Sunday, July 24, 2011

The Oslo Factor: Blame Free Speech

In Dashiell Hammett’s nonpareil detective novel, The Maltese Falcon, Sam Spade, the street-wise and glib private eye, toys with and manipulates the contentious members of a gang of hustlers in order to nail the person among them who murdered his business partner. He pretends to ally himself with their purposes, but warns them that someone must take the rap for that murder and others, someone who can be turned over to the authorities. They must have a “fall-guy,” he explains to the gang leader, Casper Gutman. He at first nominates Wilmer, the leader’s psychotic “gunsil” and bodyguard.

“Let’s give them the punk.” He nodded pleasantly at the boy in the doorway. “He actually did shoot both of them – Thursby and Jacobi – didn’t he? Anyway, he’s made to order for the part. Let’s pin the necessary evidence on him and turn him over to them.”


The horrific attack in Oslo, Norway last Friday, in which 84 Norwegian youths were mercilessly gunned down by Anders Behring Breivik, a psychotic Norwegian Christian fundamentalist and anti-Muslim who also allegedly planted a devastating and lethal bomb in central Oslo, has produced an “Islamaphobic” fall-guy, made to order for the part.

You see, he was “Islamaphobic.” He was also crazed and insensitive and insulting and perhaps even saw his country being stealthily taken over by the enemy in the guise of Muslims and Marxists. So, anyone who criticizes Islam or Muslim behavior in Western countries – or even in Muslim countries – will be branded by association with Breivik. Well-reasoned arguments, evidence of stealth jihad, connections between multiculturalism, Islamic hubris, and the Islamification of the West, impeccable scholarship, reputations for truth-telling and fact-finding, will be dismissed as “Islamaphobic,” intolerant, bigoted, and hateful.

I do not believe in “evil geniuses.” So I will not make the argument that Al Quada or some other Islamic terrorist group put Breivik up to committing the crime in order to divert attention from Islam’s own and numerous depredations – although the idea is a credible one.

However, there are several legitimate observations to make and questions to ask.

An Australian TV news report at least hypothesizes that the double attack was too well organized and had a jihadist M.O. Based on statements by survivors of the massacre, police suspect that a second gunman was involved.

Up front, the “Christian fundamentalist” nature of the attack makes little sense. Was Breivik unbalanced? Was he so out of it that jihadists could convince him that it was fellow Norwegians who were the “enemy” and not Muslims? If he were a Christian fundamentalist, would he not have wanted to slaughter Muslims, instead?

Norway’s ruling Labor Party is friendly to Muslim immigration, which, in light of the demonstrated purposes of such immigration, to impose Sharia law on Western nations, is prima facie an irrational policy. Breivik attacked the ideological offspring of the Labor Party. But, if Breivik hated Muslims, why did he not attack Muslims, instead? Why mow down nearly a hundred liberal-left Christian children? This answer may or may not come out during his trial.

Norway has gun control laws. How did Breivik procure his automatic weapon? How did he acquire explosives? If he rigged the bomb or bombs that created so much devastation in Oslo, where did he get instructions? From Inspire, the jihadist online magazine? From whom? Through whose weapons network? An M16 ammo clip does not hold enough ammo to mow down 84 people. Was he wearing an ammo belt of clips? Who procured the policeman’s uniform? How did he travel from Oslo to Utoya Island loaded with weaponry and not have been noticed? Where was Norwegian security at the camp? Was there any? Was there a second, or even a third gunman?

Jihadists apparently helped Timothy McVeigh blow up the federal building in Oklahoma City. Is this some kind of diversionary terrorism, organized by jihadists, to shift attention away from Islamists? Is this a form of taqiyya – an orchestrated pointing of fingers at the other guy?

Is Anders Behring Breivik an example of cool reason, calm reflection, and fealty to reality? You be the judge:

In his first comment via a lawyer since he was arrested, 32-year-old Anders Behring Breivik expressed willingness to explain himself in court at a hearing likely to be held on Monday about extending his custody.

