Another twist on Li the beheader

The beheader, according to Mike McIntyre writing in the Montreal Gazette, chatted for a while at the front of the Greyhound bus with Tim McLean’s female friend and coworker Stacey (who was traveling with Tim but sitting separately), and even had a smoke with her during a rest stop, before he moved to the back of the bus and sat next to Tim. Is there a connection? Did Li get the idea of killing Tim from something Stacey said about him? Tim’s former girl friend Alexandra Storey thinks so. That’s the one new tidbit of the last day.

Now back to the question that has obsessed this website, but apparently no other, for the last five days.

There are only two logical possibilities to explain Li’s act. Either he was acting in some fashion as a jihadist (freelance or assigned, probably the former), or he was insane. I find the insanity explanation hard to believe. While insane people obviously kill people from time to time, for an insane person on the spur of the moment to exert the systematic violence sufficient to accomplish the total physical destruction of a total stranger culminating in beheading him makes no sense. As far as I’ve heard, there has never been anything like it in the annals of crime. Remember also, Li was chatting and making normal small talk with Stacey right up until he moved to Tim’s seat and began robotically stabbing him to death. That does not sound like psychotic behavior but a deliberate choice.

I’m not saying we can dismiss insanity, only that, at this time, it seems unlikely to me.

At the same time, even if he was insane and not acting as a jihadist, the idea of beheading someone had to have come from Islam. To me that seems a 99 percent likelihood.

Finally, if he was insane, why did Canada allow a mentally ill person to immigrate? According to Mike McIntyre and James Turner’s August 3 Winnipeg Free Press article, the first people Li befriended after his arrival in Canada said he was schizophrenic and in constant paranoid fantasies. So he had to have been troubled when he was approved for entry into Canada. In the past the immigration of such a person would have been, of course, impossible. What happened to the screening of prospective immigrants for mental and physical disease?

Oh, hell, why do I even bother asking these questions? Why pretend that there are any standards of self-preservation to appeal to any more? The Western countries WANT to be destroyed. It’s as simple as that.

There is doubt about Vince Weiguang Li’s motivation for slaughtering Tim McLean. There is no doubt at all about the motivation of the West in allowing Li—and millions of other unassimilable, often hostile, and often physically or mentally ill non-Westerners—to immigrate into the West.

- end of initial entry -

Richard W. writes:

This is a great summation of a key VFW theme:

Oh, hell, why even bother asking these questions? Why pretend that there are any standards of self-preservation to appeal to any more? The Western countries WANT to be destroyed. It’s as simple as that.

There is doubt about Vince Weiguang Li’s motivation for slaughtering Tim McLean. There is no doubt at all about the motivation of the West in allowing Li—and millions of other unassimilable, often hostile, and often physically or mentally ill non-Westerners—to immigrate into the West.

That is the tough situation we are in and the real question facing those of us who don’t agree. What path do we take to reverse this?

Certainly the pointed, incessant and accurate criticism put forward on VFR is a critical first step in explaining the social pathologies we are stuck in.

But criticism alone is not sufficient to fix things.

One interesting insight I have gained from reading a lot of VFR and Brussels Journal (esp. the latter) is how much of the agenda of the destruction of European cultures and nations is being carried by a small, self-appointed elite.

The recent machinations designed to create the EU Constitution was really quite amazing. At first the EU offered it as a Constitution and sent it to the member states for citizen ratification, as required by previous EU agreements.

When it failed to pass they changed their tactics. Instead of offering the Constitution as a coherent whole they changed it to a plethora (140 pages) of amendments, which only need “member government” approval.

It strikes me that so much of what is going wrong here is being foisted on us by elites, using dishonest methods. When they are dragged into the light of day, as there were with the horrible “comprehensive immigration reform,” the masses rose up and rejected it, just as the Dutch, French and Irish have rejected a stronger EU when given the opportunity.

One of the turning points in California was when prop 187, a common sense limitation on benefits to illegals was defeated by elite scheming. A compliant leftist judge was found to toss it out and a liberal governor refused to appeal.

This type of skullduggery is typical of how we are being done in.

In the Cold War there was a taxonomy of leftists that became fairly well understood: the committed hard core Communists; “fellow travelers”; those who agreed with the aims but belonged to less radical organizations; and finally “useful idiots”—people who had no understanding that by supporting something like “nuclear freeze” they were in fact supporting a program invented by the KGB and run by Soviet puppet masters.

We need to develop a similar taxonomy of the current group of anti-Western conspiracists. At present, we don’t even have a name for them. In the Cold War we had: Soviets, Communists, Reds. We need to start at the beginning in identification and labeling of those within seeking our destruction.

Then, we need to counter them much more vigorously than we are now doing. To start with we need the equivalent of the Red Scare and McCarthyism, which were largely successful in purging hateful leftists from positions of authority. I’m not sure what we use as the fulcrum to effect this. Is it impossible?

If we can’t rally the society as a whole, then, as I have suggested before, we need to begin to speak more forthrightly about our desire for separation. In fact the pursuit of separation in itself is probably a great teaching tool.

When the reasons for the desire to separate are explained many people may find themselves agreeing.

I see us relentlessly losing now. I see traitors in the highest places. Because of the lock the leftists have on so many institutions I see little hope for “reform through the system.” The system is not open, available for discussion, or interested in other viewpoints.

We have to identify and marginalize these elite controllers.

As with our European cousins, the beast that sits on top of us is quite comfortable and quite willing to use every power from lawfare to media blitz to tax policy to silence and marginalize pro-Western, pro-white and pro-American views in favor of their multiculti mash.

We need to get outside the box and throw rocks at the beast. That’s not something “conservatives” are usually willing to do. But the alternative is we keep losing our culture, our nation, and our future slowly but remorselessly to the forces of evil.

Alan Roebuck writes:

At VFR, Richard W. writes:

We need to develop a similar taxonomy of the current group of anti-Western conspiracists. At present, we don’t even have a name for them.

I formulated a preliminary taxonomy of liberals several years ago. There are three basic groups:

“The Rank and File.” That is, ordinary people who are sincerely convinced that liberalism will make the world nicer. They account for probably upwards of 95 percent of all liberals, and they are the most basic reason liberalism rules: the public supports it. Of course, the Rank and File hates the excesses of the left, which is why the Revolution must not be pushed too fast.

“The Storm Troopers.” These are the conspicuously angry ones, who specialize in shouting down non-liberal speakers, writing angry letters to editors, or, like the original Sturmabteilung, physically intimidating enemies of the left. One ought not to underestimate the value of moral, intellectual and physical intimidation on furthering liberalism: Through intimidation, the left induces people to censor their own non-liberal tendencies. I have had only limited personal contact with Storm Troopers, but I intuit that their rage stems from early family dysfunction, and they support the left (and hate the right) because they have been taught that leftism will cure the world of the evils that led to their own misery.

“The Star Chamber.” These are the intellectuals who set leftist policy. They have a more sophisticated grasp of leftist thought and strategy (and a greater ability to delay gratification) than the Storm Troopers do. And what fundamentally differentiates them from the Rank and File is that the Star Chamber knows that their goal is the destruction, rather than the perfection, of America.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at August 06, 2008 10:31 AM | Send