ain't multiculturalism just great? On Jul 25, 8:23 am, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote: > Mass Murder Is the Problemby Anthony GregoryThe emerging profile of Anders > Behring Breivik is not what was first expected. On Friday, President Obama > and the mainstream media immediately jumped on the murder of 92 people in > Norway to affirm the war on terror’s importance. Putting aside the > establishment’s tendency to cite both failures and presumed successes, both > acts of mass violence that came to fruition and ones that were preempted, as > vindication of the war on terror, we should note that the administration was > politicizing an atrocity in the only way that it is ever considered > appropriate: The state can respectably pat its soldiers and enforcers on the > back for their waging wars and bashing heads; all other political points made > in the light of mass death are considered gauche. > Yet as it turns out, the alleged murderer is not the Islamist that so many > assumed. He was, instead, an anti-Islamist of the very sort that has become > commonplace in the last decade. He is a Christian nationalist worried that > Muslims will overtake the West. He enjoyed the same neoconservative blogs > read by millions of Americans. Despite this, his act continues to be spun as > a reason to worry about al Qaeda’s supposed influence in inspiring acts of > mass violence, rather than as a warning about the threat of anti-Islamism. > And that threat is real. Many Americans think that Muslims should be outright > prohibited from building mosques in the United States. At least one > Republican presidential candidate has articulated this position > unambiguously. Conservatives ludicrously warn that Muslims will impose Sharia > law through the U.S. court system, abolishing American liberty. Anyone who > reads conservative message boards can sense the possibility that we are one > dirty bomb away from seeing our Muslim neighbors rounded up and sent to > camps. The hundreds seized without due process and detained for months after > 9/11 are forgotten, but their story reminds us of how fragile liberty and > tolerance can be. > Just because Breivik has much in common with neocons and theocons, however, > does not validate the left’s attempt to turn this into another excuse for > cracking down on rightwing thought crime. The center left always sees such > incidents as a pretext for institutional resolve against "rightwing > extremism" –Timothy McVeighandJames von Brunncome to mind. Liberals are > correct when they identify the double standard of labeling Breivik an > "extremist" and bin Laden a "terrorist." They are being logically consistent > when they say such "extremism" should be treated like any other terrorism. > But the very scary thing about this tragedy is that the killer is not an > "extremist" at all, at least not ideologically. He is not anti-government, > either, despite what many good-government liberals imply. He loves Winston > Churchill, like most neocons and liberals. He’s very pro-Israel. His views on > domestic and foreign policy and the supposed clash between Islam and the West > are all too usual in Europe and the United States. > Anti-Muslim fear is a problem in America, but it is not that disposition > alone that should most concern us, and we must be careful in addressing such > fear. It is everywhere and usually no direct threat to anyone, certainly no > crime in itself. When Juan Williams lost his job at NPR for saying that he > felt a little uncomfortable flying on airplanes with Muslims – a fact that he > disclosed candidly with humility toward those he felt ashamed of fearing – > his purge was most regrettable, for it only shut down discussion and > guaranteed that civilized contemplation of these complicated issues would be > unwelcome in that major media venue. It also emboldened conservatives in > their anti-Muslim sentiment. > The problem is not just fear of Muslims, but rather hateful, violent fear. > Even such feelings, however, and even the most dehumanizing of thoughts, > cannot be ameliorated by the very political system that encourages conflict > and violence. Any attempt to turn the Utoya and Oslo tragedy into a rationale > for an anti-rightwing witch-hunt would be misguided and counterproductive – > especially coming from the very institution, the federal government, that is > more responsible for antagonism toward Muslims than any other actor on the > planet. > Indeed, even neoconservatives should be protected from government thought > control, as should have the communists during the Cold War, despite both > groups having very dangerous views when put into practice. It is not the > thoughts but the deeds that are criminal. Mere discontent with Muslims is not > the same as banning their mosques or restricting their liberties. As for > Breivik, his beliefs are poisonous; infinitely