A psycho in Norway

Remove all ads!

Personally I've found that the generalized vitriol toward muslims tends to be apolitical, and I live in an area with a large muslim population, so I'm quite familiar with it.

~

I would rep the El KD, but he's too cool for rep (and I don't have any available at the moment).

 

LKD,
the nonsense people on the right, like Beck, tell every day to rile up the rubes - the deranged and factually largely baseless stuff about 'Cultural Marxists', Multiculturalism, Socialists, 'Secular Humanism', Islamization, Muslim subversion - and for good measure, probably the Gay Agenda - and all the other paranoid nonsense that I just forgot to mention - comes at a price.

While folks like Beck may, or may not, just cynically use the theme for profit, people like Breivik take that babbling serious. They kill based on such ideas. It's tell tale to have Beck saying, effectively, that Breivik is right in substance ('Cultural Marxists', Multiculturalism, Socialists, 'Secular Humanism', Islamization, Muslim subversion), and that, indeed, Social Democrat summer camp is like Hitler Youth - but these murders - twisted and sick. I beg to disagree - Breivik is not only sick because he murdered. The ideas he holds, are twisted and sick nonsense already. Rhetoric like Beck's (or Geller's, Spencer's and Pipes') is not cost-free. Breivik is the product of the writings and infrastructure of the anti-Islamic scene.

It's the same as with anti abortion people who talk about 'edicts' (specifically those constitutionally enacted laws and court decisions that they happen to dislike) legalising abortion, and who call doctors like Tiller, who committed no crime, murderers anyway, or for good measure, call him 'Tiller, the Baby killer' on TV, to name just one particularly egregious example. They are shocked, just shocked when people like Roeder start to kill based on those very ideas that they incessantly promote. It's all an utterly inexplicable freeeeeaky freak accident then, and they have nothing to do with it, no sir. Not at all. That are bullsh*t excuses. Their rhetoric is not cost-free either. Just like Breivik in his context, Roeder is the product of the writings and infrastructure of the anti-abortion scene.

The talkers and propagandists are not directly culpably for the murders, of course, but they bear a partial responsibility, and their contribution can hardly be called inconsequential. They can deny it until they are blue in the face and not change that. Yes, they didn't pull the trigger, but they helped aim the gun. They run away from that, too, not just from the bad press.

 

All of those you have listed have been seen as the real representatives of the ideologies you mentioned Montresor by quite a lot of people. Very often people of the right.

 

You know, I was pretty much agreeing with most that you had written Anyway, I'm not making the connection between Brevik and "the right" - he did. He used the language, mentioned the themes, and affiliated himself with the goals they have. As DR said, he claimed that he's doing what is a natural extension of these beliefs. The ideas are the same - he just claims they support what he did. And he probably believes it, too. If he's give

That's the problem with ideological radicals - the same ideas that you or I can use as a constructive criticism to try to better society, someone unhinged enough may understand as a call to kill. Whether it's religion, political view, patriotism/nationalism - anything that can serve as a difference between "us" and "them" can motivate people to do something like that. The more hatred exists between those two groups, the easier it is for someone deluded enough to make the connection between "They are the enemy who plan to destroy us" and "they must be destroyed.". In the end, how different is he from an Pakistani fundamentalist that kills 50 "apostates" in the name of his god, his faith and his tribe - the epitome of the same people he was supposedly doing this to protect his society from?

It reminds me of that "Killing in the name of" song by RatM. Fill in the blank, and you are ready to go.

 

Not necessarily. The two aren't mutually exclusive. Only in that he is a terrorist – and as a terrorist believes he is justified in taking innocent lives as a means to achieve political ends – is Breitvik categorically different from other extreme right wing ideologues (and right-wingers are right to distance themselves from Breitvik on this point, vigorously). Compared side by side, however, the ideology of bin Laden had a lot more in common with the right wing with than the left wing. The most substantial difference is the religious foundation involved.

 

norway police slammed for slow response

I can't believe they don't have a dedicated swat helicopter.

Also saw that they have reduced the number of dead on the island to 68 from 86. Maybe somebody was dyslexic?!?

