killer not really "Christian," or "conservative,"...MSM silent...

[billc]

The article below digs into some of the actual beliefs stated by the killer...one child policy, government control of industries, support for russia and china, getting rid of U.S. on European soil....not exactly conservative and the christianity he claimed is not the christianity we all know and love...

http://bigjournalism.com/edulis/201...letely-destroys-christian-conservative-label/

From the article:

But Breivik’s actual words completely contradict the “Conservative Christian” caricature. Below, you can see how, to save the environment, he wants the world to rid itself of oil consumption. You can see how he wants a one-child policy, government control of private industries, the breakup of Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, the military support of Russia to prevent a possible U.S. invasion of Europe, and the removal of all U.S. military bases from European soil. Yes, the tea party platform through and through, folks!First of all, many thanks to the anonymous blogger Sooper Mexican, who has unearthed this information from the giant screed and organized it in an easily understandable, concise manner. For those who would quibble that this is an untrustworthy source, his post consists of direct quotes from the manifesto with commentary– I repeat, direct quotes. I repeat them here with the blogger’s emphases.
------------------------------------------------
THE EXCERPTS FROM THE MANIFESTO ARE IN THE ARTICLE, YOU CAN READ THE EXACT QUOTES THERE...

---------------------------------------------------

THE ARTICLE CONCLUDES:

There we have it. He clearly frames his opposition to “Marxism” in terms of “cultural Marxism”– that is, the equal validity of all ethnic and cultural groups’ values and practices– certainly not economic Marxism, which he eagerly espouses. In the same way, his use of “Christian” is in a purely cultural, not a religious sense. One’s relationship to Jesus, the Christ, is not a factor in his version of Christianity.
And here we are, mindlessly linked to this man’s violence, when A) it’s clear that his actions are the work of an outlier to any mainstream political ideology, thus only bottom-feeding hopeless partisans would dare politicize them, and B) his ideology is nothing close to the conservative, capitalist, Christian beliefs common to the tea party and most right-wing bloggers. Of course, we are dealing with a patently corrupt media, so we must push twice as hard as normal to get this information out and stamp out the MSM’s false narrative about Oslo. Download the PDF of Breivik’s manifesto here, find the quotes yourself (and anything else you can), and spread them through Twitter, Facebook, Google+, flyers on library bulletin boards– whatever it takes to let your community know the truth about this sick politicization of murder.

 

[Steve]

He also borrowed very heavily from the unabomber's manifesto, cites frequently his long standing hatred for multi-culturalism, hoarded guns. Once again, cherry picking out of a 1500 page document is specious.

 

[billc]

The unabomber, not exactly a rightwinger either, the socialists in germany, and it is reported that he is a "neo" one of them, weren't multicultural supporters either.

 

[billc]

Another article that digs into the shooter...

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/the-5-biggest-lies-told-about-oslo-shooter-anders-breivik/

 

[RandomPhantom700]

So, let me just make sure I'm clear on this: when a terrorist is alleged to be a Christian, or a conservative, or both, the proper thing to do is make a critical analysis of his beliefs in order to distinguish, but when a terrorist is alleged to be Muslim, or a liberal, or both, the proper thing to do is jump on the "Die Islam Die!" bus the moment his name is read (ala the Ft. Hood shooter and its subsequent discussion a while back?) without any other information.

Glad we're set on that.

 

[Makalakumu]

Maybe the only label that fits is nuts?

 

[granfire]

Maybe the only label that fits is nuts?

and that is an insult to all self respecting nuts everywhere....

 

[Steve]

and that is an insult to all self respecting nuts everywhere....

I'll just say what I've said in the past. Can we try to remember this line of reasoning when someone who alleges to be muslim commits a heinous crime?

I'll also point out that in the first thread, started by Twin Fist when he mistakenly believed that this guy is a jihadist, I pointed out that it wouldn't be long before people try to politicize the act. And here we are. BillC is trying to associate this villain with liberals. This is despicable.

This guy is clearly deranged. I'm not qualified to diagnose the illness, so I'll just stick with crazy and let the doctors figure out which kind of crazy he is. He needs to pay for his crimes.