"He has said that he believed the actions were atrocious, but that in his head they were necessary," lawyer Geir Lippestad told independent TV2 news, adding that his client admitted to both the shootings and the bombing….

Breivik hated "cultural Marxists," wanted a "crusade" against the spread of Islam and liked guns and weightlifting, web postings, acquaintances and officials said. A video posted on the YouTube website showed several pictures of Breivik, including one of him in a scuba diving outfit pointing an automatic weapon.

But the incident will work to the advantage of Islamists everywhere.

Adrian Morgan, editor of Family Security Matters, details the beginning of the smear of critics of Islam and jihad. I left this comment on his article.

In short, Mr. Morgan is describing the attempts by the MSM to link Anders Breivik with a number of legitimate and coolly reasoned anti-Islamist websites and blog sites whose sponsors and writers would never condone the mass slaughter of anyone or the bombing any government buildings. That the MSM is attempting to pull this Three-Card-Monte switcheroo reveals just how morally and intellectually bankrupt the MSM is and how desperate its minions are to discredit and not refute any and all criticism of Muslims and Islam. It is called “guilt by association.” This is tantamount to accusing Hitler’s mother of influencing the murderous content of her son’s mind because she taught him how to tie his shoelaces.

But, perhaps more importantly than diverting attention away from the legitimate concern with Islamic jihad, is the blank check the MSM is handing our government to monitor and perhaps repress legitimate criticism of Islam. Many of these “Islamaphobic” websites are sponsored, edited and written for by Christians. Because Breivik is alleged to be a “fundamentalist Christian,” ergo, would go the “reasoning,” all Christian critics of Islam are potential mass murderers and must be reined in.

If censorship comes to this country, it will be by the invitation of the MSM and the left-liberal political and intellectual establishment.

This whole thing smells of a frame-up, and Breivik more and more to me looks like a fall-guy. I do not doubt there are Christian fundamentalists who would resort to murder to “spread God’s word.” I will remind readers here of the murders of abortion doctors .

Whatever the Norwegian authorities find, they are going to be reluctant to release any information that might implicate Islamists and Muslims. It might rile up the immigrant “Norwegian” Muslims, provoke them to stage “spontaneous” demonstrations, and step up their spiraling rape spree of non-Muslim Norwegian women.

Norway police officials gave the gunman’s name as Anders Behring Breivik at a news conference Saturday morning. Norway’s national broadcaster, NRK, and other news outlets in the country also posted pictures of the blond and blue-eyed Norwegian.

“What we know is that he is right wing and he is Christian fundamentalist,” said Roger Andresen, a deputy police chief. “We have not been able to link him up to an anti-Islamic group.” He said that Breivik had not been arrested before.

But wait. Some funny business has occurred on Breivik’s Facebook page. Who has been altering it to better frame the “fall guy”? Go here for details and images.

The Washington Post not surprisingly contributes its nail to hammer into the coffin of “Islamaphobia.”

Norwegians trying to make sense of the bombing and shooting attacks here turn again and again to the one example that seems to fit: Oklahoma City.

Here, as there, a quick assumption that Muslims were at fault proved to be erroneous. Norwegians now know that a 32-year-old Christian, who railed against tolerance and diversity, is the principle and perhaps only suspect. A Norwegian newspaper reported that he had recently bought a large quantity of fertilizer, which can be used to make bombs — as Timothy McVeigh showed in 1995.

There will be a chorus of hammering by the MSM, and calls for “responsible” speech. Which is not the same thing as free speech.

Oh, yes, let us bring up Timothy McVeigh ad nauseum. Link him to Anders Breivik. And to Waco, the Branch Davidians and David Koresh. To Charles Manson. To the Symbionese Liberation Army. And to other conspiracy theory fruitcakes, who must also be “neo-Nazis.” Then very, very subtly point fingers at Adrian Morgan, Robert Spencer, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Pamela Geller, Wafa Sultan, Steven Emerson, and so many more individuals who have provided ample and irrefutable evidence that Wilmer and the liberal-left guy pointing a finger at him are both guilty.

Wilmer and his friends in the MSM and our Marxist-dominated academia and intelligentsia are not “fall-guys.” They are the guys. They are the punks.

