Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
The Greater Threat: Christian Extremism From Timothy McVeigh to Anders Breivik
Timothy McVeigh, meet Anders Behring Breivik.
Christian jihadists: Timothy McVeigh and Anders Behring Breivik.
Those two jihadists—two right-wing reactionaries, two terrorists, two anti-government white supremacists, two Christians—have a lot in common, down to the way the massacres they carried out were first mistaken for the work of Islamists by an American press rich in zealotry of its own. And they have a lot more in common with the fundamentalist politicians and ideologues among us who pretend to have nothing to do with the demons they inspire.
After the Oklahoma City bombing in April 1995, speculation flew on television news stations about Arab terrorists seen in the vicinity of the federal building. The thought that a home-grown, Midwestern Army veteran of the first Gulf war could possibly murder 168 people, including 19 children at a day care center, seemed as foreign as those Islamic lands that were then inspiring so much of bigotry’s latest American mutant. McVeigh turned out to be as all-American as he could possibly be, with extras. His paradoxical worship of the Second Amendment was the faith that fueled his hatred of a government he felt had betrayed American ideals by enabling what he called “Socialist wannabe slaves.” His idealism of a golden-age white America was the Christian translation of al-Qaeda’s idealized caliphate.
It became quickly evident that the bombing in Oslo and the massacre on Utoya Island on Friday had been carried out by Anders Breivik, who surrendered to police 40 minutes after beginning his killing spree on the island. Yet the Wall Street Journal ran an editorial on Saturday putting the blame for the attack on Islamist extremists, because “in jihadist eyes,” the paper said, “it will forever remain guilty of being what it is: a liberal nation committed to freedom of speech and conscience, equality between the sexes, representative democracy and every other freedom that still defines the West."
The paper subsequently amended its editorial to concede that Breivik “was an ethnic Norwegian with no previously known ties to Islamist groups.” But the rest of the piece still framed the attack in the context of Islamist terrorism. It’s a common tactic at the Journal and Fox News—co-owned by Rupert Murdoch’s scandal-riddled News Corp.—where facts are incidental to ideology. It is enough for the Journal to insinuate a connection for its Foxified audience to catch the drift and run with it. Breivik may be Norwegian. But he wouldn’t be doing what he did if it weren’t for the pollution of white, Christian European blood by Muslims and multiculturalists, by leftists, by Socialist wannabe slaves.
McVeigh and Breivik are bloody reminders that Western culture’s original sin—the presumption of supremacy—is alive and well and clenching many a trigger. It’ll be easy in coming days, as it was in 1995, to categorize the demons as exceptions unrepresentative of their societies. Easy, but false. Norway, like much of Europe, like the United States, is in the grips of a disturbing resurgence of right-wing fanaticism. “The success of populist parties appealing to a sense of lost national identity,” The Times reports, “has brought criticism of minorities, immigrants and in particular Muslims out of the beer halls and Internet chat rooms and into mainstream politics. While the parties themselves generally do not condone violence, some experts say a climate of hatred in the political discourse has encouraged violent individuals."
It’s convenient duplicity. The parties don’t explicitly condone violence. But they would have no appeal without explicitly endorsing beliefs of supremacy and projecting the sort of scorn and hatred for those who fall outside the tribe that cannot but lead to violence or the sort of fractured society we’ve become so familiar with. Those “Take Back America” bumper stickers share most of their DNA with the same strain of rejectionist white Europeans who think their culture is being bankrupted by Socialism and immigrants. Those idiotic anti-Sharia laws creeping up in Oklahoma, Arizona and Florida take their cues from the likes of Geert Wilder, the Dutch People’s Party leader who compares the Koran to Hitler’s Mein Kampf. Florida’s own Koran-burning Terry Jones or the Rev. Franklin Graham’s velvety crusade against Islam are Wilder’s American clones.
Timothy McVeigh’s rhetoric may have been more extreme, but it was indistinguishable from the more college-polished and aged rhetoric of anti-government reactionaries now pretending to speak for American ideals under the banner of patriots, tea parties, Fox News’s hacking of the “fair and balanced” parody, or more establishment oriented zealots in Congress. The common denominator is exclusion and heresy: those who supposedly belong to “true” American values, and those who don’t. Al-Qaeda’s loyalty oath is identical: those who belong to “true” Islamic values and those who don’t. Either way, the inclusive, tolerant, broad-minded, and yes, multicultural outlook is under siege by fundamentalism in virtually every part of society as we know it: cultural, political, economic, religious. Timothy McVeigh and Anders Breivik used bombs and rifles. More seasoned zealots use rhetoric and policies. The ongoing march of folly over the national debt is merely one example among many.
“We tend to think of national security narrowly as the risk of a military or terrorist attack,” the columnist Nicholas Kristof writes today. “But national security is about protecting our people and our national strength — and the blunt truth is that the biggest threat to America’s national security this summer doesn’t come from China, Iran or any other foreign power. It comes from budget machinations, and budget maniacs, at home.”
Islamists who may want us harm need only sit back and enjoy the view. They might as well have outsourced the job to their Christian brethren, with plenty of assists from mainstream conservatives. There’s no segregating these demons and maniacs. They’re an integral part of western culture. They’re us.
