It's interesting, don't you think, how much of Breivik's persona has turned out to be pure vapour?
He's a Christian only he doesn't actually believe what Christians do.
He's a right winger only he doesn't seem to have any right wing connections.
He's driven by ideology only his ideology turns out to be a huge jumble that he cut and paste from dozens of different sources.
At what point do we begin to explore the possibility that his real motive here was fame and that all this religious/political/ideological stuff is maybe just some mythology no more real than the Maltese Falcon that he carefully elaborated to fascinate the press?
He's a right winger only he doesn't seem to have any right wing connections.
Except that he was a member of the right-wing Progress Party (seemed to leave them after they moderated their party's stand), and he appears to have met with members of the EDL.
Even if he wasn't a part of any group, he seems to have wanted to join various right-wing movements (including starting his own version of the Tea Party in Norway ). He also apparently e-mailed his manifesto to 1003 people some of whom appear to be politicians. Now, no one can blame anyone for receiving it. It was the equivalent of spam.
What's scary is when people embrace Breivik and his rhetoric.
From the above article:
Mario Borghezio’s, part of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group in the European Parliament, made comments that provoked instant outrage across the world: “One hundred per cent of Breivik’s ideas are good, in some cases extremely good. The positions of Breivik reflect the views of those movements across Europe which are winning elections.”
Ep.
And then there's this: "France's far-right Front National, whose leader Marine Le Pen recently topped President Nicolas Sarkozy in an opinion poll, suspended one of its members on Wednesday for putting an email from a supporter online that referred to Mr. Breivik an "icon" and a "defender of the West."
Interesting comment Sharon but if you read what you've written you'll notice that you haven't actually established any right wing connections for the guy. He was a member of a party and left it and a couple of people he doesn't seem to know have commented on him.
What is still missing is any indication that this guy is anything but a lone nut seeking publicity like James Earl Ray and Charles Whitman before him. I'm not saying that there won't be evidence but I am saying that despite a lot of loud claims there is no evidence yet.
Interesting comment Sharon but if you read what you've written you'll notice that you haven't actually established any right wing connections for the guy. He was a member of a party and left it and a couple of people he doesn't seem to know have commented on him.
He chaired for the Progrss Party in his local area, so his involvement went beyond simply being a member. He was involved in a lot of fringe right-wing websites as Document No. and Nordisk. He seemed to see himself as leading some Conservative movement.
I doubt that his connections with the Progress party lead him to commit his crimes. His links to conservative and far-right groups may be as significant as the fact that he's Norwegian or blonde.(As noted before, what's scary isn't that he wants to be a part of any conservative movement, but it is frightening when people embrace his viewpoint. See previous comment for examples.)
Possibly, more than the dangers of being a conservative, what Breivik might illustrate is the dangers of associating with people who echo your thoughts. There was an intersting book by Cass Sunstein called Going to Extremes about how people in groups with like-minded people tend to drive each other to extreme positions. The things Breivik hated had a lot to do with diversity. Maybe he's a reminder that we all need a bit more tolerance and compassion in our lives.
"Possibly, more than the dangers of being a conservative, what Breivik might illustrate is the dangers of associating with people who echo your thoughts."
Okay, maybe the danger of associating only with people who echo your beliefs. Or maybe the importance of going out there and talking and being friends with people who may disagree with your views, or people with different backgrounds. It's easy to forget that the people on the other side of a debate are human beings too if the only people you associate with are people exactly like yourself.
I sincerely can't believe that Breivik could have done what he did -- he shot people in cold blood -- if he didn't happen to forget that his victims were still human beings.
8 comments:
It's interesting, don't you think, how much of Breivik's persona has turned out to be pure vapour?
He's a Christian only he doesn't actually believe what Christians do.
He's a right winger only he doesn't seem to have any right wing connections.
He's driven by ideology only his ideology turns out to be a huge jumble that he cut and paste from dozens of different sources.
At what point do we begin to explore the possibility that his real motive here was fame and that all this religious/political/ideological stuff is maybe just some mythology no more real than the Maltese Falcon that he carefully elaborated to fascinate the press?
He's a right winger only he doesn't seem to have any right wing connections.
Except that he was a member of the right-wing Progress Party (seemed to leave them after they moderated their party's stand), and he appears to have met with members of the EDL.
Even if he wasn't a part of any group, he seems to have wanted to join various right-wing movements (including starting his own version of the Tea Party in Norway ). He also apparently e-mailed his manifesto to 1003 people some of whom appear to be politicians. Now, no one can blame anyone for receiving it. It was the equivalent of spam.
What's scary is when people embrace Breivik and his rhetoric.
From the above article:
Mario Borghezio’s, part of the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group in the European Parliament, made comments that provoked instant outrage across the world: “One hundred per cent of Breivik’s ideas are good, in some cases extremely good. The positions of Breivik reflect the views of those movements across Europe which are winning elections.”
Ep.
And then there's this: "France's far-right Front National, whose leader Marine Le Pen recently topped President Nicolas Sarkozy in an opinion poll, suspended one of its members on Wednesday for putting an email from a supporter online that referred to Mr. Breivik an "icon" and a "defender of the West."
Interesting comment Sharon but if you read what you've written you'll notice that you haven't actually established any right wing connections for the guy. He was a member of a party and left it and a couple of people he doesn't seem to know have commented on him.
What is still missing is any indication that this guy is anything but a lone nut seeking publicity like James Earl Ray and Charles Whitman before him. I'm not saying that there won't be evidence but I am saying that despite a lot of loud claims there is no evidence yet.
Interesting comment Sharon but if you read what you've written you'll notice that you haven't actually established any right wing connections for the guy. He was a member of a party and left it and a couple of people he doesn't seem to know have commented on him.
He chaired for the Progrss Party in his local area, so his involvement went beyond simply being a member. He was involved in a lot of fringe right-wing websites as Document No. and Nordisk. He seemed to see himself as leading some Conservative movement.
I doubt that his connections with the Progress party lead him to commit his crimes. His links to conservative and far-right groups may be as significant as the fact that he's Norwegian or blonde.(As noted before, what's scary isn't that he wants to be a part of any conservative movement, but it is frightening when people embrace his viewpoint. See previous comment for examples.)
Possibly, more than the dangers of being a conservative, what Breivik might illustrate is the dangers of associating with people who echo your thoughts. There was an intersting book by Cass Sunstein called Going to Extremes about how people in groups with like-minded people tend to drive each other to extreme positions. The things Breivik hated had a lot to do with diversity. Maybe he's a reminder that we all need a bit more tolerance and compassion in our lives.
"Possibly, more than the dangers of being a conservative, what Breivik might illustrate is the dangers of associating with people who echo your thoughts."
Wow.
Okay, maybe the danger of associating only with people who echo your beliefs. Or maybe the importance of going out there and talking and being friends with people who may disagree with your views, or people with different backgrounds. It's easy to forget that the people on the other side of a debate are human beings too if the only people you associate with are people exactly like yourself.
I sincerely can't believe that Breivik could have done what he did -- he shot people in cold blood -- if he didn't happen to forget that his victims were still human beings.
Anyway, I appreciate your point of view on this.
Thank you, I enjoyed this back and forth.
Why he strongly denies his mentor? I think it because he not look professional,try to wear big suit.
Post a Comment