And Islam? That ideological prescription for religious and political tyranny is best represented by Brigid O'Shaughnessy, the duplicitous, lying, victim-card-happy dame and Spade’s true nemesis who committed the original murder.

Anyone who has a problem with Islam being represented by a murderess, well, deal with it.

16 comments:

Damien said...

Edward Cline,

I think Breivik, may really have been the culprit. I don't think he was a fall guy. However, it will be clear to any person who just uses a bit of logic, that his views on Islam or cultural Marxism, say nothing about other people who oppose such things.

Ted Kaczynski was an environmentalist, who become a terrorist known as the "Unibomber."

Does that make all environmentalists, terrorists? Does Al Gore or the Green Party openly advocate murdering people? Regardless of your thoughts on the environmental movement, its absurd to label all environmentalists as terrorists, who are willing to murder innocent people, or even claim that environmentalism taken to its logical conclusion would lead to murdering innocent people based on what Kaczynski had choosen to do.

The actions of one man, who happens to be a part of a movement, does not mean that everyone else in that movement would do the same, or even support him. His actions might even be contrary to the movement that he claims to support.

Drew said...

Damien, I'm confused. Where did you get the idea that Mr. Cline said, or even suggested, that all environmentalists are terrorists?

Not all people that supported the Nazis or communists openly advocated, or even personally supported the killing that ensued. But that does not change the fact that, in theory and practice, those ideologies are wicked, they sanction the destruction of innocents, and the supporters and apologists of such ideologies bear a degree of moral responsibility for the evil committed in it's name. Human misery and mass death are the rather obvious results of any ideology that advocates wholesale squashing individual freedom---including environmentalism and Islam, regardless of what some cherry-picking ideological compromiser who "just cares about the planet" or "finds comfort in prayer and submission".

Contrasting the individual-rights advocates who are courageous enough to publicly call Islam out on it's homophobic, misogynistic, death-worshipping ways, NONE of those people would even remotely suggest killing innocents, no matter how evil their personal ideological convictions are---it flatly contradicts their advocacy of freedom and individual rights! Meanwhile, some nutjob kills, and his confusions and delusions are so obvious, but he is put in the camp of all critics of Islam etc.

Richard said...

I think you're reaching here in thinking that Anders was involved with Islamic terrorists or that there's some kind of setup.

Simply seems to me that he is a member of dark age religion A and takes himself seriously enough to oppose with force dark age religion B. A one man crusade from hundreds of years ago brought to the modern world.

If you check out his "manifesto" you'll see all kinds of accusations about marxists/leftists/muslims/egalitarianism/multiculturalism. So it makes sense to me that someone like that would just go ahead and kill off the future supporters of that movement. On top of which it was rumored the prime minister may have been scheduled to speak there. But ultimately it's expecting too much to look for reason and common sense from a psycho like this.

Damien said...

Drew,

I never suggested that MR. Cline thought that all environmentalists were terrorists. I was just giving an example of the fallacy that some people commit when they judge a movement, or an idea by the actions one person who happens to be a part of that movement, or have that idea may take. I'm sorry if I confused you.

Damien said...

I was just trying to show give an example how we can fight those who will try to use Breivik to smear people critical of Islam, or downplay Islamic terrorism.

Damien said...

Drew,

By the way, I don't support eco terrorism, but I don't agree with you on environmentalism, and also, there are some pretty good reasons to want to protect to the planet, and one of them is long term human well being, and that includes your well being. Only bad environmental policies lead to poverty and mass death.

Anonymous said...

Breivik sounds like a Traditionalist Conservative that just went nuts and killed as many Leftists as he could. He hated "marxists/leftists/muslims/egalitarianism/multiculturalism." Well, I hate those things too but I am not going to go kill Leftists. But I think this phenomenon is going to occur more, especially as the Left's destruction of Western civilization worsens.

This is going to happen at some point in America too. You are going to get a Conservative who just loses it, takes his guns and his ammo collection an unloads on "liberals". Then you can bet everything you own that the Left will respond by trying to criminalize non-Leftist thought - which is what hard core Leftists want more than anything.