 

Exactly. That's what I was getting at when I pointed to Beck essentially saying that Bereivik was right in substance, but wrong in execution (pun) i.e. means.

The difference, and it is a notable one, is that Breivik is ready to kill, and Beck ever ready to talk.

The disagreement is about means, not motives and ends. Beck for instance distances himself from Breivik because of the bad press the killings generated, not because the man's views. To a considerable extent, as he says himself, they match.

Here's a riddle: It's worth keeping in mind that at Nuremberg they sentenced propagandists, too. I wonder, why was that?

 

I heard the leader of the Swedish nationalist right-wing party trying to dance around this issue. He thought it was mightily unfair that people were pointing out the similarities between his views and Bereviks. Berevik killed people and Jimmy hasn't killed anyone(his name is Jimmy Åkesson) was pretty much the end of his point, didn't distance himself from the ideas one bit.

 

Let's put it this way - it means they likely haven't needed one so far. They were unprepared, because things like that simply hadn't happened in Norway.

 

I don't listen to Glenn Beck very often. He's too strident for my tastes. However, I highly doubt that he has ever encouraged his listeners to commit violent crimes, or even to break the law. He may be an insensitive douche. He may disagree with current trends in Western society. But to say he bears responsibility for Breivik's actions because he holds the views he does is going way too far.

What else could a reasonably honest person say? He couldn't very well say that he disagreed with Breivik's opinions on matters like immigration and multiculturalism -- the record is too clear that he does, and in fact he's not ashamed of his opinions on those topics. He shouldn't have to be. He did, quite rightly and fairly, make it clear that he does not support Breivik's methods.

Look, Angela Merkel (sic) has come out and said that multiculturalism is not working and is a bad idea. Does the fact that she shares that belief with Breivik make her somehow complicit in the violence Breivik committed? Of course not. The same thing applies to Beck and the rest of the right wing commentators.

People may say I'm flogging a dead horse here a bit, but I've just seen all too frequently people saying that Beck should "take some responsibility for what he says" or other such lines. The day Beck says "get a gun and go kill some random people with whom you disagree", then I'll agree that he should take responsibility for any deaths caused by such talk. Until then, it's merely a vicious form of smearing that is vile when the right does it, and equally as vile when the left does as well.

 

@LKD,

This is a logical fallacy. That's just it - he doesn't have to come out and say "get a gun and go shoot someone." He's not stupid - such a direct call to violence would get him thrown in prison.

The problem with people like Beck is that they attack by insinuation. Talking about Obama, for example, and describing his policies as "tyranny," "socialism," "deep-seated hatred of white people," etc., goes beyond free speech and your average political hyperbole. Describing Obama in this manner implies that he is a threat to the country's very survival and the lives of those who live in it. People like Beck don't simply argue that Obama's policies are bad, he takes it to an absurd extreme that actually makes his audience feel directly threatened. He does the same thing with his absurd theories on muslims, George Soros and "secular progressives." He goes far beyond the more benign "this country's goin' down the tubes!" kind of radio yacking to a place where he's sounding cataclysmic alarm bells with claims he never bothers to substantiate or correct himself on when his rantings are debunked by experts and historians. It just goes on and on.

Thankfully, Beck's influence in the popular culture is waning, and most people realize what a kook he is (not even Fox News could justify keeping him on the air). But I'm not worried about the average listener, I'm worried about his die-hards. And Beck is hardly alone. I listened to a local radio jock here in Houston the other day - Michael Berry (he often fills in for Rush Limbaugh). He spent a solid hour unleashing some of the most blatantly racist and islamophobic nonsense I've ever heard, and the subject they were discussing was the closing of the space shuttle program! He actually found a way to work Obama's secret muslim agenda into a discussion about the effect the program's closure would have on the local economy, making unsubstantiated claims about how Obama will not stop until he's destroyed everything we hold dear because he hates this country. Then he finished off the segment by saying that Obama is the most divisive politician this country has ever seen and that he is sincerely fearful for our future. Even though he just spent an hour lying his ass off.

The scary thing is Berry is hardly alone, hardly the worst, and he does this every...single...day.

But I'm sure you're right - since he didn't actually say "go shoot someone," this kind of talk is nothing to be concerned about.

