin’ everybody til they’re all the same color.

      3. comments like yours make me feel like you are describing a puggle and not human being.

        Human beings cannot look cute!!!

        They must all be thought of as brains floating around in jars or we will never have equality!!!!

        1. John Carter of Mars killed off that species. Why would they want to be a species so weak they were all killed by just one man?

        2. 4 quatloos on the newcomer!

  21. If NAZI=national socialist workers party, what would national socialist labor party be?

    1. what would national socialist labor party be?

      They would be the modern day fascists who need their children killed because they follow a doctrine of multiculturalism and weak on stopping Muslim immigration….

      …or something.

      Extremist European political ideology really is fucked up on multiple levels.

      But then Breivik is deeply insane and trying to find internal consistency within his political ideology is a fool’s errand.

      1. I thought the guy was mad because they were internationalists.

    2. TEA BAGGERS!

  22. Didn’t somebody report this guy played MW2? I bet he trained for this on the No Russian level. Just like Columbine HS killers trained on Doom. OUTLAW SHOOTERS NOW.

    *THIS IS WHAT HIL DAWG ACTUALLY BELIEVES*

    1. Didn’t somebody report this guy played MW2?

      It was on his alleged Facebook page as a favorite.

      World of Warcraft was also a favorite. 10$ says he played a male Belf Paladin.

    2. Is World of Warcraft the one where you have to massacre the innocent inhabitants of a village before the zombie plague hits?

      1. Yeah you go back in time and help the guy who later becomes the Lich King..

        Who is quite literally the Ice King of the North.

  23. He’s the bastard love child of Mark Steyn and Melanie Phillips!

  24. By the way, it is entirely possible for a homicidal maniac to be right–or at least make substantial points–on the issue that motivated his murderous actions. I mean, speaking of the Unibomber, his “manifesto” (or parts of it, at least) were taken as serious enough by Bill Joy and Ray Kurweil a decade ago.

    1. Ray Kurweil

      Huh?

      I think you are confusing Vinge Vernor with the unibomber.

      1. Not really:

        http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy.html

        Kurzweil extensively quoted him–with an attribution only after the text, a point Joy makes early in his famous essay.

      2. Sometimes when I mix Vernors ginger ale with crown royal and peyote(hey it’s part of my religion which I am still working on defining), I think I am Vernor Vinge and I want to unibomb Ray Kurzweil. That singularity shit doesn’t fit in with my vision of the perfect socialist state. And if we get stuck in the slow zone with no faster than light travel, and can’t interact with amy artilects, then the only answer is KILL THEM ALL!

  25. So uh, he really hates Islam. It’s destroying his white country.

    So he kills a bunch of white people?

    Something doesn’t add up. I am sure once the missing link is found, the entire incident will be flushed down the memory hole. See, e.g., Loughner.

    1. In his mind he’s killing a bunch of future leaders of a party that is full of “race traitors” and “cultural Marxists”.

    2. Most racism or nativism or any other exclusionism as a political philosophy these days isn’t about genocide but maintaining geographical and political separation. I don’t think he believes Muslims should be wiped out, just that they should be evicted from the West. To that extent his enemy would be the “multiculturalists” who enabled Muslim immigration, not the immigrants themselves.

      Or something like that.

      1. Right, in his manifesto he says he wants European nations to adopt the same immigration and citizenship policies as Japan.

      2. Most racism or nativism or any other exclusionism as a political philosophy these days isn’t about genocide but maintaining geographical and political separation.

        So they have the same stance as the Decolonialist.

  26. Police said it took them an hour from when they were first alerted to stop the massacre…

    http://www.reuters.com/article…..0C20110724

    When seconds count, the police where be there in hours.

    1. Don’t worry, I’m sure the shooter will get the maximum penalty under Norwegian law–21 years.

    2. To be fair, they had to get out to a fucking island, it wasn’t just a matter of hopping in the Crown Vic.

  27. http://www.politico.com/news/s…..59706.html

    Another Congressional devient outs himself.

