The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
So, it's been a little over two days since the Norway shootings, and the media is having a grand old time pointing to monstrous terrorist Anders Behring Breivik and indirectly lumping him together with conservatives the world over. You can hear New York Magazine chortling as they write the headline "Far-Right Norwegian Confesses to Oslo Bombing, Youth Camp Shooting." They were not as enamored of the Discovery Channel shooter, who did not merit the designation "Far-Left."
The left attempts to link every ideology it doesn't like with violence (i.e. Tea Party) while simultaneously making the point that no ideology is free of crazies, and that therefore, no ideology can be held responsible for its crazies. Either the right wing accepts monsters like Breivik as honest representatives of conservatism, the argument goes, or they have to stop treating Osama Bin Laden and his ilk as honest representatives of radical Islam.
This is silly. I propose a two-prong test to determine whether an ideology ought to bear culpability for the terroristic violence of its adherents against particular targets:
(1) A large percentage -- say, more than 20% of the ideology's adherents -- support terroristic violence against the target at issue;
(2) The ideology itself contemplates violent terroristic action against the target at issue.
That doesn't hold for Breivik, at least not if we're trying to link him to mainstream European conservatism. No form of European conservatism of which I am aware condones or even contemplates the mass shooting of European schoolkids. And no European conservatives -- or at least very few -- would endorse this evil act.
Now, try it on militant Islam. Certainly more than 20% of radical Islamists support terror against their usual targets -- in fact, more than 20% of Muslims support such violence, period. And there's no question that radical Islam openly contemplates violence. So let's stop these idiotic comparisons. Breivik is a sick exception. Bin Laden is far closer to a rule.
- Comment (26)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (6)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
Nice litmus test, Ben. I think you're on to something here. But, this test will only convince those with rational-based ideologies. Won't have a whit of an effect on our MSM.
Let's try out your test on the unions in Wisconsin -- I definitely think that well more than 20% of the union thugs and union members think it's OK to threaten violence to individual legislators and other Republicans and to despoil (a form of violence) the capitol building of Wisconsin. So -- culpable, definitely.
How about the thugs in the street who were upset about the cops getting off for the Rodney King beating? Yes, definitely. How about Maxine Waters? Is she culpable? Yes, definitely.
Dec '10
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
Nice shot, right out of the box.
Good start for the kid.
Keep 'em coming.
Oct '10
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
Larry Koler: “But, this test will only convince those with rational-based ideologies. Won't have a whit of an effect on our MSM.”
Amen and that's the problem. We can win the logic-test every time and . . . so what? I mean, it's better than not winning the logic-test. But it has no impact on MSM and very little on the broader public. So maybe we just shouldn't bother to argue? What if talking heads on the right just steadfastly replied "...won't dignify that with a response until you start asking the same question of Liberals when they shoot someone. Next?" This is pure fantasy, I realize, because—let’s face it—talking heads get paid to . . . talk! So they will, regardless of the inanity of the questions. Far be it from me to impact their livelihood.
Apr '11
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
Try a one part test:
The ideology itself contemplates violent terroristic action against the target at issue.
As long as some percentage, even a very small one, of the followers of the ideology will pursue acts of violence, (say even if only .1% of the total (1.3 B muslims x .1% = 1.3 million potential Muslim terrorists)) we still have a very serious problem. Lesson: Its the ideology, not how popular it is.
Oct '10
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
Sarkozy, Merkel and Cameron share the same views on multiculturalism as this Norwegian.
Dec '10
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
Doesn't terrorism seek to use violence and fear to accomplish something? Was this guy even trying to achieve a specific end? If not, I wonder if the label of terrorist even fits.
Jul '10
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
This is silly.
...idiotic comparisons..
I like Yer style, Shapiro.
Hay, Warwick,
How about x.01% with nukes?
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
I'm puzzled by your nomenclature, Ben. No one--on the Left or the Right would argue that OBL isn't representative of radical or militant Islam. The argument is whether OBL is representative of Islam. Who exactly is seriously arguing that we shouldn't judge radical Islamists because OBL was a bad apple?
Apr '11
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
I am not puzzled.
No one on the Left?
Come hang out on Twitter, Claire, we'll have a grand old time. :)
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
I do believe that many on the left would argue that militant or radical Islam isn't the problem -- there are terrorists of all stripes. That's why they leap on incidents like this. They want to make it appear that all ideologies are equal, and that violence is a symptom of a few crazies, not of any ideologies whatsoever. The truth is that it's not a symptom of conservatism, but it is a symptom of radical Islam.
May '10
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
Ben, they don't want to portray all ideologies as equal. They believe Christianity, capitalism, conservatism and such are evil. Islam is protected from criticism because it is perceived as anti-West and anti-Christian.
They hushed up the Islamic elements of the Fort Hood shooting precisely because they are incapable of distinguishing between radical Islam and moderate Islam. Religion in the Left's thinking is defined by "spirituality" and multicultural equivocation. They are unwilling to accept the significance of specific creeds.
They cannot acknowledge a difference between moderate Islam and radical Islam without also acknowledging the differences between various Christians, which they refuse to do (except when attacking the Church).
Their smears of the Tea Party movement as violent racists do not suggest a general tendency to dismiss violence as "a symptom of a few crazies". They are quite willing to paint ideologies as dangerous, but only ideologies of the Right.