 

It's worth being concerned about, and it's worth fighting. But it does not qualify for being censored. And as I mentioned, if we all had to qualify our speech because we are worried what a psycho would do and then cite what we said, then we would all end up going around being dead silent.

I notice that when people say outrageous things about right wing politicians, things are strangely silent. Yet say something about the center-left's darlings, and all of a sudden you have a secret, insinuating agenda and really want to have your listeners commit violent acts. What nonsense. You presume that Beck really does want to have people engage in violent, illegal acts, and only refrains from direct incitement because he fears prosecution. I call shenanigans on that. You may not like him. He may be a fear-mongerer. But you are far too quick to ascribe to him and his ilk a violent agenda. As you mentioned, they are too quick to do the same to Obama (that segement on the space shuttle program being part of a secret Muslim agenda was funny and a good case in point) but that it isn't right or fair when anyone does it.

 

I'm not talking about censoring anyone. I'm saying people with big microphones who misinform people and incite panic should take responsibility for what they say. The things that Beck says on the air are both inflammatory and factually inaccurate. Despite being corrected on his facts, he never corrects course. This either means 1) he knows it's bunk but he's in it for the ratings, or 2) he's as insane and irrational as he sounds. Either way, he needs to be checked.

Again, logical fallacy. Most of us don't go around ranting about politics, muslims, etc. in our daily lives or have the ear of millions of people. And those who do should be careful about what they say.

This is a colossal strawman. First, we're not talking about saying "something." Criticism and disagreement are one thing and are welcome by just about everyone, especially on the left. We're talking about people invoking violent and cataclysmic language in opposition of policies and politicians that aren't anywhere near as threatening as such rhetoric would imply.

Second, I presume nothing about Beck's intentions. As I said - whether he really believes this crap or he's just a cynical ratings-driven a-hole is anyone's guess. What I am talking about are the results of his message. He scares people. Particularly the old and the gullible. There are people out there, believe it or not, who don't listen to Beck and then go off and say "Ha! What a character!" They nod, and gnash their teeth, and get fired up. There are elderly members of my family who are terrified of Obama. Not that they don't like him - terrified. They listen to Glenn Beck daily and they believe every word he says. When elderly people get scared, there's not much they do to take action. When other people get scared, they DO take action. They get angry. They stockpile weapons. The old saying "there's nothing more dangerous than a fool with a cause" is particularly true in this case. There's a vigilante streak that runs through Western culture - particularly in America - that I don't think you're considering. Timothy McVeigh had that streak and was inspired by similar anti-liberal, anti-government rhetoric, none of which specifically told him to "go blow up a building." But in McVeigh's day you had to go looking for such rhetoric. Now it's all over AM radio, the highest-rated cable news channel, and endless internet sites. "Obama's a tryrant." "Obama's coming for your guns." "Obama wants to destroy this country." It's constant, and for a small but scary segment of the population, it's more than mere words.

You convince enough people that they're under attack and they'll take matters into their own hands, even just to send "a message." To deny this is sticking your head in the sand.

 

No, I appreciate it dmc. Great minds and all that.

 

LKD,

Why would you host a program with possibly millions of listeners, many that are very malleable, spit out a lot of falsehoods and rhetoric and then claim innocence? What possible reason could you have to do so? What possibly could be your agenda there? To me, the only conclusion I see there is they are acting inciteful. I won't say Glenn Beck specifially told this loony to kill all of those kids in Norway. But I would say what he puts out there most definitely can cause this and he knows it, but puts his rhetoric on the airwaves anyway, knowing this. Why would you do this knowing it could incite someone. Because you want it to happen? There are lines that shouldn't be crossed. The Becks of the world do so daily.

If I were a betting man and I am ,I would bet my house against your two dollars that if we stopped the Becks of the world from speaking like this publicly, we would have a lot less occurences like we just had in Norway. Any takers?

 

Monty,

If they found other ways to spew their falsehoods, logically we wouldn't of stopped them in the first place, so that point is mute.

The key is to find ways to shut it down permanently. I am not saying it is an easy solution or that I know how without breaking any laws or rights of the person doing it. But how else do you take preventitive mesures to help stop a Norway from happening again?