    1. He said it was consensual, John. Can he help it if he likes to dress up like Tigger and screw his friend’s daughters?

      1. I think the $64,000 question is how old was this girl? Do I smell statutory rape?

    2. There’s gotta be a good Wu Tang joke in there somewhere.

    3. The tiger thing makes him sound more like a normal crazypants than a DSK type.

  28. So it looks like the markets are going to have to tank and the dollar crash (and a possible downgrade to US debt) before Congress can grow a pair and pass a plan. This is the first time in history where a nation will default not because it can’t pay its bills, but…just because.

    Wheeeee!

    1. Just how serious can this so-called August 2 “deadline” really be if the democrats have yet to even propose anything approaching a real plan?

      Seriously, the “deadline” is just over a week away, and Obama and Reid literally have nothing; not one damn word on one damn piece of paper that the American people can look at.

      At least the republicans have actually tried to put something up; all the democrats have put forth are whines and complaints.

      1. You know, a clean raising of the debt ceiling would take a piece of paper with literally one sentence on it and a voice vote.

        1. Sorry pal, but a clean raising of the debt ceiling is a non-starter, and the democrats have known this for quite a while now.

          The republicans weren’t elected in November to continue to enable Obama’s deranged out-of-control spending. Quite the opposite: they were specifically elected to reign this lunatic in. To simply fork over trillions and trillions more in debt with no strings attached would be to betray their entire campaign.

          1. The time to talk about spending and the deficit is during negotiations on the actual federal budget. The debt limit is about making good on spending that’s already been passed. I’ll repeat it because some on the right don’t seem to get this through their heads–raising the debt limit would not add one new penny in federal spending, not one. It only authorizes the treasury to cover spending obligations that have already been authorized by Congress. If the GOP has a problem with spending then take it up during the FY 2012 budget negotiations, instead of playing chicken with the world economy.

            1. The time to talk about spending and the deficit is during negotiations on the actual federal budget.

              Negotiations on the actual FY2012 budget are going on right now. Or at least they would be if the Senate democrats were making even a pretense of negotiating.

              Republicans have already put forth three budget proposals of their own, all of which have been shot down in the Senate. Meanwhile, the democrats haven’t put forth any proposals of their own on that front either, other than Obama’s original budget which the Senate shot down as well. In fact, the Senate has deliberately refused to propose, much less pass, a real budget in two years.

              If the democrats are going to do everything in their power to try and lock in the insane Pelosi-Reid-Obama 25% of GDP levels of spending, including refusing to perform their constitutional budget duties, then the republicans are more than justified in using whatever leverage they have at their disposal to force their hand.

              1. Revenue bills have to originate in the House. It is the job of the GOP leadership to draft a budget proposal. The fact that Boenher can’t control his caucus enough to get a plan that could be accepted by the Senate is his problem.

              2. Three proposals? I count two–the Ryan plan of replacing Medicare with discount coupons, and the phony Crap, Shit, and Dump “balanced budget amendment”. Since its the role of the Senate to shoot down House proposals if they’re too insane and partisan, I don’t see anything wrong here.

                1. The four budget proposals that were voted on were Obama’s, Ryan’s, Pat Toomey’s, and Rand Paul’s. Not one single Senate democrat voted Yes for any of them.

                  By the way, are you sure you’re on the right site? This is a libertarian board that believes in small and limited government. You sound to me like someone who would be more at home at Daily Kos.

                  1. Not one single Senate democrat voted Yes for any of them.

                    How many Senate Republicans voted for Obama’s?

                    would be more at home at Daily Kos.

                    I wasn’t aware that people didn’t welcome opposing views here.