 

[Makalakumu]

In defense of BillC and TF, they are just parroting what the MSM is reporting and reporters are basically reprinting press releases from Officials. My concern here is that the "terrorist" label is going to be used as a political tool, applied liberally to any group with an agenda counter to the oligarchs. It's worth pointing out the inconsistencies in labels in order to keep a grasp on reality. That INCLUDES when the label happens to be applied liberally to Muslims in order to support our six wars in that region. Steve is correct, you can't do this in one instance and not in another.

 

[billc]

Hmmm...I believe he had been labled "a right wing conservative christian neo-nazi." I am clearing up the facts as they emerge. It didn't take long, after a sigh of relief that it wasn't islamic terrorists, for some to jump, with both feet, onto the right wing conservative christian idea. I personally held off for a few days, watching the right wing neo christian posts stack up. Now that his actual crazy rantings are less "right" less "christian" we seem to not want to point it out. Hmmm...


On a polite side note...what six wars are we listing?

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I finally refound this strip on xkcd. It's not so much a response to this particular thread as to the general notion that the acts of one represent the all only when addressing other groups, a theme that has repeated itself often enough on the forums. And the artist put it so much more eloquently! Enjoy!

How_It_Works

 

[Makalakumu]

On a polite side note...what six wars are we listing?

Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya...and anywhere else the Eye of Sauron is peering.

 

[Makalakumu]

I finally refound this strip on xkcd. It's not so much a response to this particular thread as to the general notion that the acts of one represent the all only when addressing other groups, a theme that has repeated itself often enough on the forums. And the artist put it so much more eloquently! Enjoy!

How_It_Works

LOVE IT!!!! Those cartoons are awesome! Thanks for sharing!

Political demonization at it's finest...

 

[elder999]

Not really a Knight Templar, either, apparently...... :lfao:

LONDON (AP) — Before he carried out the attacks that killed scores of people in Norway, Anders Behring Breivik wrote of his allegiance to the Knights Templar, which he described as a secret society created to carry out a crusade against Islam in Europe.
While law enforcement agencies said they had never heard of the group, a man named Paul Ray, who writes an anti-Muslim blog called "Lionheart," has told The Associated Press that it indeed exists and he was one of the founders.
But he denies any contact with Breivik and is instead condemning his actions — if not his ideals.
In a 1,500-page manifesto, Breivik claimed the new group was created at a meeting in London in 2002 and said his mentor was a man called "Richard (the Lionhearted)."

 

[billc]

No, if you look at what the radical islamic killers say, it fits what they do. Major Hassan, couldn't have done much more to identify why he was killing people, but the media still said, hmmm...we don't know why he did it. For the nutjob killer in Norway, he specifically lays out some of his thoughts and they just aren't Christian, or rightwing. I believe he may have been a nazi. Some of the things he wrote point to those views, the idea of government controlling industry, the hatred of muslims, and so on. He just wasn't right wing, or an actual chritian.

 

[billc]

The lovely and charming Ann Coulter on the Norway Killer...She essentially addresses several of the posters here on the study all by her little self, anticipating some of the issues that would be addressed when the media said the killer was a christian...and about Major Hassan the fort hood killer...

http://www.anncoulter.com/

From her article:

The New York Times wasted no time in jumping to conclusions about Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian who staged two deadly attacks in Oslo last weekend, claiming in the first two paragraphs of one story that he was a "gun-loving," "right-wing," "fundamentalist Christian," opposed to "multiculturalism."

It may as well have thrown in "Fox News-watching" and "global warming skeptic."

This was a big departure from the Times' conclusion-resisting coverage of the Fort Hood shooting suspect, Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan. Despite reports that Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar!" as he gunned down his fellow soldiers at a military medical facility in 2009, only one of seven Times articles on Hasan so much as mentioned that he was a Muslim.

Of course, that story ran one year after Hasan's arrest, so by then, I suppose, the cat was out of the bag.

In fact, however, Americans who jumped to conclusions about Hasan were right and New York Times reporters who jumped to conclusions about Breivik were wrong.

True, in one lone entry on Breivik's gaseous 1,500-page manifesto, "2083: A European Declaration of Independence," he calls himself "Christian." But unfortunately he also uses a great number of other words to describe himself, and these other words make clear that he does not mean "Christian" as most Americans understand the term. (Incidentally, he also cites The New York Times more than a half-dozen times.)

