Sunday 31 July 2011

Media Lie: Norway Shooter was a Christian



In a display of collective dominance, and testimony to the sheer scope of power the left has,  the gears of the machine that holds up liberal hegemony were working perfectly, maximising the political gains to be made out of the recent Norway massacres. One can only imagine the kind of degenerate, sick mind that could utilise such an outrage for political gain but it's standard practice for liberals. The mere fact that conservatives and right-wingers – instead of condemning the acts of a madmad - are being forced to defend themselves from supposed thought-crimes makes me sick to my stomach.



One will recall the Gabrielle Giffords assassination, early this year. The left were able to fix a false narrative designed to damage their political enemies, and disseminate that lie with incredible ease. The key has been to cement in the minds of the populace (as much as you can) a lie that no amount of further evidence or facts can overcome. Most people will only pay attention to the initial observations, and will not make further inquires regarding initial true-value. The lie that Sarah Palin, the tea party, and right-wing “anger and vitriol” was to blame for the shootings was easily spread across the international media without any facts or evidence: simple people and people with poor quality brains easily absorbed this blood-libel. Actual accounts of the shooter Jared Loughner's politics revealed him to be a leftist/liberal, if anything, but this was deliberately kept away from the population with only the likes of Fox News reporting the truth of the event (note the liberal's successful smear of Fox News amongst no-nothings: it is deliberate). Loughner was an atheist, hated Bush, thought 9/11 was an inside job - hardly conservative. Yet conservatives and rightwingers, in the wake of the attack upon the congresswoman, found themselves being forced to defend themselves against completely fabricated charges – especially Sarah Palin. This is actually one of the causes of right-wing anger it should be noted – conservatives do not like it when lies are constantly levelled against them by powers that continuously mutilate the spaces where debate and discourse take place. Loughner was mad and held a grudge against Giffords which pre-dated Sarah Palin's rise or the tea party. As inconvenient truths came to surface, the shooting was no longer deemed of interest to some (it was no longer deemed of use, to the left, as a weapon to attack their right-wing enemies). I should make clear these are general statements, exceptions exist, and there are plenty of real liberals/leftists who are not part of this disease, nor have any intention of allowing it to continue, women and men who genuinely desire a better world for the species, and do not engage in deception or attempts of forced hegemony, Christopher Hitchens and Menzies Campbell for example.

I have not engaged fully, or intend to read in full, the manifesto of Breivik, the Norway Shooter. However I have read parts of his manifesto (skimmed most of it) and as far as I can tell a lot of what he has written is somewhat true, and his conclusions somewhat correct. He correctly singles out the Frankfurt School as the point-of-origin for cultural Marxism (forced hegemony), and this is obvious to someone sensible, who has studied Adorno et al. And he correctly, I suspect, demonstrates the behaviour of the liberal/leftist media, CNN, ABC, MSNBC, PBS BBC, etc. And the orchestrated (unnatural) dominance of leftist thinkers in positions of influence, as suggested as an aim by some Frankfurt philosophers. Most of what Breivik says in regard to Islam is no doubt correct and factual I.e it is denied by the liberal media, and thus (in a sort of circular manner) a great deal of time has been spent within the main stream media trying to emphasize that the Norway Murderer was 'anti-Muslim' in a deliberate attempt to smear all anti-Jihadists and conservative discourse regarding the war on terror, and immigration, as two steps from Breivik. This behaviour, ironically, is probably in part what helped fuel the shooter's anger. I am not sure he was insane but certainly had primitive desires to kill and fight, perhaps egotistical ideas of his name being remembered forever, etc. all of which are not insane but common throughout history; a sort of madness, perhaps, but not pure insanity. We should remember truth can often be used to fuel evil acts – such as in Revenge of the Sith when Palpatine uses a truth (that the Jedi Council are trying to take control of the Republic) to convince Anakin Skywalker that the Jedi are the enemy.
   It is a logical fallacy to claim that because X believed Y, then all who believe in Y are akin to X, but that does not stop the left from propagating their deceit and fixing their nasty narrative. Right-wingers and conservatives, who dedicate their lives to the preservation of life, western liberal democracy, and individuality, are denied time to contemplate the horror of the Norway massacre and, instead, find themselves forced to, once again, defend themselves from a pluralistic yet designed attack upon them. Breivik, in something similar to the climax of Batman Returns, selected political targets – the 'first born' of those he deemed (perhaps correctly) responsible for the degeneration and rape of Europe – or perhaps he simply blamed them for what might be his true grievance: the dilution of white European blood. Breivik's true nature may have less to do with Islam or politics in general, and more to do with his racial beliefs and desire for racial purity. At one point in his manifesto:

“It should be noted that the US was composed of 50% with blue eyes in 1950 but this number has been reduced significantly and was in 2008 only 16%. By 2020 it is estimated to be less than 8%.” (1159)

He claims 'race mixing leads to suicidal children with mental problems' and clearly has some nazi-like ideas about race. It would be accurate to describe this man as an “Aryan supremacist terrorist”. Speaking of Nazis, the disgusting attacks on authors such as Pamela Geller and Robert Spencer are relevant. They are accused of helping to cause the Norway terrorist attack, because the murderer cites them as sources etc. in his manifesto. First off, the manifesto is partly stolen from an eco-terrorist so its actual authenticity and the true worth of it, in Breivik's eyes, in under question. A sane, true 'man of the cause' would ensure his manifesto was perfect, well structured and not lifted in such an obvious manner, from another terrorist. This actually gives weight to Breivik being not as sane as we might believe. Insanity or instability allow one to read whatever one wishes in anything. To return to the Nazis, it is apt to find analogy between Breivik's use of anti-jadist/pro-universal freedom discourse, with the Nazi party's use of Nietzsche's philosophy. In both cases, texts were used and misrepresented to give sustenance to evil schemes. Nietzsche hated anti-semites, and women such as Pamela Geller constantly state that most Muslims are good (an object of her love) and that violence is out of the question and evil.

It is fascinating to compare right-wing/conservative reactions to terrorism to left-wing/liberal reactions. The reaction of conservatives (until they are forced, by the left, to defend themselves from sickening charges) is outrage at ANY terrorist act: the political motive is irrelevant. No cause gives you the right to murder someone, and an act of terrorism in a western liberal democracy is an existential outrage: it is an affront to the building blocks of our national heritage; it is a great insult to all who have died in the creation of the west, to bypass our democratic values in an act of carnage. Compare that to the reaction by some liberals to every single Islamist act of terrorism (there have been around 17,000 Islamist terrorist attacks since 9/11 alone), they often partly justify the act, 'maybe these Muslims have a perfectly fine grievance, but were wrong to murder people', and so on. 'What did we do, to make them do this?' This has without a doubt been the mindset of hard-leftists and socialists, who are happy for children and innocents to be blown up in cafes etc, if the endgoal was for the terrorists (freedom fighters, in their eyes) to be 'freed from oppression' – see Sartre. Conservatives do not care how oppressed you are, you don't go into a cafe or bar and start blowing up civilians – conservatives, unlike collectivist liberals and leftists, believe in the paramount importance of the single individual as an end in and of itself.
   Imagine if it was a youth-wing of a right-wing party that was targeted by an immigrant who was worried about the right-wingers kicking him out. The left would (one would be mad himself or a liar to deny this quite frankly) be much more sympathetic to the murderer. We can say this because it is evidenced time and time again, especially in regard to innocent Israelis being blown up while drinking coffee. The left would frame the narrative: a horrible crime, yes, but conservatives should change their views on immigration, as this immigrant was driven by desperation and despair, fear of conservative immigration discourse.