111 Comments so far
Show AllMcVeigh and Breivik are individual right-wing terrorists but our world also has institutionalized right-wing terrorists. In Latin America, it is the national army, often trained and armed by the USA, that assassinates political leaders, tries to destroy whole political parties, kills women and children, destroys whole villages.
What they both are: young men, feeling dispossessed, looking for glory through decimating the most vulernable targets they can find. It gives them a feeling of superiority, manliness. That's what makes up most of our nations' armies. And we celebrate them? They are no long soldiers, public servants...they are "heros". We should be very careful of what we "celebrate". And death and destruction should never be our next party theme.
Timothy McVeigh, is intertwined with Bill Clinton and Janet Reno - Waco and Ruby Ridge. Who were the first terrorists and how many women and children did they kill?
In a world where mis-info, propaganda & deception comes in the form of mains-stream views & NEWS, we must be mindful & consider possible alternative views- because there may be more to it than meets the eye.
So on that note- Note this article in Vanity Fair by Gore Vidal entited 'The Meaning of Timothy McVeigh' @ www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2001/09/mcveigh200109?printable=true
Some may want to dismiss Mr Vidal's article as so-called 'Conspiracy Theory' [or absolves McVeigh & blames the Gov't]. BUT just as the Gov't's official version of 9-11 is by definition a 'conspiracy theory'- so is the Gov't's official version of the OKC bombing- IE: Tim McVeigh was accused along w Terry Nichols & Mr Mike Fortier [the Gov't's key state's witness who in-turn was given a greatly reduced sentence] were all involved in the OKC plot- thus by definition their case was based on a Conspiracy Theory!
This is not to pass judgment on the tragic events in Norway at this time. It is far too early to make an informed assessment & jump to conclusions - as those MSNM News outlets' so-called 'Experts' did when falsely pointing to Al-Qaeda / Islamic 'Terrorists', etc...
An illustration of just how much our minds are controlled... In both the case of the OKC bombing & now the recent Norway Bombing, a fertilizer bomb was used - IE: Commercialized petro-chem fertilizer was the base material for those bombs. Few folks ever pose the question [assuming the official account is valid]- Why is it that you can take the stuff they grow our food with & mix it w fuel-oil & set it off w a dynamite fuse AND LITERALLY BLOW A LARGE 9 STORY CONCRETE STEEL REINFORCED BLDG IN HALF??!! DAMN- This is what they GROW OUR FOOD WITH??!!
These craven killers aren't really believers in any faith or even totally "human", or they couldn't take lives so lightly. They aren't really thinking adults or they would have realized what they were doing was wrong.
"Islamists who may want us harm need only sit back and enjoy the view. They might as well have outsourced the job to their Christian brethren, with plenty of assists from mainstream conservatives. There’s no segregating these demons and maniacs. They’re an integral part of western culture. They’re us."
What is your point? To incite Islamic hatred?
I suggest all religions have wreaked havoc on mankind for various reasons throughout the ages, but they had nothing to do with faith or beliefs and everything to do with power and property rights. The rest of us just get sucked in to it if we let ourselves. Bush's wars and Obama's war in Libya just prove this. The fact that we allow ourselves to be sucked in doesn't absolve us from our responsibility. Those that pick up arms that can kill and use them make a personal decision. The fact that you do it for glory or patriotism doesn't absolve you from the individual responsiblity of killing, in the name of the church, the state, whatever...you still did the killing.
I suggest most of these things are caused by maladjusted underdeveloped males that are attempting to prove their manhood and superiority by killing those least likely to present them with any real resistance.
Yes to all of the above... now the question is: will anyone admit to this mania being present in themselves?
We have some of the most self-absorbed people you could ever find anywhere... my right-thinking friends are convinced that corruption and thuggish misrule are things that only happen elsewhere, far away. They would never admit for a moment that their ideology has been responsible for some seriously inhumane behavior. Don't mention Pinochet's Chile, or the colossal domestic prison industrial phenomenon, or that policies arising from corporate influence have so destabilized the horn of Africa it has resulted in the situation we find there today. The disconnect is powerful and final for them.
For such people, ignorance is amnesty.
Great comments, thank you. USAn's have been instilled with mindlessness by the propaganda of happy talk, psychobabble optimism, sociopath-psychopathic exceptionalism, to be narcissistic, consumerist, gluttons. Mindlessness is institutionalized and trumpeted by the government, businesses, pretend christian false doctrines which gives it legitimacy with peer pressure. Each prisoner is a profit center. All of this in funded by the forced contributions, withholding taxes, by taxing labor then the USG transfers wealth confiscated from labor to the WEALTHY & CORPORATIST WELFARE KINGS, where it is used to bribe the politicians for the Pentagon protection racket scheme to protect the worldwide assets of the WELFARE KINGS many of which pay little or no taxes for protection. Al Capone was an ethical gangster, Al would only protect those that paid for it. The USG is an unethical gangster and the Wall St., Wash., DC Axis of Evil, AoE, is a criminal conspiracy to inflict gangsterism worldwide, murdering stealing, lying, bribing all funded by the FORCED CONTRIBUTIONS, withholding taxes, by taxing the labor of USAn's.