Had anyone at the Times actually read Breivik's manifesto, they would have seen that he uses the word "Christian" as a handy moniker to mean "European, non-Islamic" -- not a religious Christian or even a vague monotheist. In fact, at several points in his manifesto, Breivik stresses that he has a beef with Christians for their soft-heartedness. (I suppose that's why the Times is never worried about a "Christian backlash.")

A casual perusal of Breivik's manifesto clearly shows that he uses the word "Christian" similarly to the way some Jewish New Yorkers use it to mean "non-Jewish." In this usage, Christopher Hitchens and Madalyn Murray O'Hair are "Christians."

I told a Jewish gal trying to set me up with one of her friends once that he had to be Christian, and she exclaimed that she had the perfect guy: a secular Muslim atheist. (This was the least-popular option on the '60s board game Dream Date, by the way).

Breivik is very clear that you don't even have to believe in God to join his movement, saying in a self-interview:

Q: Do I have to believe in God or Jesus in order to become a Justiciar Knight?

A: As this is a cultural war, our definition of being a Christian does not necessarily constitute that you are required to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus.

He goes on to say that a "Christian fundamentalist theocracy" is "everything we DO NOT want," and a "secular European society" is "what we DO want."

"It is enough," Breivik says, "that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist." That statement doesn't even make sense in America.

At the one and only meeting of Breivik's "Knights Templar" in London in 2002, there were nine attendees, three of whom he describes as "Christian atheists" and one as a "Christian agnostic." (Another dozen people mistook it for a Renaissance Faire and were turned away.)

Breivik clearly explains that his "Knights Templar" is "not a religious organization but rather a Christian 'culturalist' military order." He even calls on the "European Jewish, Buddhist and Hindu community" to join his fight against "the Islamization of Europe."

He doesn't believe in Christianity or want anyone else to, but apparently supports celebrating Christmas simply to annoy Muslims.
----------------------------------------------------------

TAKE A LOOK AT THE REST OF THE COLUMN, AS USUAL IT IS A GREAT READ WITH A LOT OF INSIGHT INTO THE COVERAGE OF THE ATROCITIES COMMITTED IN NORWAY.

 

[Tez3]

I love the way a man who set a huge bomb in a bust city and then gun down teenagers is taken seriously as a political pundit. The spin being put on this awful occurrance to make it look as if it's not been committed by a self confessed right wing Christian terrorist would be amusing if it weren't so callous.

Tell me why we should believe American commentators over Norwegian ones? Ah of course the Norwegians have a socialist government and therefore are bad, bad people. I expect if they cared what right wing American cared they'd be upset but they are busy pulling together and being the great people they really are. Watch them and learn people, watch and learn how a country should behave in the face of adversity. You won't see it but it's humbling, they will maintain their openess, their compassionate and their socialist view that everyone matters. Good on them and shame on those who twist, skew and spin history and facts for their own means.

 

[Steve]

Jon Stewart yesterday. It articulates very well what's going on here. In short, the guy is nuts. Most reasonable people understand that he doesn't represent "Christianity." But it seems that this logic only applies to Christians. When it's any group other than Christians (or conservatives), logic be damned.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/in-the-name-of-the-fodder?xrs=share_copy

I'm sure that Bill O'Reilly will retort tonight. He usually does.

 

[Steve]

Just for what it's worth, the GOP Special Victims Unit is also very funny and relevant to the current state of discourse on these forums:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-july-27-2011/gop---special-victims-unit?xrs=share_copy

The daily show was on its game yesterday.

It's like Jon Stewart anticipated all of Ann Coulter's arguments and answered them all by his little self... and was funny, too.

Just to be clear. The point isn't that this guy is christian. It's that he is Christian in the same way that the crazy officer in Ft. Hood was a crazy person. But it sucks when it's your demographic being smeared by association to mentally deranged murderers.

 

[billc]

The guys rantings are left wing, the government ownership of industries, the one child policy, he isn't a christian but likes the "cultural" aspects of christianity. I am not sure where the "right wing" aspect comes in.