                    BTW, DailyKos has ceased to be a Democratic site in the past two years and turned into a cross between a Socialist Worker’s Party meetup and a Dashboard Confessional fan club. Allow me to give you a sample of typical WreckList postings:

                    I HATE YOU OBAMA ! YOU BETRAYED ME! YOU DIDN’T ABOLISH CAPITALISM OR ENACT UNILATERAL DISARMAMENT! NOW I’M GOING TO CUT MYSELF IN THE BATHROOM WHILE READING DAS KAPITAL!

                    1. I wasn’t aware that people didn’t welcome opposing views here.

                      OK, as long as you’re straight up that you’re a troll. We’ve got a bunch here already, so another one won’t make much of a difference.

                    2. How many Senate Republicans voted for Obama’s?

                      The same as the number of democrats that voted for Obama’s budget.

                      Harry Reid is an execrable “leader”.
                      He’s the douche that literally said that it would be irresponsible for the Senate to pass a budget.

            2. If the GOP has a problem with spending then take it up during the FY 2012 budget negotiations, instead of playing chicken with the world economy.

              If I was in the Congress I would use anything – any fucking thing – as an excuse to try to cut spending.

              And if someone came up to me and whined, “Wah! Wah! Take that up during the budget negotiations!” I would reply, “Fuck you. You want this vote? Give me my spending cuts!”

              The reason the talking point has arisen attempting to separate the budget process and the debt ceiling process is because the debt ceiling vote gives those who favor spending cuts more power and greater leverage. NATURALLY advocates of the status quo would rather debate spending in a low-consequence environment.

              It takes two to play chicken. The game of chicken would immediately end if Obama would just give in. As soon as he gives in, no more chicken with the world economy. See how easy that is?

          2. And just curious: what are you going to be saying the next time there’s a Democratic House and a Republican President, and Nancy Pelosi refuses to raise the debt ceiling without a tax increase attached to it?

            1. Don’t raise it then.

              A battle of wills between Mitt Romney and Nancy Pelosi will, I believe, open the gates of hell and suck humanity into great vast expanse of white hot mediocrity that is hell.

            2. This isn’t a Republican site. I’m pretty sure everyone here would support spending cuts to avoid raising taxes.

              Or really, all spending requires taxation, either immediate or deferred with interest. There’s almost nothing of substance different here, just teams swapping sides of the field.

            3. New to this site, huh?

              1. Also, stick around for a while. Assuming you aren’t just trolling, I sense that you could learn something here. Your comments above about the budget indicate that your current sources of information are lacking.

    2. It’s more that there simply is no political compromise point right now — the two factions are roughly balanced in power, and neither is willing to concede any more ground. In such a situation, it’s the weakest link that gets screwed, and that means debtors. But screwing debtors just makes it that much harder to find a compromise point going forward.

      Nothing to be done for it, unless there’s some way to easily divide the country into red and blue territories. Maybe we libertarians can sneak out our own Orange country in the chaos.

  29. Why no reports on the type/mfg of evil guns? He looks like a H&K guy to me. In a world of compromise, some don`t.

    1. Glock. They are the personification of evil. They are made in Austria. You know who else was made in Austria, don’t you?

      1. Renee Pornero?

        1. Yeah, I think that’s him? Wore jack boots, had a thin mustache.

      2. Ludwig von Mises.
        Friedrich Hayek.

    2. He probably shops at H&M

    3. Well, since we’re arbitrarily throwing out European gun names, how about Steyr? The AUG is something that could have been used to kill dozens within an hour.

  30. Interestingly, Breivik is still getting tagged with the wrong labels, as reporters unfamiliar with the nuances of the far right reach for words that don’t really fit his particular constellation of views. He is described as a “fundamentalist,” but his manifesto states that he’s “not going to pretend I’m a very religious person.” He is described as a “neo-Nazi,” but he denounces Islamic oppression of Jews, identifies himself as pro-Israel, and expresses concern about anti-Semitic hate crimes.

    Wow, the press is rushing to brush a mass murder with the colors of their political opponents.

    And in Europe, no less! I have to say, there is nothing, and I mean nothing, that could shock me more!