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
- Stephen Weinberg, physicist, Nobel Laureate -
But if those "good" people are capable of being motivated into "evil" by an outside force were they truly "good": to begin with? I think that's a cop out. I think a few of the prophets would agree with me. The individual always has a choice. What they do with it is ultimately a personal responsibility.
gardernerocal wrote:
"I suggest all religions have wreaked havoc on mankind for various reasons throughout the ages, but they had nothing to do with faith or beliefs and everything to do with power and property rights."
I disagree with you. Much of the havoc that religions have wreaked upon mankind have had everything to do with theological disputes (faith or beliefs). These theological disputes often involved issues of power or control, but many of them such as the Arian controversy involved purely theological issues. Other examples include the persecution of Cathars, Anabaptists, and other so-called heretics. The history of the U.S. is replete with instances of Christian sects persecuting other Christian sects over issues that were purely theological in nature. They had nothing to do with property rights.
Witness also the dispute between Sunni and Shiite Muslims. There are many other examples that are too numerous to detail.
gardenerocal further wrote:
"But if those "good" people are capable of being motivated into "evil" by an outside force were they truly "good": to begin with? I think that's a cop out. I think a few of the prophets would agree with me. The individual always has a choice. What they do with it is ultimately a personal responsibility."
I believe that Weinberg's statement is coherent and logically consistent. Good people can be motivated to commit evil by an outside agency. The individual ultimately has personal responsibility, but that does not absolve an agent, such as religion, of the role that it plays in motivating an individual to commit evil.
Your assertion that "the individual always has a choice" has been called into question by a number of philosophical arguments and neuroscience research. Humans may not have "free will".
PHOTIUS: Interesting post and well-presented points. My "take" from Gardener is a wish to disabuse readers of seeing any possible organizational framework, or right wing programming as a FACTOR (note I did not say the ONLY factor, as individuals do hold some personal responsibility) that plays into the type of behavior seen by one lone nut job going off the deep-end.
A similar position is taken about porn. Certainly not every male who "consumes" porn goes out to become a rapist or serial killer; yet most who do fall into that dark bracket, as they were in fact helped along by porn.
A nation with lax gun laws leads to an armed citizenry. Once again, the majority may use their weapons "responsibly," or own enough self-control not to let loose in a killing rampage over a lost paycheck... but the ones who DO let loose, are also helped along by access to guns.
Its a slippery slope to ANY society when it seeks to define a balance between individual rights and the greater good. That definitive boundary becomes far more difficult when the society, as a whole, places such emphasis on violence.
Movies are largely violent
Cartoons are often violent!
Rap "music" is often violent
Food based on slaughtering animals or turning the plant kingdom into genetic slavery is violently produced
When a nation's budget gives its greatest share to war & weapons' makers, that is violent
When there are police, highway patrol officers, sheriffs, DEA, Marine Patrol, Homeland Security, FBI, CIA and whatever else... that is violent, especially when it leads to 2.2 million persons incarcerated, and millions more locked into the "prison industrial" complex
Turniing soldiers into heros is violent
The way nature is treated, in such sickening items as mountain top blasting to get to coal, is inordinately violent
Forcing children's minds to line up uniformly so they might earn their status (in the pecking order) through inane testing is violent
And then there's Fox faux "news" demonizing Muslims, and hate radio drumming up all the angst (for lost social programs) and purposely misdirecting them at the most vulnerable targets.
And on and on.
I was thinking today how hard it is for someone like me to BE in the world today. That truly we live inside the belly of the beast, the land where Mars rules; and that places the mystic, peace activist, environmentalist at a HUGE loss. Our sensibilities are daily shattered by the lies, carelessness, and crude disregard that passes for norms! Meanwhile, less people understand what's real, as so many have been programmed by a mass media machine that is invested in all the violent applications I've cited.
In such a climate it's a wonder that MORE don't go off the deep-end and leave not with a whimper, but by instead putting their own Big Bang to work! How better to take others along for the "ride."
Or we could dump this New Age bullshit, start a revolution, and actually bring down the oligarchs. Far easier though to be pacified (goo, goo, goo) by spiritual pretend isn't it?
Don't be a hater Guitarist. Can't you see how hard it is for an older white rentier class woman just to BE in the world,
guitarist: Different computer languages allow you to do different programming tasks more easily. You can see this intention in the names of the languages: LISP is for LISt Processing. FORTRAN stands for FORmula TRANslation. COBOL is COmmon Business Oriented Language. Although there is a lot of functional overlap, the different languages make different things easier to do. If you are stuck using only one language there are some tasks that will be much more difficult, if not impossible, to do.
There are different ways of thinking. They use different symbols and different relational structures. Some thoughts are easier to formulate in one way of thinking than another. In the same way that someone who hasn't studied algebra may think that a quadratic equation is a bunch of mumbo-jumbo, you are tossing aside systems of thought and knowledge that have existed for ages as "New Age bullshit." Tarot Cards, the I Ching and Astrology all have symbols and relational structures that, once learned, can make thinking about emotions, life and its meaning easier. They are different languages of thought.