As a conservative and right-winger, most of us would subscribe to the following: I couldn't care less about your desperation or oppression, it takes an EVIL man to hit the detonator on his suicide vest, when surrounded by civilians and/or children; and it takes an EVIL man to fire dum-dum bullets at a group of young adults. If a terrorist blew up some random farms or even random civilians, and declared, “I did this to highlight the bad treatment of animals”, would that invalidate his cause? No, but it's neither here nor there. In a liberal democracy – such as Norway – if the cause is so dear to you, setting yourself on fire in public is sufficient to garner a large amount of media attention and perhaps introspection. It takes a certain form of EVIL (or madness) to murder other humans, to make a point – no matter how important.

As a side note, your average liberal/leftist in the media happily capitulates to acts and threats of Islamist terrorism, such as with the Muhammed cartoons, Madrid terrorist strike, etc. In the case of “right-wing terrorism” they do not display the appropriate level of fear you would expect, given the leftist rhetoric. It can't be bravery (cartoons) so we could actually infer they are not quite convinced of the threat of right-wing terrorism as they claim to be. Just a musing. As Mark Steyn (also smeared as a cause of the Norway shooter) pointed out once, if these leftist idiots actually believed – deep down – the rubbish they accused George Bush of engaging in, they'd try to leave the country out of fear.

Perhaps this is pointless as the leftist lie, their narrative designed to attack conservatives and Christianity (Marxists, or victims of Marxist thought, do what they must to destroy Christianity), is already imprinted upon the minds of many a useless, uncritical dupe, and has taken hold. But, for what it's worth, here is why the Norway shooter was not a Christian in any meaningful way.

If you are of the rather stupid belief that “any one can be a Christian” merely by declaring he is one, then there is no hope for your enlightenment; I went to a zoo, now I'm a Koala bear. For those who understand theology and how religions actually work, and so forth, it is very easy to see that Breivik was not a Christian. In fact, it's so easy, that this just makes the point of the insidious nature of cultural-Marxism all the more apparent. He (Breivik) refers to himself as a cultural Christian, in that he holds and internalises Christian values and morality – which is true of most western atheists. He holds Christian values as a European creation and thus the means to unite white Europe. This isn't a false premise. Investigate your average “proud to not believe in God” atheist, investigate the genealogy, and what he or she believes to be autonomous morality merely stems from a thousand years of Christian ethics and theology. The Enlightenment project involved justifying these Christian values without an appeal to the supernatural or non-existent. An appeal to 'reason' for example, or a Kantian categorical imperative. Thus Breivik perceives that Christianity can serve its purpose. Consider what he writes in his manifesto:

“I’m not going to pretend I’m a very religious person as that would be a lie. I’ve always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment. In the past, I remember I used to think (religion is a crutch for the weak) … Religion is a crutch for many weak people and many embrace religion for self serving reasons as a source for drawing mental strength (to feed their weak emotional state f(or) example during illness, death, poverty etc.). Since I am not a hypocrite, I’ll say directly that this is my agenda as well.” (1344-1345)

It's not too difficult to work out what his ideas concerning what he calls Christianity is. He refers to himself as 100% Christian (1403) but not in the sense that we might assume. He seems to understand the Christian tendency to be pacifistic. An actual Christian fundamentalist would be a pacifist to suicidal proportions – something I think the Norway shooter acknowledges. He takes great effort to convince god-fearing Christians that violence is acceptable and necessary. Unlike Islamist Jihad preachers, who correctly indicate the Koran demands violence and war, Breivik makes a mess of his Biblical argument, ignoring 99% of what Jesus teaches. Undoubtedly, however, he wishes to bring back to life the Knights Templar spirit, which seems more a calculated attempt to acquire a sort of elite 'defenders of europe' caste, then actually appeal to Christian theology for its own sake - or for God's sake.