They protect Islam because they consider it an enemy of their enemy (us).
Jan '11
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
can someone please tell me if he is mentally ill (schizophrenia etc) or just evil?
Jun '10
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
Aaron: Nicely stated.
In almost all issues what the Left says is not what they are really concerned with. (They never dare to say their true intentions.) These issues (Islamism, feminism, racism, equality) are just sticks that they use to beat people with. They are not really attached to them. The pawns that they draw into their movements -- now they believe. But they will never get and hold power in these systems. This modern form of Marxism -- as in all of its forms in history -- always awards maximum power to the most evil man in the room. (Just think about unions with the voice vote rather than the secret ballot.)
Equality means nothing at all. After all, they just are scrambling to be on top of the dead corpse of this country (after they kill us) when it finally slumps to the floor.
It's all about power and who's on top. They take advantage of the essential decency and conscience of Americans. This is a most amoral movement in history. They have no thought of tomorrow or of an afterlife. Why would they operate any differently.
Jul '10
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
In the days following 9/11 investigators found hundreds of millions of dollars from state actors and Muslim oligarchs spent to support al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. This in addition to "charities" devoted to the funding of terrorist organizations, some being Muslim organizations rooted in and funded by the West.
And the Oslo shooter had...?
The other good news, the gentle justice system of Norway assures us that the shooter cannot be sentenced to more than 21 years. Their gift to the world is that this man will be free as a bird around 2032. Reaping the rewards of a kinder, more civilized Europe.
Edited on Jul 24, 2011 at 10:14pmAug '10
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
Erik,
It appears he was evil. He posted a video about the Knights Templar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAwp2FnRmsE&skipcontrinter=1
Mar '11
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
Robert Spencer, and others - but that's another topic.
Strangely enough, BBC TV is currently running a well-balanced 3-part series on this very topic - only available in the UK, hopefully it will make its way across the Atlantic - but it's maybe too controversial (Iran has condemned it). I can't imagine PBS running it.
One more thought - it was mainstream Islam that attacked Iran, and converted it. And the current Iranian government is mainstream, at least in the Shia current. And need I mention the Saudi-funded Wahhabis on the Sunni side?
Anyway, it's well over Ben's 20%, however you define it.
Edited on Jul 25, 2011 at 1:53amNov '10
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
ABB's moral reasoning is distinctive. He is not a psychopath. He has no known history of enjoying violence for its own sake, and he acknowledges that his actions were "atrocious". Rather, he claims his actions were necessary. In his mind, maybe they were. But if so, then he was acting on principle--not out of hatred for his immediate victims. And as such, his act would not be a hate crime, but a principle crime.
This is an important point. In terms of what ABB hated, and how much he hated it -- encroaching Islamification, political correctness, etc. -- he may not have differed much from mainstream conservatives. He differed, rather, in the means he considered legitimate to abolish what he hated.
Specifically, he erred in rashly discounted the viability of other means, and callously discounted the value of innocent life. Even inevitable Islamic supremacy does not justify murder; subordination would still be preferable.
Ron Swanson
Nov '10
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
How could OBL be "representative of Islam" when this very phrase seems to presuppose some kind of ideal or essence as to what Islam really is, an essence which Claire denies Islam contains? Oh sure, in a banal sense, OBL is not representative of Islam because he does not represent how the majority of Muslims live or practice. But I'm not sure that's just what Claire means.
I should very much like to know how the phrase "representative of Islam" gets an exemption from Claire's reiterated claim that there is absolutely no essence whatever to Islam. If there is no essence whatever, then it seems that ANY permutation of Islamic practice, however benign or invidious, would necessarily fail to be "representative of Islam." The particulars defeat any universal concept or statement that can be made.
(And for the record, I don't think there is an essence to Islam, if by "essence" we mean the religion is intrinsically bellicose; or that it makes all its believers as such. It would be mistaken to deny that essence and variegated cultural permutations of a religion are inconsistent).
Edited on Jul 25, 2011 at 5:32amRe: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
Robert Lux How could OBL be "representative of Islam" when this very phrase seems to presuppose some kind of ideal or essence as to what Islam really is, an essence which Claire denies Islam contains.
I think we need to be clearer about who is saying what. I believe Ben is exasperated with an argument we're now seeing a lot of in the media: "If you don't want all right-wing-anti-multiculturalist-anti-communist-Europeans to be judged by the actions of one mass murderer, then don't judge all Muslims by the actions of one (or ten thousand) mass murderers." Ben, I believe, is trying to argue that the first mass murderer is in no way representative of right-wing-anti-multiculturalist-anti-communist-Europeans, but OBL is representative of Islam. I disagree with that argument, but it makes sense in terms of nomenclature. However, to distinguish between the kind of Islam OBL practices and the kind, say, that our member Humza practices, most people call the former "radical" or "militant" Islam. Not even the most perverse moral relativist of the left, I don't think, would deny that OBL is an expression of radical Islam.
May '11
Re: The Oslo Monster and the Rules of Violent Ideology
I have a more simple test. When adherents come pouring into the streets to celebrate the act of terrorism, it is representative. Similarly, when you are afraid to show pictures of the dead terrorist for fear of inflaming the adherents , it is representative.