Just because it doesn't fit into your way of thinking does not mean that it lacks value or that it cannot be used to help people gain greater understanding of themselves and the forces at play in their lives and in the lives of others.
Don't mock what you do not understand.
I prefer another old school computer metaphor, garbage in, garbage out!
GIGO.
Sigh!!!!
AS the proverb states "better to burn out than fade way".
Your Points are well taken & well articulated!
WE do live in the belly of the beast, the Beast of Revelations, Globalization, the one world system. The Beast of Revelations is a system and the system best suited to define the Beast is Globalized Capital, the international banksters, the new colonizers which colonizes the assets and resources, destroying societies. The USA was RECOLONIZED in 1913, the implementation of the Federal Reserve Rube Goldberg system of permanent indebtedness. The USA is RECOLONIZED for cannon fodder[troops for WW1]weapons systems and treasure.
There was no Beast of Revelations. The New Testament Text is the Book of Revelation, not Revelations.
Always a special treat to read your wisdom!
Photius wrote:
"Much of the havoc that religions have wreaked upon mankind have had everything to do with theological disputes (faith or beliefs). These theological disputes often involved issues of power or control, but many of them such as the Arian controversy involved purely theological issues. Other examples include the persecution of Cathars, Anabaptists, and other so-called heretics. The history of the U.S. is replete with instances of Christian sects persecuting other Christian sects over issues that were purely theological in nature. They had nothing to do with property rights."
This statement is profoundly anachronistic. There were no "religious" wars before the modern period, simply because religion, as a distinct category of policy factors, is a modern invention -- I would say, no earlier than the 18th century. In most times and places, religion was part of an indissoluble "identity package" that also included kinship, ethnicity, and citizenship. Thus, for example, the dispute between Arius and Athanasius was also a struggle for the allegiance of the people of northeastern Europe -- their new Germanic rulers wanted to separate them from their loyalty to the (precisely named) Roman Catholic Church. The Syrians were Monophysites because they disagreed with the Roman church about the exact relationship between God the Father and God the Son, and because they wanted to remain distinct from the Romans; for the Syrians this was one motivation, but we count it as two. Shia Islam was a way for the Persians to become Muslims and remain Persians. (This is a gross simplification, but true enough for my purposes.) The best-known "war of religion", the Thirty Years' War (actually a part of a considerably longer period of warfare) was likewise an inextricably religio-political war which was fundamentally about how much of Europe the Habsburg clan could rule. If you lived in Europe at that time, your opinion of what happened during Communion was necessarily also your opinion of the Habsburg monarchy: If you were pro-Habsburg you were pro-transsubstantiation, and vice versa. After several generations of particularly destructive warfare -- destructive because the objective was the worldview of the target population, not merely its geopolitical assets -- the Peace of Westphalia acknowledged that no religio-political combination was able to rule all of Europe. This did not herald a new age of enlightenment. Instead, the new principle was "cuius regius eius regio" (the faith of the ruler is the faith of the ruled) -- in effect, reproducing on the level of the individual state what had been attempted for all of Europe.
My point should be clear by now: The invention of religion as a separate motivational category created an entirely new context for conflict, and conflicts involving religion in this context should not be lumped together with conflicts involving religion in the pre-modern context. Only in this new context can a conflict be "purely theological in nature".
Angry Kraut wrote:
"There were no "religious" wars before the modern period, simply because religion, as a distinct category of policy factors, is a modern invention -- I would say, no earlier than the 18th century."
I would say that the above statement is highly anachronistic. In your lengthy rebuttal you failed to mention the 300 years of holy war that began in the 11th century that we now call "The Crusades". Ander's Breivik in his 1500 page manifesto actually calls for a movement similar to The Crusades to eradicate the scourge of Islamism and "marxist-culturalism" that he feels is plaguing Europe.
Your assertion that "religion, as a distinct category of policy factors, is a modern invention" is simply absurd. What is a modern invention is the doctrine of separation of church and state. In antiquity, no such distinction was made between church and state. Religions from their very inception have acted to create conflicts. Have you ever read the barbarities of the ancient Israelites in the Hebrew Bible. Fortunately, most of the barbarities of the ancient Israelites that are delineated in the Hebrew Bible are not historical but mythical.
Angry Kraut also wrote:
"Thus, for example, the dispute between Arius and Athanasius was also a struggle for the allegiance of the people of northeastern Europe -- their new Germanic rulers wanted to separate them from their loyalty to the (precisely named) Roman Catholic Church."
You failed to acknowledge my assertion that at the heart of the Arian controversy was the theological dispute that concerned the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. This dispute was so important that Constantine the Great convened the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. to resolve the issue.
Angry Kraut also wrote:
" Shia Islam was a way for the Persians to become Muslims and remain Persians. (This is a gross simplification, but true enough for my purposes.)"
I would say that this is a serious gross oversimplification when you examine the dispute between Sunni and Shia Muslims.
The major doctrinal issue at dispute between Sunni and Shia Muslims concerns the leadership of Muslims following the death of the Prophet Muhammad. Another issue that lay at the heart of the dispute is the theological belief of Shia Muslims that the Imam is sinless by nature, and that his authority is infallible as it comes directly from God. Therefore, Shia Muslims often venerate the Imams as saints and perform pilgrimages to their tombs and shrines in the hopes of divine intercession. Sunni Muslims consider these practices to be blasphemous and heretical.