“As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.” (1403)

The above quote demonstrates pretty well he is not a Christian fundamentalist or extremist, if we are talking about religion here. He isn't even much of a believer. As he explained earlier on, he suspects he will 'pray to god' for strength etc in the same manner one supposedly always prays to God on his deathbed. We are not talking about a man crusading for a place in heaven, so that his sins may be forgiven. Or a religious fanatic killing infidels for virgins. It is, quite obviously, absurd to refer to this man as a Christian, let alone an extreme one. As for 'right-wing', seeing as the term right-wing is deceptively (and deliberately) used these days to describe any one as racist, despite racism being apolitical, then I suppose he is 'right wing' in some sense. He probably does have right-wing views though I cannot bring to mind any; but, what does not ring 'right-wing' to me is his so-called nationalism which seems very pan-European to me, rather than a man devoted to his own country. He seems very much a sophisticated racist, who does not hate-hate other races, but merely wishes them to 'keep to themselves'. His so called support for Zionism stems from the desire for Jews to leave Europe – elsewhere he refers to America having a “Jewish problem” due to the high numbers of Jews who live there (1163). Hardly a pro-Jewish Zionist, as the more vile parts of the left are trying to describe him.

His own words when wondering what a perfect European society should look like:

“We should strive to become a civilisation where the individual’s acquisition of wealth would no longer be the driving force in our lives.” (1386)

Does that sound like a right-winger to you? It doesn't sound particularly capitalist to me, and right-wingers, conservatives, hold capitalism as a sacred cow. I relent though. Of course, in the words of a man who, whilst not insane, is certainly humanly evil and driven with a sort of unchecked bloodlust, perhaps, we should not expect to find his writing consistent or his politics real; but, rather, his manifesto should be read as a chaotic, egotistical, chequered rant that contains a large degree of corrupted truth. He could not even be bothered to write his manifesto himself or finish it, it seems.

I for one know there are primitive sorts who regard white, blue eyed, Aryans as indeed the master race. They believe in a separation of the races and of the superiority of white Europeans. They often correctly identify the liberal's massed and ingrained agenda (cultural marxism) and are fully aware of the left's schemes and expressions of domination. However, the original thought, the nazi belief, spurs them to corrupt the truth and drives them to bad or mad conclusions. They may claim to be Christian but do not abide by even the basic tenets of Christianity (we are all equal in the eyes of God, for example), let alone the more complex ones.

The Norway shooter was probably oppressed and restricted in some fashion, and his fears about certain elements of immigration might well be correct and accurate. But his racist beliefs, his aryan drive (was he impotent? Did he lie in his manifesto about his Sex and the City lifestyle?), forced him to pick and choose from anti-Jihadist discourse and ignore the message of writers such as Robert Spencer. One lecture Robert Spencer gave, was on the crusades, where he described the history of the Crusades accurately, and pointed out the massed distortion that now infects us – having studied the crusades at university (and not being defective in logic) I can vouch for that certainly. Spencer constantly says most Muslims are good, honest people, but he also warned that the Crusaders, though protecting themselves from Islamic Imperialism, committed great atrocities during their Crusades. The mass-slaughter of Jews (against the wishes of the Pope) and the butchery once Jerusalem was retaken, for example. Spencer repeatedly warns that such horrors should never be forgotten or excused – a point seemingly ignored by the aryan-supremacist terrorist, Anders Breivik.

To return to the way the bastards and scum of the left attacked Sarah Palin, after the Arizona shootings, and the mostly hidden fact that the shooter began his quest for vengeance well before Palin was vice-presidential candidate, one would like to leave you with what the Norway Shooter wrote in his manifesto, when asked what pushed him over the edge, and made him conclude a terrorist act was necessary:

"For me, personally, it was my government’s involvement in the attacks on Serbia (NATO bombings in 1999) several years back. It was completely unacceptable how the US and Western European regimes bombed our Serbian brothers. All they wanted was to drive Islam out by deporting the Albanian Muslims back to Albania. When the Albanians refused, they really didn’t have any choice but to use military force." (1379)

So his insanity predated 9/11. At a time when most conservatives and public anti-Jihadists such as Pamela Geller were of the stupid, incorrect opinion that Islam was 'just another religion, which naturally comes with a few fanatics here and there'.

Or maybe he is completely insane, in which case his manifesto and spoken words are irrelevant.

No comments:

Post a Comment