JTaylor

What I can't reconcile, Les, is that he's been able to deliver measured criticisms of European socialist ideology, sober polemics against multi-culturalism and sound and intelligent philosophical takes on Islam whilst simultaneously inhabiting this psycopathic and narcissistic fantasy world. It's as though he's been able to compartmentalise reality and fantasy and then, at some point, the two have merged. The real danger here is that legitimate conservative thinking will be forever condemned by the left for being synonymous with Breivik. Ironic that his self-image is as a defender of the faith, a Knight Templar, when the reality is almost the exact opposite.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Extreme nationalism is nothing new though. It's manifestation in some individuals is scary to say the least. Much as you may extol the virtues of Brevik's critique of shifting cultural patterns, the fact of the matter is that he was a nut job. Anything he said, wrote or inferred cannot hold any legitimacy due to his crazed rampage. What next, Hitler was bad man but he spoke a lot of sense? Pol Pot was tyrant but his heart was in the right place?

JTaylor

Where do I do that, Maz?

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Perhaps 'extolling virtues' was a little strong and I have mis-interpreted your post in some way. Would you say that you agree with some of what he says and he is to be vilified for what he did rather than what he said?

JTaylor

Well I challenge you to read his critique of cultural-Marxism and then produce a sober, honest and winning rebuttal. My cognitive dissonance comes from reading measured, intelligent work knowing that the same mind believes himself a knights Templar, can offer-up crude supremacism and Nordic Mythology and think that murder will promote Christian-Conservatism. His mind reminds me of John Nash - Nobel Laureate, genius and fantasist. I'll be very surprised if he's declared sane.

Jamie

For once you actually make some sense Jt

DCI Gene Hunt

He's a ****, he's written a 1500 page slide into madness and the result of his "insight" is how to blow **** up... maybe Chaos was one of the other sleeper cells?

tony de wonderful

Ah the Chinese way? Lock up problematic people in mental hospitals?

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Do you believe he (Breivik) had a valid grievance? Should he be locked up, executed or given a medal?

hodgy0_2

people seem to be genuinely irritated that he has somehow misappropriated the “argument”

andythejock01wrx

2nd one!

AsifScoob

Who has defended terrorists?

I've certainly stuck up for Palestinian freedom fighters, defending their homes and families from mass murdering Israelis, who bomb them from the skies in their state of the art US weapons - the cowards! I will always defend them.

Is that what you wanted to read in response?

Anyway, back on topic, I find his (Breivik that is, not Tony - who is a COMPLETELY separate person) argument to be deceptive, as why not kill Muslims if he hates them so much? There appear to be plenty in Norway.

tony de wonderful

I didn't say that but where are the Left who always talk about 'the causes of Terrorism' when Islamists kill people?

Seems if say a Mohmmed Sidique Khan killing people then we're going over his video and figuring out how Iraq and Afghanistan are causing young Muslims to be radicalised, but if a right winger kills people then he's 'just a nut'.

Just sayin'...

JTaylor

I think that's a fair point. The left need to ask and be asked some serious questions. The second biggest crime has been to close down debate around immigration and brand grass-roots concerns about dramatic cultural shifts as "racist", "Islamaphobic" and "bigoted". The idea that not having the discussion will somehow make the problem go away is madness and has driven the issue underground where actually it ought to be treated seriously and addressed with mutual respect in democratic forums. The extension of this is that ordinary people begin to feel disenfranchised and move further to the right and the left start co-opting Islamist narrative to counter; we're left with serious division as opposed to mutual understanding. A good example are the EDL demonstrations which are countered by Islam4uk and Unite Against Fascism - that the UAF should choose to stand amongst Choudry's ultra-fascists leaves me incredulous, it's doublethink, but serves to highlight how the absence of discourse leads to warped thinking on both sides.

The upshot of Political Correctness or cultural-Marxism or the Thought Police or however you wish to describe the surpression of free expression is tension and frustration and, it would seem, ultimately madness and mass-murder.

If you take Snet as a microcosm and observe how counterjihadist thinking has been addressed by its opponents, it hasn't been via honest debate, it's been largely via branding and personal attacks to discredit and scare others off. Who are the fascists, here?

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Are you saying Breivik was driven to do what he did?

tony de wonderful

You seem to be saying Palestinian Terrorists are.

Do you think Mohammed Sidique Khan was driven to kill people on 7/7?

Maz

iTrader: (34)

No I don't.


No he wasn't. He was just a nut job akin to Breivik.
This question was put to James not you Joe.

JTaylor

I think that if the left are willing to act as apologists for the 17,000 acts of Islamic Jihad that have been committed since 9/11, and that they are willing to ask why, it seems logical to extend that process to right-wing terrorism. Alternatively, and I'm really grappling with this one, dismiss Braivik as insane but, remember to extend that courtesy to the beheaders of Christian aidworkers in Somalia and Palestine and murderers of Israeli children and American business people and British and Spanish and Russian shoppers and Australian clubbers and so forth. Or, are we saying that we can ask questions only of oneside?

Does the left have a charge to answer, Maz?

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Apologists for any act of extremism have a case to answer. Those that perpetrate the acts aforementioned deserve to be exposed for what they are, crazed savages who have no place in a civilised society. Furthermore by scrutinizing Breivik's ideology and giving credence to his literary legacy you are legitimising what he stands for. You can't vilify one side and then say well this bloke speaks a lot of sense. Your stance must be unilateral on this one point otherwise it's just your opinion based on which side of the fence you stand. We must expose any act of extremism for what it is (unacceptable and having no place in modern society) not what the perpetrator wanted it to be (a spectacular swansong). I know this issue isn't perhaps as black and white as we see it but shades of grey. I don't have any answers but what I do know is I don't what these people affecting my way of life and causing death and misery to innocent people.

JTaylor

Is Nelson Mandela a crazed savage or the ruling power in Palestine? I've not read any criticism from you regarding Asif's support of Hamas. Anyway, my point was, does cultural-Marxism, which has been systematically woven into the fabric of Western Europe by the left, shoulder any responsibility?

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Lisawrx

iTrader: (1)

Just a little note.

I have removed some of the comments from the last couple of pages. Please guys, have a reasoned debate without just winding each other up.

Leslie

Yes I agree with what you are saying. It is hard to put it all together.

I imagine that he is using every possible avenue to promote himself and his views to his fellow muslims with maximum publicity knowing that he will not have to fear any kind of action as a result becuase he will feel protected by the lefty pinko PC plonkers!

Les

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Interesting to note you haven't defined Gerry Adams/Martin Mcguiness or Ariel Sharon as examples.

JTaylor

Interesting in what way?

Maz

iTrader: (34)

Interesting in that in my view (not necessarily objectively) your focus is on one section of society.
I apologise for misdirecting things but I've watched you go from a happy go lucky person who was not averse to having a laugh to someone who is deeply political, savagely analytical and sometimes extremely dogmatic. What's caused this? Is your shift in thinking and attitude defined by personal experience or considered observation? I have already said in my opinion you analyze things too deeply and think too much.
If I peeled this cloak of pensive political analysis is there a James who likes to have fun and an occasional laugh?

JTaylor

There are some advantages to thinking, it helps avoid making statements like this:

when on page 4, post 112 of this thread I posted this:

Anyway, thanks for the feedback and I trust you'll forgive the "savage" analysis. I'll look forward to having a laugh with you when we're not discussing the underlying issues surrounding a mass-murder.

Maz

iTrader: (34)

My mistake, I apologise. I find thinking too much hurts my head so tend to avoid it.

JTaylor

Ok, no worries.

AsifScoob

Sorry for that Lisa. Just redressing the imbalance.