Your differentiation of pre-modern and modern religious conflicts is a false dichotomy. Atrocities are committed in the name of religion now just as they were during antiquity. The only thing that is different is that we now have technology that allows suffering in the name of religion to be exercised against mankind on a level that was unthinkable during antiquity.
"In your lengthy rebuttal you failed to mention ..." a great many other cases of wars in which religion was involved. That's because there were enough of them to fill an encyclopedia. I gave what I thought were enough examples to illustrate my point.
"You failed to acknowledge my assertion that at the heart of the Arian controversy was the theological dispute that concerned the relationship between God the Father and God the Son. This dispute was so important that Constantine the Great convened the Council of Nicea in 325 C.E. to resolve the issue."
We're back to the same thing: I never said that the theological aspect was unimportant. I said that it was bound up with non-theological factors in a way which is very difficult for us now to imagine. The same applies to your "rebuttal" of my comment on Shia Islam: I deny nothing that you asserted; instead I point out its context.
The conquest of the "Promised Land" by the Israelites, and the Crusades somewhat later, were (a) wars to liberate the Holy Land from the infidel and (b) land grabs -- at the same time. I will say no more here about a subject about which many thick books have been written.
I observe also that you castigate all religions equally but all your examples of "religious wars" have to do with the Abrahamic religions. I do not recall the Roman Empire conducting a single war which could be called "religious" even by your definition.
Angry Kraut wrote:
"I observe also that you castigate all religions equally but all your examples of "religious wars" have to do with the Abrahamic religions."
You need to read my posts more closely before you make false accusations such as your above statement. In a reply to a post of Mr. Edwards, I commented on atrocities committed during warfare by Eastern traditions that are sometimes considered to be philosophies instead of religion. They included Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism.
Angry Kraut further wrote:
"The conquest of the "Promised Land" by the Israelites, and the Crusades somewhat later, were (a) wars to liberate the Holy Land from the infidel and (b) land grabs -- at the same time. he conquest of the "Promised Land" by the Israelites, and the Crusades somewhat later, were (a) wars to liberate the Holy Land from the infidel and (b) land grabs -- at the same time."
The Hebrew Bible fairy tail of the ancient Israelites' conquest of Canaan, for which there is little archaeological evidence to support the biblical account, was a land grab that primarily had a theological justification. The theological justification was that the 'Promised Land" was supposedly promised to the descendants of Abraham. The justification for the conquest of the "Promised Land" was not that it needed to be liberated from the infidel. What version of the Hebrew Bible have you been reading? Perhaps you need to read some of those many thick books that have been written on the subject before you say anything else.
After the Maccabeans won independence from the Seleucid Dynasty, were the wars that they waged against surrounding kingdoms that included the forced conversions of peoples that they conquered to Judaism solely of a political nature? If the wars were purely political, why did the Maccabeans forcibly convert gentiles to Judaism?
Angry Kraut further wrote:
"I do not recall the Roman Empire conducting a single war which could be called "religious" even by your definition."
I'm not sure what relevance the wars conducted by the Roman Empire have to the article or our discussion. The Roman Empire was not a theocracy, although it later acted like a theocracy following the ascendancy of Christianity when a succession of Christian emperors following Constantine the Great implemented laws that lead to the persecution of and eradication of pagan religion.
The First Punic War between the Carthaginian Empire and the Roman Republic was primarily geopolitical in origin, but some Roman's also justified the war on the grounds of their disgust over the Carthaginian practice of child sacrifice. Since the Carthaginian's practice of child sacrifice was a religious rite one could argue that for some Romans the First Punic War was waged loosely on religious grounds.
.
deleted
Thank you! I was about to post the Weinberg quote. It's about time we stop pretending that conflating morality with superstition is necessary or desirable.
deleted
Being a Nobel Laureate doesn't necessarily mean you views are NOBLE- Obama is a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, even as he escalated the Afghan / Pakistan War & gave a 'War is Peace' speech where he subtly dissed a Real Man of Peace- Rev Dr ML King. And now he's Bomb, bomb, bombing Libya, as he refuses to even acknowlege it as an act of war...
AND That War Criminal Kissinger is also a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate...
And Mr Privatizer Disaster Capitalist guru Milton Friedman was also a Nobel Laureate...
I don't remember suggesting that Stephen Weinberg's statement on religion was noble because he was a Nobel Prize winner in physics. I pointed out that he was a Nobel Prize winning physicist because it is a prestigious honor, and because there are some in this forum who may not be familiar with him.
I provided an argument to support Weinberg's statement on religion. Rather than provide an intelligent argument to refute Weinberg's statement, you simply falsely associate Weinberg with people such as Barak Obama, Henry Kissinger, and Milton Friedman, who are also Nobel Laureates, who's views you feel are not noble.
dbl post
deleted
so let the psyop begin
this writer should keep his pen dry until the whole psyop has been laid out
there may a second guman:
"Oslo - At least 84 people were killed in a shooting attack Friday on a youth camp near Oslo, police said Saturday, amid reports that a second gunman might have been involved in the shooting.