  31. The real problem with Norway is they’re an ice country but they suck at hockey. They excel at sports like curling, biathlon and cross country skiing.
    do they have any decent metal bands?

    1. …but so much stupid and so little time.

  32. NPR draws parallels between the guy’s motives and the philosophy of Ayn Rand:

    http://www.npr.org/player/v2/m…..=138653366

    (3:20 mark in the audio)

    Because, you know- an immigrant who preached against the initiation of force is the first thing that comes to mind when looking for someone to blame for an act that involved mass initiation of force in the name of anti-immigration.

    1. You don’t even have to think that deeply. He specifically disowned libertarianism as a philosophy because it is insufficiently nationalist, and said the same thing about American conservatives.

      1. OTOH, Rand made no bones about her disdain for the run-of-the-mill liberatarian. So, there’s that.
        And I say that as someone with some Objectivist leanings.

    2. + ?

      Come on, you fucking squirrels! Cooperate!

      1. La ardilla es racista.

  33. N = 1

  34. WHAT CREDIT-RATINGS AGENCIES EXPECTED FOR EMPIRE TO AVOID DEFAULT

    [Credit-Ratings Agencies Views]

    The independent [PDRC] Peoples Democratic Republic of China which has its own State Run and Funded Rating Agency Dagong Global Ratings Co., Ltd., and which had previously down graded the [EMPIRE] ratings from an [AA] rating to [A+] on [November 9th, 2010] in response to the [2nd] round of the [QE-2$USD$] Quantitative Easing Two has now once again placed the [EMPIRE] on a negative watch list as once again the [EMPIRE] raises the specter of a [QE-3$USD$] financial action, and then there is the soon too be established new German independent [EU] funded Ratings Agency, will too look to the interests of the [EU] and not those of the [EMPIRE], and now the [EMPIRE] opinion-oligopoly, [THE BIG THREE] which is to say, they the few, controlled and held in their hands, as it were the fait of the many, the ratings agencies [S&P 500] Stands & Poor, Moody’s and now even Fitch will by mid-August review the [EMPIRE] credit ratings with an eye to its lowering, following it’s member [BIG THREE] all located in the [EMPIRE], no one may laud the [EMPIRE] debt reduction plan, which normally would be expect to happen with all, once again closing their eye’s, to the long term kick the can down the road policy but are now taking the position of, Fool Me Once, Shame on Me, Fool Me Twice, Shame On You! Downgrading the [EMPIRE] Platinum Ratings to banana republic Credit Ratings, with or without the [EMPIRE] defaulting, of itself but will be put into a default status, for not cutting thru the mustered, cutting out the fat. If the big credit-ratings agencies don’t see what they want what done by the [EMPIRE], what any deal struck will make no difference, and if not resolved within the next few days will have a highly detrimental effect upon the entire global economy.

    [What the Credit-Ratings Agencies]

    ( A ): [EMPIRE] Spending to be restrained slowed and then cut. Medical, Medicaid, Social Security, must be put on a means test, if a person does not need government agency support, that support must be denied, et. el., upper, social economic strata. The entire social safety net must be for those who are in need of it and not a free lunch for those who can pay.

    ( B ): Create a solid foundation for global investors.

    ( C ): The lowering of borrowing costs for the [EMPIRE 51 State Governments].

    ( D ): The lowering of borrowing costs, and tax’s for businesses, homeowners and consumers across the board.

    ( E ): The [EMPIRE] must lower its Debt! The [EMPIRE] is afforded more leeway, by convention, to pay lower international interest rates via., the confidence in their ability to support international debt, but once that that exceeds [100%] the interest rate on the debt equals the nominal growth rate, and at that point growth becomes untenable, and stops this determined by Debt divided by [GDP] Gross Domestic Product, which stands at present at [97%], and expect to reach [124%] by [2015] must be reduced to no more than [60%]. The [EMPIRE] abandoned this debt to [GDP] ration and now has put the entire global economy in peril.