I wouldn't be shocked if some Objectivist or Rand-fan one day up an emptied his gun on "liberals". It can happen with any group. We Are going to see violence rise against our Leftist overlords at some point in time. I suggest we brace ourselves for the inevitable.


Ed, another great piece. You are one of the few bright spots among Objectivist bloggers and commentators who as a rule tend to be boring, rationalistic, and afflicted with a quasi-Leftist psychology. If Objectivism had a thousand men like you and Dr. Brook, we could conquer the world.

Jack

Drew said...

Damien,

Thanks for the intellectual exchange.

I don't think "the planet" needs protecting. Human's need to protect themselves from the planet: that's the essence of human survival, and it's achieved best when people are free to pursue their life void of arbitrary, coercive interference from government or criminals. The government should protect property rights, not carve out vast tracts of wilderness and say "off limits...we don't care if the resources here could me used to fuel hospitals and manufacture life sustaining medical products, etc.."

Believe me, I understand the emotional appeal of wanting to save nature and protect biodiversity: two of my favorite hobbies involve fishkeeping and the rare and beautiful world of cariverous plants. Wetland destruction for subdivisions and strip-malls or Amazon river destruction kinda hurts. But I also understand that the fact that I can enjoy the fish or plants is a direct consequence of, and only of, capitalism. Consider the fact that I can live in such luxury and comfort, that instead of fretting about hunger and disease, I can spend hours a week studying and tending to my fish and plants in climate contolled tanks and houses with technology made dirt cheap (thanks to capitalism).

My research and casual discoveries have led me to view the environmental problems in places such as the amazon
basin to be a consequence of the ABSENCE of capitalism and property rights. The short-range, slash and burn, river-dumping policy of those responsible destroying forest is a typical result of human activity where there is little incentive to invest in long range planning and production (as happens where there are no property rights).

An example of where capitalism and property rights are in harmony with human-value oriented nature protection is with the aquarium fish trade. There are many who own sections of river and use their property to catch fish to be sold on the aquarium trade: they apply reason and science by extracting only enough fish to sustain the population, and have no incentive to destroy the environment: they exploit it for their own long-range benefit. Consider the Brazil nut growers who keep old growth forest intact because it promotes the best yield of nuts if the trees grow among the other plants and animals: there is no incentive to raze the forest until all the brazil nut trees are gone. Even if property owners/farmers needed to chop down forest to grow their crop, it is through technological advancements created in a capitalistic system that have led to exponential increases in yield to farmland ratios, among other achievements.

Consider one of the rarest plants on earth: the Venus fly-trap. It exists only in the 50 mile radius of the coastal North/South Carolina border, yet I can go to wal-mart or almost any garden centre at sometime during the year, and find one for 5-10 bucks. Why? Capitalism. People have figured out how to propagate and grow them cheaply, created demand, and the need to poach them from the wild has diminished dramatically. Granted, housing development has erased the flytrap's habitat a lot, but what's driven the expansionist coastal suburbs? Although
a plant has no"right" to it's habitat, the US gov't policy of subsidizing the housing insurance risk in hurricane zones as well as the subprime lending contributes vastly to the expansion of houses into ecologically sensitive areas that (I submit) would otherwise be much more limited for human development.

Another thing (as I could go on and on) is to compare the oil industry in Canada (where operations are effectively privatized) vs. all the statist regimes throughout the world. Which has better environmental record? And it's not regulations that cause a constantly cleaner and wilderness preserving (granted that wilderness does not have intrinsic value)---it's the profit motive and drive toward efficiency.

Damien said...

Drew,

You do realize that if you were to remove all the oxygen from the Earth's atmosphere, we would all suffocate to death. Also if our atmosphere was much thinner like Mar's atmosphere, our tissues would too much outward pressure relative to the inward pressure of the atmosphere and we would die. If the atmosphere was too thick, we would be crushed to death. If there were too many green house gases in our atmosphere like Venues, it would be too hot for us to survive. Also its not just the atmosphere the Earth that makes it habitable. Think about the distance to the sun. If it were too close, it would be too hot for liquid water, and if it were to far from the sun it would be too cold for liquid. Liquid water is something that all life that we know of, needs to survive.