Police said they were investigating reports that a second man might have been involved in the shooting on Utoya island.
'We have heard the same accounts of a second gunman, and are working hard to establish if that was the case,' Einar Aas of the Oslo police told the online edition of newspaper VG."
http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/europe/news/article_1652773.php/Reports-of-second-gunman-as-Norwegian-death-tolls-hits-91
Anders Behring Breivik's 1,500 page manifesto was directly lifted from the infamous Theodore Kaczynski, better known as “the Unabomber”
hmmm........
btw: Breivik's is available to see on youtube - if it hasn't been taken down
so let's wait and see what develops
in the case of the murder of osama bin laden - we have so many different stories from the government its hard to keep track of what they want us to believe
"Every time I listen to the news the death of Bin Ladin story keeps changing. What are the reasons? Should we be concerned about the various versions of information? My concern is the the government is either attempting to be straight forward and forthright or we are looking at amateurs trying to "manage" the news.
One of the most dramatic things that I remember was that the initial reports indicated there was a 40 minute fire fight and that the people in the compound were highly armed. Today we were told that there were several AK47s in a locker in his bedroom as well as a handgun but there was no major exchange. Initially, Obama was armed and now it seems that he was unarmed. First reports said that Osama had hidden behind his wife and now it seems that she jumped in front of him. These discrepancies not only cast questions on the validity of the information but the story itself. "
http://political-conservatives.blogspot.com/2011/05/bin-ladin-story-keeps-changing.html
don't forget wmd in iraq - lies
gulf of tonkin - lies
attack on the maine - lies
oaklahoma city is yet another "crazed lone gunman" - once the nwo get a psyop that works they stick to it
"USAF General Partin (Google), who saw the site (MURRAH BUILDING OAKLAHOMA), dismissed the notion that a home-made fertilizer bomb could have demolished a concrete reinforced building."
http://www.rense.com/general76/flagd.htm
note: general partin is a demolition expert
according to miac
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missouri_Information_Analysis_Center
A secret report distributed by the Missouri Information Analysis Center lists Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, people who display bumper stickers, people who own gold, or even people who fly a U.S. flag and equates them with radical race hate groups and terrorists. This is merely the latest example in an alarming trend which confirms that law enforcement across the country is being trained that American citizens are a dangerous enemy.
we should be careful about further empowering dhs and nas
"A Florida woman is reeling after her 95-year-old mother was embarrassed by having to take off her adult diaper at the Northwest Regional Airport while heading to Michigan."
http://theblogprof.blogspot.com/2011/06/great-news-tsa-forces-woman-95-to.html
right now we should be extending our sympathies to the victims and their families and letting the police do their work
we shouldn't be extending carte blanche for the psychos at dhs to further attack our rights and make our country a bigger prison than it already has become
"Brigadier General Benton K. Partin, U. S. Air Force, retired, has 25 years experience in explosives and ballistic weapons design and testing. General Partin also served as the Commander of the Air Force Armament Technology Laboratory.
Partin has this to say:
"When I first saw the picture of the truck bomb's asymmetrical damage to the Federal building in Oklahoma, my immediate reaction was that the pattern of damage would have been technically impossible without supplementary demolition charges at some of the reinforced concrete bases inside the building, a standard demolition technique.
"For a simplistic blast truck bomb, of the size and composition reported, to be able to reach out on the order of 60 feet and collapse a reinforced column base the size of column A7 is beyond credulity."
General Partin further explained that; "The total incompatibility with a single truck bomb lies in the fact that either some columns collapsed that should not have collapsed or some of the columns are still standing that should of collapsed and did not."
"Reinforced concrete targets in large buildings are hard targets to blast. I know of no way possible to reproduce the apparent building damage through simply a truck bomb effort."
"It is easy to determine whether a column was failed by contact demolition charges or by blast loading (such as a truck bomb)," Partin wrote in his letter to Congress. "It is also easy to cover up crucial evidence as was apparently done in Waco. I understand that the building is to be demolished by May 23rd or 24th. Why the rush to destroy the evidence?"
He concludes; "This is a massive cover-up of immense proportions.""
http://100777.com/node/106
Tristam writes:
"... Western culture’s original sin—the presumption of supremacy—is alive and well and clenching many a trigger."
I concur.
One must, unfortunately, go somewhat further than Tristam and point out that suprematism is alive and well in the very institutions of our governement, especially, our military. For what do our soldiers, special forces, and mercenaries call the peoples of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen, if not 'towel-heads', 'desert niggers', and such?
We also know that Christian fundamentalism and the spirit of the crusades are thriving in the armed forces and among the hordes of U.S. mercenaries. Prince, the founder of the order of Blackwater, is a known fundamentalist who barely conceals his hatred of Muslims and his crusading designs.
George W. Bush himself used the language of crusades.
(It is of course true that mercenary outfits such as Blackwater (renamed Xe) are not government institutions, but they are countenanced by and derive nearly all their revenues from said institutions.)