    ( F ) [EMPIRE] spending, financed by debt, borrowing from the [PDRC] Peoples Democratic Republic of China, to tide the [EMPIRE] over a period of investment deficiency, should have only been a temporary stop gap measure, and never allowed to become a permanent feature of the [EMPIRE] geo-economics and therefore the Global Economic landscape, due to one inescapable fact, immeasurable and can not be countered ? uncertainty, and also must be slowed, and brought to a lower limit.

    HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN

    1. brevity is the soul of wit

    2. Certainly I’m not the only one who thought the Norwegian terrorist and Hercule could have been one and the same?

      I was severely disappointed in the lack of [BRACKETS] in his manifesto.

  35. Hm, a strange tea bagger, that Norwegian. Listen to his manifesto and the economic policies he advocates:

    “Decrease global consummation through implementing protectionist policies. The future cultural conservative European Federation (Europe w/Russia, US, Canada, Australia, NZ will
    introduce significantly higher import taxes which will significantly give European producers the profitability they need to re-build their industries and to remain economically
    sustainable.”

    “All globalist companies will be nationalised (a minimum of 50,1% ownership must be redistributed
    to EF governments hands (combined) at any given time, for their respective
    countries). Investors with majority control who refuse this re nationalisation process will have their respective corporation expelled from the European Federation monetary zone”.

    “Phase out diesel/benzin vehicles (and thus end our dependency on Muslim oil) and focus on
    commercialising electric cars/battery cells. This will be a lot more significant problem in the
    US due to their decentralised infrastructure but much easier in Europe.”

    “Studies have indicated that as a conflict progresses and develops (civil war etc) and the masses flock to gold this development contributes to a downturn in national economies.

    “Great Britain and Scandinavia,
    which left the gold standard in 1931, recovered much earlier than France and Belgium,
    which remained on gold much longer. Countries such as China, which had a silver standard, almost avoided the depression entirely. The connection between leaving the gold standard as a strong predictor of that country’s severity of its depression and the length of time of its recovery has been shown to be consistent for dozens of countries, including developing countries.”

    “…a welfare state will work perfectly well intertwined with capitalistic doctrines as long as the country is monocultural/the social cohesion level is at an acceptable level. A welfare state would never work in the US due to the lack of social cohesion, because they have large minority groups who are allowed parallel cultures, norms and ethics. Blindly opposing welfare is an American neo-Con doctrine and has nothing to do with nationalism. There are certain aspects of modern civilisation and common decency which require degrees of state welfare. It is the way it is legislated and managed which is crucial.”

    “…the US model is an extreme variant, almost resembling a pure laissez faire model. 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are now in the hands of 1 percent of the people. 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans. The top 10 percent of Americans
    now earn around 50 percent of the national income”

    “While capitalistic principles should be protected, it should be somewhat regulated so that it benefits other members of the tribe (Scandinavian light model).”

    Sooo, it seems that the guy is just another economically confused and ignorant progressive.

    1. Straight out of the Ann Rand playbook.

    2. Actually, it seems that the guy is a fucking loon, which is unsurprising considering he mass murdered children. All attempts to pin him on one TEAM or the other are fucking stupid.

      1. Can we at least put him in the child killing TEAM?

        1. That would put him on Warty’s TEAM, and I don’t think that’s fair. To the Norwegian guy.

          1. Just because Warty enjoys fucking the corpses of children, you assume that he’s a murderer?

          2. Slander, sir! Slander, I say.

        2. He just wanted the perk.

    3. There are certain aspects of modern civilisation and common decency which require not mass murdering.

      1. I’m thinking! I’m thinking!

  36. Police arrest suspect in triple shooting in Atlanta

    Police arrested a 22-year-old security guard and charged him Friday with murder and aggravated assault in a triple shooting in a garage in Atlanta’s Midtown neighborhood.