We can debate what is better for the environment, government intervention, or free market capitalism, but either way we should care for our planet, because at the very least, we know of no other place in the universe where we can survive without a space suit. Also, I'm a subscriber to the Rare Earth Hypothesis, which if it is correct, planets suitable for multicellular life like us are rare. If complex life was abandonment, throughout the galaxy, why haven't we made contact with an extraterrestrial civilization yet, or at the very least confirmed a transmission from another star? Even terraforming a planet like Mars, could take a thousand years, if not more with our current technology.

Had the Earth never become a habitable planet, or even one suited for more than simple single celled organisms, humans would not be here. So why shouldn't we worry about the long term well being of the planet? We need planets like Earth to survive right now, and Earth is the only one we know of.

If you think surviving on Earth is hard, think about what it would take to survive on any other planet in the solar system, under its current conditions. It would be very tough, and you would need a lot of technology, in some cases, technology we don't even have yet.

Damien said...

Drew,

By the way, I tend to agree with you about capitalism in general being good for the environment. I do however, think that in some instances government intervention maybe justified.

Edward Cline said...

Drew, Jack: I no longer reply or acknowledge anything "Damien" posts here. He's a troll, a nickpicker, and a seeker of feet of clay. To get into a "dialogue" with him is to chase his tail while he more or less treats this page as his own personal bulletin board, classroom, and salon. He's always got to have the last word. So, let him have it. It's his reputation. Ed

Damien said...

Edward Cline,

If you don't like me fine. I'm sorry you feel that way, but I'm not a troll. I don't post comments here just to be mean, or to be argumentative. Just because I may disagree with you sometimes, does not make me a troll. I think that I can contribute to the conversation.

However, maybe I shouldn't have gotten off topic.

Drew said...

Thanks for the warning, Ed, and thanks for the stellar articles. I still haven't read your books, but I was wondering if there's a way to order a signed copy(s)?

I suppose I'd have to browse previous blog comments to verify what your saying about Damien. It's not self-evident to me that Damien is trolling. How do you determine if someone is a troll anyway? I'm really fascinated by the phenomenon. I have personally felt like lashing out at someone on a forum by calling them a troll, and have seen other Objectivists do this online, and wonder if it's generally improper because it leads observers to see Objectivists as the smears and charicatures often made by it's enemies. It's almost as if there are people out there whose aim is to turn intentionally turn Objectivist blog comments into a a confusing mess, and when the Objectivist---after painstaking effort, generosity, and patience---finally throws their hands in the air at the incessant evading and seemingly deliberate context dropping, and loses patience, the "troll" then goes back to his own forum and blog and says, "see, Objectivists are just dogmatic, intolerant, and mean, look at what they said to me when all I did was pose some questions". I've seen this on the Bahnsen burner blog, and at the ARCHN blog, for instance.

@Damien. I'm not saying I'm describing you (based on what I've seen so far).

I must say, however, that your previous comments ranged from irrelevant to arbitrary. Not to mention a morass of unsubstantiated presuppositions that by some undefined means of government "sometimes" needs to protect the environment or the planet will be destroyed? WTF?

Damien said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Damien said...

Drew,

I was just responding to what you had written. I realize now, however that I shouldn't have gotten off topic. Its a bad habit of mine. On a few other blogs I have ended up getting into arguments with other people commenting on the thread that veered way off course, because someone said something that I disagreed with and I Thought it would be good thing if I corrected them, and I felt the urge to argue with them over it. I could go into much more detail about what I meant, but its probably not a good idea here. If you can think of some other place to discuss my views on environmentalism, we can do it there. But I now realize that maybe it was bit inappropriate of me to get into an argument over the topic here, since it isn't really related to the topic of this thread.

Slade Calhoun said...

I am so tired of people who cannot see the forest because of the trees. Mr. Cline, in my estimation, was not born to be a troll swatter. Buzz off.