Thank you, Oikos. Your post's message can never be stated often enough. This is the Christian Theocracy that Chris Hedges' warned about in his book, "American Fascists." The Southern Poverty Center has been keeping track of rising hate crimes and higher membership rates in right wing groups; and you can bet your bippie that Hate Radio has made it acceptable, if not chic, to hate openly.
I see such evident parallels between Europe in the l930's and Europe, as well as the USA, today. In both instances, as the economies became troubled and benefits and jobs were reduced, groups were directed to project their hatred towards the designated scape goat. As a person who, by ethnicity is Jewish, I feel what's taking place, as it's exactly how the Jew became the target in Europe, especially Germany. It's diabolical that the same kind of hatred is being drummed up on a constant, irresponsible, immoral basis for Muslims. (And "illegal" aliens, too.)
I understand why Chris Hedges rails at the "Liberal Institutions" because so few newspapers remain in independent hands to speak openly about the inversions of justice that everywhere are becoming the new norms. And universities, beholden to corporate sponsors, also remain largely mute. THEY should be the fountains of rebellion, the places where free thought is most prized and championed.
I just wrote to Mr. Tristam, as a matter of fact, stating pretty much what you did. At least some of us have our eyes open, in spite of the fact that what we see is guaranteed to break our hearts and test our souls.
Chris Hedges wrote about Cults not christians per se . And the SPLC keeps track of Hate Groups, not right wing groups. That includes left wing hate groups and black supremicist hate groups!!
You know, SR, other people read books too. And not just the one book, many many books.
Just sayin'.
You mean the empress has no clothes? I am shocked, shocked I tell you!!!!!
oh, don't put that image in my head.
Bastage! Too late... the horror, the horror. (of course, if you saw me without clothes you'd be screaming about the hideous nightmare, the hideous nightmare...)
Chris Hedges says the problem is [religious] Fundmentalism. His term fundmentalism is so often used as a metaphor for religious belief- which is often used as a metaphor for Belief in GOD [I'm not sure if this is his intent].
Some might say this is merely a matter of semantics but I think Mr Hedges uses the WRONG F-Word- a more appropiate F-Word is FANATICISM - rather than fundamentalism. Show me a person who w no real fundamental beliefs [core values], & I'll show you a person w no principles & can't be counted on to take a firm stand on ANYTHING- especially if it is inconvenient.
Fanatics can be Christian, Jewish, Islamic, Hindu, religious, secular, atheistic, racist / bigoted, scientists, political, patriotic, Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Consevative, Militaristic, Capitalist, Communist, sport & celeb fans, etc... They are people who are so intolerant of those not commited to their cause(s) / circle(s) & sphere(s) / clique(s) & niche(s) - that they are prepared to go to such EXTREMES to IMPOSE their will on those 'non-believers' [of their cause / view] using violence &/or subterfuge [IE: by hook or by crook... - mislead & deceive]... Battering, crushing [into submission] or even killing off the 'competition' / non-belivers [in their cause], using mayhem & murder-- because for them 'The ends always justifies to means'.
The people that this article & Mr Hedges are alluding to are NOT merely fundamentalists, They are FANATICS!
Tristam makes very important points here that are too often glossed over or ignored altogether, not only by our hideously Foxified media but by most progressives, such as gardenernorcal, right here.
First, I'm afraid Breivik and McVeigh and other religiously motivated killers are entirely "human." All too human. And they're "thinking adults" insofar as their fundamentalist mindset permits. As are Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, however small a proportion they constitute among Muslims worldwide. The whole point, as Tristam makes clear and gardenernorcal misses, is INTOLERANCE, a central element in all religious fundamentalism.
You have to think all the rightwing dogma through thoroughly to arrive at the bloody convictions that impel you to take the kind of action against children at a liberal summer camp that the deranged Breivik took. You have to tap into humanity's darkest, most head-banging insane closet to decide that "God" wants those people dead, and that he's called upon you as His emissary to carry out the deed. Only "humans" can do this.
Only humans passionately taken up by fundamentalist agenda that states only one view of Why We Are All Here is the correct one, and anyone departing from that view is fair game. Tristam correctly says that such intolerant convictions are nurtured and cultivated by our political leaders, on a daily basis, and kept serviceable by a Foxified right wing media establishment. This mixture guarantees the periodic emergence of fanatics like McVeigh and Breivik, and the insane slaughter they leave in their intolerant wake.
I agree with Ephraim, Jul 25 2011 - 12:10pm.
Only human beings fueled by the exclusionary mindset of an ideology (religious or otherwise) are capable of the sorts of deeds committed by a McVeigh, a Breivik, the killers that committed multiple and unspeakable atrocities during the nineties in Algeria, the mass murderers in the former Yugoslavia, those responsible for the horrible killings during the U.S. occupation of Iraq (on both sides), the bombers of the U.S. embassies in 1998 in Africa, and so on and so forth.
Furthermore, as I said in my first posting above, the exclusionary convictions of fanatics are part and parcel of at least some of our governmental institutions, and they are so at the highest level of said institutions.