worse was his acting on them > to commit murder on a mass scale. > And this is where the real cognitive inconsistency comes in. Everyone knows > that Breivik’s actions were unjustifiable. Everyone knows the same about > those who flew the planes into the World Trade Center. But what is not as > universally understood is that mass murder is unjustifiable even when > conducted by executive order and carried out by men wearing uniforms. > If not for the "terrorists" of both the Muslim and anti-Muslim variety, the > war on terrorism would not be easily sustained. The relationship is mutual, > as the armed conflicts incite the resentment and blowback that are in turn > pointed to as the reason to continue the wars. At any rate, the war on terror > itself is nothing but one act of terrorism after another, day after day. > Together, Bush and Obama have probably piled up ten thousand times as many > corpses as did Breivik. A week of pure terror for Oslo, London, or Manhattan > resembles an average week for Pakistan, Afghanistan, or Iraq, thanks to the > United States’s wars of liberation. Norway, too, having dropped hundreds of > bombs in Obama’s NATO war on Libya, is a belligerent junior partner in what > many see as a U.S.-Israeli-U.K. crusade against the Muslim world. > Sometimes the government’s wars kill thousands whose lives are disregarded as > "collateral damage," since the deaths were only a side effect of the main > purpose of the war.This argument is weak, since the deaths are completely > predictable. Moreover, many modern actions of the U.S. government involve > deliberate, calculated cruelty and killing. The sanctions on Iraq throughout > the 1990s directly targeted the most vulnerable segments of the Iraqi > population. Misery and death were purposefully inflicted on them by the > hundreds of thousands, in the hopes of prompting regime change. If this isn’t > terrorism, then there is no such thing. > A terrorism specialist at the Norwegian Defense Research Establishment has > said that Breivik’s operation "seems to be an attempt to mirror Al Qaeda, > exactly in reverse." Yet this description just as well fits the foreign > policy of the U.S. and its satellites: Altering geopolitical realities by > treating men, women, and children as disposable pawns to be targeted and > liquidated. Killing people in large numbers for diplomatic reasons is the > very essence of modern war. Do it without the right paperwork, and it’s > terrorism. > Breivik’s action separates him from the millions of bigots calling for total > war but not performing it. If we look at Breivik’s crimes as a problem of > ideology and not only one of action then we are stuck with an uncomfortable > truth: Engaging in mass violence that will inevitably kill innocent people is > always wrong, and yet it is not only on the fringes of nationalist politics > or on radical Islamist websites that we see endorsements of slaughtering > dozens, hundreds, thousands or even more. The majority finds it defensible, > even honorable and righteous, to do what Breivik did, so long as the civilian > deaths are "collateral" or the result of bombings and sanctions initiated by > the president – and, for those who are really old fashioned or progressive, > ratified by Congress or the United Nations, respectively. The greatest > trouble with neoconservatism, neoliberalism, and most other statist > ideologies is that they favor mass murder. It does not matter, morally, what > we call it. It makes no difference who arms the bombs and who fires the > weapons, whether the hatred of the enemy is instilled at boot camp or gleaned > from the blogosphere. > Many of Breivik’s targets were pro-Palestinian, likely eliciting his special > animus for daring to side with the cultural enemy. When a fanatic takes up > arms in the delusion that he is part of the war effort, we must remember that > his actions are not materially much different from those of some of the most > revered warriors and leaders of history. Perhaps he is not as deluded as > those who try to differentiate his freelance violence from the formal > violence celebrated in parades and on national holidays. > Of course I will be accused of the great crime of "moral equivalence" – the > sin of saying that deliberately killing innocent people is always immoral, no > matter who does it or for what reason. So be it. In this case it will be > harder for the charge to stick, for all the usual blather that typically > accompanies it – "they hate us for our freedom," "they want to wipe Israel > off the Earth," "their religion commands them to kill us all" – is the same > kind of hysterical lunacy indulged in by Anders Behring Breivik before he put > his ideology of hateful collectivism into > action.http://lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory228.html
-- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
