Boop the Bottle! Don't Annoy the Baby Dragon!
All Babies Love Their Bottles
Please donate, monthly if possible
A Sponsoring FReeper will contribute $10
For each New Monthly Donor
Donate monthly and end FReepathons!
Posted on 07/25/2011 10:32:10 AM PDT by mandaladon
For many years, a quiz entitled “Al Gore or the Unabomber?” circulated on conservative Web sites. The quiz juxtaposed passages from the former vice president’s eco-manifesto “Earth in the Balance” with quotes from Theodore Kaczynski’s critiques of industrial civilization and asked the reader to guess which writer was which. Was it the bearded hermit who hailed “isolated pockets of resistance fighters” for struggling against modern society’s “assault on the earth”? No, that would be the former vice president. Was it Kaczynski, the mathematics Ph.D. turned mad bomber, who complained about the “destructive” impact of bringing a child into “the hugely consumptionist way of life so common in the industrial world”? No, Gore again.
Enterprising left-wing bloggers have already begun to play a similar game with Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian man who apparently justified last week’s mass murder of helpless teenage campers with a 1,500-page “compendium” calling for a right-wing revolution against Europe’s ruling class. Judging by the manifesto’s contents, Breivik has roughly the same relationship to the cultural right that Kaczynski had to certain strains of environmentalism. The darkest aspects of his ideology belong strictly to the neo-fascist fringe. But many of his beliefs and arguments echo the rhetoric of mainstream cultural conservatives, in Europe and America alike.
Despite what the Norwegian authorities suggested over the weekend, those beliefs probably aren’t a form of Christian fundamentalism. Breivik’s writings bear no resemblance to the theology of a Jerry Falwell or an Oral Roberts, and his nominal Christianity (“I guess I’m not an excessively religious man,” he writes at one point) seems to be more of an expression of European identity politics and anti-Islamic chauvinism than any genuine religious fervor.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
More mindless babble from Ross Assshat. The Gore/Uni-bomber comparison held water because they both were Americans and both sell the same BS ideology. This nit wit in Norway has no ties to the US or any philosophy here. Maybe a comparison to Geert Wilders, but not to anyone here. FUNYT.
Hardly “right wing” by American standards
But when a dedicated "White Winger" goes on a killing spree, ALL white conservatives are "GUILTY" as the day is long.
Overall, I thought it was a good article.
And from this Ross concludes that the Right has to acknowledge that this lunatic has a "conservative" intellectual pedigree? Hitler played European indentity politics and displayed cultural chauvinism. So did Franco and Peron. Does that mean the Right has to acknowledge them as "conservatives"???
I'll cut to the chase: Moron Ross forgets that historical European "conservatism" is very, very different from the modern conservatism that has a long history in America and which has, in the past several decades, found a home in at least Britain. American conservative criticism of Political Correctness and subversive elements of radical Islam is completely different from Continental European historical conservative criticisms of non-Europeans.
Intentionally or unintentionally, Ross played his role as New York Times house conservative very well here. Acknowledge our sins; admit we are wrong -- and give the Libs an opening to discredit us. No thanks, Ross.
From what I gather, this guy just plagiarized a variety of writers for his “manifesto”.
Which he mentions in his manifesto as a reason why traditional methods of debate don't work against Leftists/Multi-culturalists.
Trying to fight fair against those who don't doesn't get you very far.
I wonder if the bombing and shootings in Norway still would have taken place if the perpetrator had been able to make his points regarding his dislike of multiculturalism and Islam in some acceptable manner. When a dissenter can no longer speak out and be heard regarding what he perceives as a serious mistake, the safety valve has been taken away. Some people, obviously, are going to freak-out and do abominable things no matter what, but others might be satisfied just to have a chance to explain their points of view. Political correctness can be very frustrating if the p.c. view doesn’t happen to be the way you see things.
Franco, si. Peron, no. Franco was up against Communists and Anarchists who murdered anyone who went to church. He saved Spain from becoming a Soviet satellite and military base. Peron was Fascist-Communist-redistributionist who was into himself.
Yes, he would have still done it. And these people who call him a right winger haven’t read the entire tract. HE calls himself a right winger, but his thought processes are every bit as nazi/islam as the day is long.
The European state being the cowardly place that it currently is, the murders will probably strengthen the political hand of the Right, especially with regard to immigration, anti-Christian PC, and the rule of the Euro-bureau-twits in Brussels. The elites will become more afraid of ticking off right-wing nationalists. When the racial purity guys start blowing up people who draw cartoons of them, their victory will be complete.
For heck's sake, read the whole article. He doesn't explicitly make that distinction, but it's implicit. It's why he keeps saying "the continental right" and "Europe’s cultural conservatives."
The problem, though, is that there's no impenetrable wall between Europe and the US, especially now with the Internet. This nut took a lot from some US and English-language websites, and Douthat is only being honest in acknowledging that.
Connections are going to be drawn, as they were in the Gore-Unabomber matter and the response has to be more than just a blanket denial. You can certainly disagree with Douthat. His isn't the last or best word on this case. But in a world where people will tell you that a fanatical anti-Muslim is somehow in spite of everything a "Nazi-Muslim", Ross isn't a moron.
Well the most interesting thing about all of this is how Europe has attached Zionism to this guy and therefore Israel and the Jews are at fault!
Think not? Read the comments sections of any article about this guy over there or even on HaAretz. The lefties are thinking this guy was financed by the Mossad! The anti-semitism that Norway allowed to ferment is an open and running sore now.
If he is a monster then he is a monster of the radical, western civilization hating left in Europe created.
You can only push a people so far before it builds into a volcanic resentment and the radical left has been ramming Islam down Europe’s throats for 40 years and in doing so is destroying Europe.
I have been telling people for years that, despite what you and they think, at the end of the day there will not be one Muslim left in Europe. History teaches that eventually the people of Europe will get fed up with this invasion and they will do what they have always done in these situations. It is a little thing called ‘ethnic cleansing’ and when they get to this point there will be no one on the planet that will be able to stop it. The ground of Europe has been drenched in blood for thousands of years, the last 70 years has been the equivalent of a drought historically speaking.
Why yes he is, a moron that is.
Ross is aware of the differences between American and European conservatism. I wish he'd made more of those differences in his article.
But in the world of politics things are rarely as black-and-white as you'd like them to be. Every movement or ideology has its sects and fringes that make contact disreputable or reprehensible ideas.
Even left and right aren't the complete antitheses people often take them to be. Chauvinism, extremism, and a lot of other unpleasant things pop their heads into any ideology or movement.
And even if American and European philosophies were hermetically sealed and had nothing in common, this guy did spend a lot of time on US sites with a particular take on practical politics.
He took what he wanted from those sites to build up a worldview that certainly diverged from mainstream American (or European) conservatism. So even if there was some deep philosophical incompatibility, you, I, we, still have to come to terms with just what it was he got from American sites and authors and bloggers.
You aren't Ross Douthat's audience. Given that NY Times audience, what it's already read in the paper about the attacks, the assumptions that they have, the conclusions that they draw, Ross does a pretty good job of responding and rebutting to their take on this.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.