EPHRAIM: Well said! I noticed when this topic hit CD a day or so ago, that a few posters tried to suggest that all the data was not in yet, and we should extend to this fellow the "innocent until proven guilty" presumption that we'd want for ourselves. Some went on to suggest that Israel was behind it, or some nefarious government agency in the US or Israel seeking another cause to use terrorism as the clause with which to tie civil liberties even tighter. What all of these posters were deliberately planting was something in the order of a criminal conspirator standing by to point the crowd away from the crime scene. In other words, expert deflection tactics. In my mind, that means they are protecting right wing interests, causes, and approaches. But they say they are Progressive, even though most of them sound like robotic automotons, totally prepared for an authoritarian state. They just want THEIR people (kind) in charge.
The author here decided not to address Waco.
Why?
I have no use for the politics of the individual accused in the outrageous Norwegian tragedy, but we should simply say of that person for now, innocent until proven guilty to avoid the BS of pushing ourselves toward a prosecutorial state which Alexander Cockburn often inveighs against. It's old fashioned to believe in the Bill of Rights and civli liberties as the ACLU does, but I like it and the Norwegian prime minister takes a simllar view backing more "democracy."
Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the rule of law legal proceedings, that in a legal setting the evidence presented is the basis for determining guilty or not guilty. Their is no declaration of innocence.
What about it? It was a place filled with religious nuts who thought god was telling them to do something stupid.
To slightly paraphrase a related reply from yesterday:
I can't speak to Norway's approach, except that so far their Prime Minister has made rational, calming public statements "validating" the horror of the mass murders without demagogically pandering to inflammatory hysteria as Amerikan political leaders do.
But in Amerika, the government and mass-media Combine attempts, usually successfully, to trim off all of the controversial and problematic loose ends and open questions, and reduce multi-dimensional actual people and complex events into a pasteurized processed Lone Nut and Simplified Plot-Line Blurb product that goes down smooth with a credulous and complacent Amerikan public, is appropriately filling, and leaves no unpleasant aftertaste.
Even the center-left "progressive" commentariat gravitates toward streamlined, sententious opinionating that incorporates or resonates with received wisdom and generally-accepted, "official" versions of events.
I skeptically dread the rush of perhaps earnest but facile essays and editorials that aspire to offer instant analysis, interpretation, and understanding of heinous violence and catastrophe. I presume that I am in the minority, and mine is an unpopular position.
Because even writers published on CD and other left-leaning sites are part of the manic, "24/7" mass-media perpetual motion machine that discourages restrained, sober, tempered discourse.
Apparently the public across the political spectrum clamors to have learned, expert, or insightful commentors rush to help them make sense of their distressed, disturbed, and jangled world-view.
Thus, the ether is flooded with instant assays that aren't much more comprehensive or profound than Joe Garagiola's play-by-play color analysis.
PS: FYI, check out this article if you haven't already done so:
The Meaning of Timothy McVeigh by Gore Vidal - September, 2001*
"Americans were fed the story of Timothy McVeigh’s trial and execution as a simple, unquestionable narrative: he was guilty, he was evil, and he acted largely alone. Gore Vidal’s 1998 Vanity Fair essay on the erosion of the U.S. Bill of Rights caused McVeigh to begin a three-year correspondence with Vidal, prompting an examination of certain evidence that points to darker truths—a conspiracy willfully ignored by F.B.I. investigators, and a possible cover-up by a government waging a secret war on the liberty of its citizens."
* http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2001/09/mcveigh200109
Regarding supremacist prejudices in our institutions, here is a gem from the paper of record, our lovely New York Times, the paper that always sides with Amerikkka's wars of conquest and imperialist ambitions. The gem is commented upon and cited by Glenn Greenwald. Our lofty paper of record initially and very naturally accused Islamists of being behind the Norwegian murder spree and bombing.
From "The Omnipotence of Al Qaeda and Meaninglessness of 'Terrorism'," in Salon,July 23, 2011:
Then there’s this extraordinarily revealing passage from the NYT [...] explaining why the paper originally reported what it did:
"Initial reports focused on the possibility of Islamic militants, in particular Ansar al-Jihad al-Alami, or Helpers of the Global Jihad, cited by some analysts as claiming responsibility for the attacks. American officials said the group was previously unknown and might not even exist.
There was ample reason for concern that terrorists might be responsible."
Yes, there *was* ample reason for concern that terrorists might be involved, and they were: at least one rightwing fundamentalist Christian terrorist. Why is this fucked up media of ours classifying this guy as merely an "extremist"? He's a fucking terrorist full stop.
"Gee, blowing up the government's buildings and shooting their kids is a little extreme, dont you think? Hur hur hur."
Of course, the New York Times never misses a trick, and even in this little mea culpa they advance their propaganda agenda by furthering the notion that it's only terror when Muslims do it.
Oikos
Alan Maass of The Socialist Worker puts your last sentence clearly in perspective by quoting Canadian journalist Dan Gardner who notes that:
"According to European Union officials, in 2009, there were 294 attempted terrorist attacks, successful or not, in six European countries. The EU report concluded that Islamist groups were responsible for exactly one [terrorist attack out of 294]. In a population of half a billion people."
http://socialistworker.org/2011/07/25/right-wing-terror-in-norway
What are the chances that this extremely relevant fact will become the main story in any of the major newspapers in the United States? Probably very little as it appears that it is always easier to rush to judgment rather than to wait before all the facts are in place.