    Nkosi Thandiwe surrendered to police Friday afternoon and was charged with one count of murder and two counts of aggravated assault related to the shooting death of a woman and the wounding of two other people earlier in the day, said Carlos Campos, a spokesman for the Atlanta Police Department.

    Nothing else happened.

    http://articles.cnn.com/2011-0…..k?_s=PM:US

    1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    2. Another isolated incident, again, too, as well. Not by the same department, a year later. Nope.

      But, I’m sure that all the i’s were dotted and the t’s crossed so it’s legal/ethical/moral.

      One question AII, do you bring a laptop down to the floor when you write these posts or do need to use your iPhone to post when you fellate government boot?

      1. just for the record, i had my shoulder almost ripped from its socket by a dog

        but i have never shot one

        1. I told you you have to pet ’em first before you go for their junk.

  37. CBC expert: ABB is just like Timothy McVeigh.

    1. Very funny, Mr. Snoid!

    2. I just ran this on a friend, and got the petulant “seriously?” response.

      So I dropped this on his melon:

      You know I am right. They will make a big show of a stand-off, then they will announce a plan to save us all, the details of which wouldn’t fool a 5th grader if they were skeptical, and not a fucking thing will change.

      They’re the one’s that are rick-rolling you, not me.

  38. Being a devout Deist, this comes as no surprise to me. ALL organized religion is wicked and violent.

  39. “Straight out of the Ann Rand playbook.”

    Yes, of course: protectionism, nationalization of all corporations, subsidies for electric cars, paper money, welfare state, criticism of the American laissez-faire. All Randian concepts.

      1. Ann Rand

    1. [Libertarians] are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.

      Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks.

      Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people.

  40. (Just to confuse matters, it is also partly plagiarized from the Unabomber.)

    Some New world Order/Illuminati disinformation stooge in the Globalist conspiracy bureaucracy is in big trouble for that lazy, corner-cutting move.

    1. Wait, are the Templars for or against the Illuminati?

  41. (Just to confuse matters, it is also partly plagiarized from the Unabomber.)

    Ah, HA!!

  42. Off topic, but more important than the issues being discussed here.

    http://www.peterfrase.com/2010…..posterity/

    Anti-Star Trek takes these same technological premises: replicators, free energy, and a post-scarcity economy. But it casts them in a different set of social relations. Anti-Star Trek is an attempt to answer the following question:

    Given the material abundance made possible by the replicator, how would it be possible to maintain a system based on money, profit, and class power?

    1. Given the material abundance made possible by the replicator, how would it be possible to maintain a system based on money, profit, and class power?

      No it would not be possible to maintain it.

      The whole point of markets (money and profit) is to efficiently and equitably disperse and preserve scarce resources.

      Without scarce resources there would be no need to more markets.

      The more interesting question is would there still be a need for society at all?

      I think minecraft has answered this question. Apparently there are more servers then there are people who play the game online.

      1. “than there are”, not “then there are”
        /pedant

      2. The whole point of markets (money and profit) is to efficiently and equitably disperse and preserve scarce resources.

        Efficiently, not equitably. The latter is an ethical judgment. Capitalism is a tool for efficiency, not the producer of ethically optimal social outcomes.

        1. Capitalism is a tool for efficiency, not the producer of ethically optimal social outcomes.

          Of course it is. Those who earn it, keep it. What could be more ethical than that?

        2. Bad quote. This is the opposite of what Rand believed.

          To Rand, politics was a subset of ethics. Capitalism was ethical FIRST, and was efficient as an outgrowth of that. (To Rand, since the universe is a rational place, undertaking to act in a rationally ethical manner would inevitably mean you were also acting in an “efficient” manner.)

        3. Capitalism is a tool for efficiency, not the producer of ethically optimal social outcomes.

          And yet free market capitalism produces equality anyway. Perhaps you think of it as a byproduct?

          The simple fact is wealth does not buy all that much extra any more…and the difference between what the poor can afford to do and what the rich can afford to do is shrinking every day.

          You can choose to ignore it because a sexually frustrated novelist thinks you should or you can join the rest of us in the real world.

      3. Sure there will still be markets. Except scarce resources that we’re used to won’t underlie them. Instead we’d have markets focused on knowledge and services (including entertainment). There will still be plenty of demand for exchanges of some sort.

        1. Instead we’d have markets focused on knowledge and services (including entertainment).

          AI generated entertainment will exist before replicators.

          Again I point to Minecraft.

    2. Post-scarcity means everyone’s every desire is everywhere met. I don’t see how that would happen, be it the accumulation of experiences, knowledge, status, control, time, longevity, etc. Labor would always be finite. Star Trek had replicator rations, delays for technology, supply shortages, manpower limits, death, and so on. Roddenberry imagined away money, but in all likelihood commerce would survive. The characters get stuck bartering every time they need something, which is really a step back.

      The holodeck, on the hand, would be humanity’s last invention (quoth Scott Adams).

    3. Organized state violence combined with authoritarian ideological indoctrination to minimize desire for rebellion?

      If the state controls the replicators, it controls almost every action a person can take. If it controls education, it gets to shape what they think. The state leadership will of course desire to maintain their superiority over others, and having additional “wealth” will help reinforce it, but having a well-compensated enforcer class is also necessary.

      Of course, the larger question is, if the enforcers, workers, and even the thinkers can be automated and wholly obedient, why should the elite not simply eradicate the lower classes altogether?

  43. This is something I condemn with string words. Every jihadi has to killed they are saying that they are doing as God told them to so.. what rubbish.

  44. This is something I condemn with string words. Every jihadi has to killed they are saying that they are doing as God told them to so.. what rubbish.

  45. If you blame all the people on the right for this man’s actions? Your rhetoric only adds fuel to the flames. Be ashamed, be very ashamed.

  46. Am I the only one that is amazed that Norway’s elites have a Labour Party Summer Camp? And it had no security?

    What kind of elitist PC, bullshit were they teaching these rich socialist youngsters? The kids obviously didn’t deserve to get shot; their parents might be another matter.

    1. Hogwarts, it was not.

  47. He is described as a “fundamentalist,” but his manifesto states that he’s “not going to pretend I’m a very religious person.”

    Obviously the media is still biased against Fundamentalist Christians. Will we now get national programs to fight Fundametialistphobia?

  48. OK sounds kinda crazy to me dude. Wow.

    http://www.web-privacy.au.tc

  49. I don’t know if this guy did it, or if his professed motives are his actual motives.

    Assuming he’s guilty and that he correctly described his own motives, then he seems to be someone who commits extremist acts in the name of fighting extremism.

    I know that Europe has absolutely no history of this sort of philosophy, but suppose (for example) that a political movement had emerged in the early twentieth century in certain European countries in response to socialism and communism. Such a movement, a form of extreme nationalism, would have focused on enforcing national identity against threats from “inernationalist” communist and socialist movements. Good thing Europe never had such movements in its history!

    Dropping the sarcasm for a moment . . .

    Since the Norwegian guy professes support for Israel, then we can probably rule out his being a National Socialist on the German model. Perhaps he is a fascist on the Italian model. Fascists are not inherently anti-Jewish; Mussolini only adopted anti-Jewish measures under German pressure.

    If we can call this guy a fascist, we can fit him into the pattern of European history. Fascism emerged as an extremist nationalist response to various nationalist forms of extremism – socialism and communism in those days, nowadays Islamism.

    The nationalist and internationalist forms of extremism have tended to bitterly oppose each other.

  50. So funny to see how Americans are trying to make sense of what happened in Norway, trying to categorize the killer and label him teabagger or classify him as some other American stereotype. This is a European issue, and his motives can only be understood if you have a deep understanding of European politics and history. Which means Americans shouldn’t even try to understand what happened.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.