|
Robert B. on the Norway Killer and the growing violence his act presages
Robert B. from Minnesota sent several comments last Saturday and Sunday, July 23 and 24, which I declined to post at the time because I felt he was implying approval of the Norway killer. He subsequently pointed out that I had posted other comments, such as Shrewsbury’s, which, he said, also seemed to imply approval. I told him I didn’t believe that was true. There is a line—perhaps it is hard to discern at times, but it is there—between acknowledging the fact that a certain evil act has had or may have certain positive results along with bad results, which is what Shrewsbury did (and what I myself did in a later entry), and expressing or implying approval and support for that evil act, which I felt Robert B. had gotten close to doing. There is also a line, difficult to discern at times but real, between saying that the Western elite’s evil and insane policy of Islamizing and Third-Worldizing the West is inevitably going to result in violent reaction at some point, and saying that one “understands” a person who has engaged in mass murder as an act of resistance to that Islamization. When one says that one “understands” why a person did something, that, to my mind, implies approval. In reply, Robert rejected the idea that he approved the evil act. He says that his angle on the historic meaning of the Norway event is correct and that it deserves to be posted.
As I read over Robert’s e-mails again, I have to admit that the distinction posited by me above is not great enough to justify my decision not to post his thoughts, though I continue to dissociate myself from those passages where he expresses understanding, and thus, as I see it, implied approval of the Norway killer and other terrorist killers. Leaving aside those troublesome passages, Robert’s analysis of the dynamic of resistance and terror is obviously highly relevant to the current situation. Here, then, are our exchanges from the 23rd and 24th. I have done only the slightest editing when necessary for clarity.
Robert B. wrote:
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 12:29.p.m.
Subject: The hideous irony….
Lawrence,
This discussion brings to mind the one you and I had concerning Timothy McVeigh sometime back. During that discussion you asserted that you could never condone such an act against one’s own government. My response was that while I was not condoning McVeigh’s action I could certainly understand it—that a government actively working to destroy its native people in favor of a new people was no longer the government of the people, but rather an enemy agent. This agent has institutionalized our own demise while at the same time allowing a campaign of terror to be waged against us via rape, murder and random beatings of Westerners by Muslim immigrants. And a government which actively enforces “the other’s” ability to attack us as well as actively prevents us from separating ourselves from these people.
With that view in mind, I went on to state that as the situation worsened for our peoples, you could expect more of the same. This is to be expected and there will be more. “Our” side is forgetting all of the terror that the Left conducted over the last 90 some years to get what they wanted. If one properly looks at their response to Islam in our midst, they are continuing to condone violence against the native peoples of the West. And they are using that violence to institute ever more repressive laws with which to control us.
I am not wringing my hands over what this man did as a possible fellow “conservative,” rather I see it for what it is—the logical outcome of a people being repressed by a tyrannical overlord. Yes, it was very brutal. Yes it was horrendous by our standards. Yes, it is something that I believe that I could never do. Nevertheless, while I take no responsibility for what this man did as a fellow “conservative,” and while I do not condone it, I am capable of understanding what drove him to it. Thus my response is and will be: “What do you expect, when you force a people into a corner, with their backs against the wall?” There will be more such attacks. There will be more and more forceful responses by our governments against our peoples in response and, as a consequence, there will be more violent attacks against that government in response.
LA replied:
“I am not wringing my hands over what this man did as a possible fellow “conservative” rather I see it for what it is—the logical outcome of a people being repressed by a tyrannical overlord.”
No one knows why he did it. You are projecting on to him why you think he did it, because it fits your conceptions. Let’s try to get at the facts and grapple with those, before we start philosophizing about him.
Robert replied:
I’m not being philosophical about it or him, per se. Also, I am not reacting to it emotionally—which is how I was taught to respond in order to analyze properly that which has happened. Your other readers are reacting emotionally and with requisite handwringing. You will kindly take note that the Left almost never reacts with handwringing when their side commits such an act, now does it? Rather I am simply pointing out, as I did in the past, that as our society becomes ever more tyrannical towards those who created it, there will be more attacks of this nature by members of that group. First it will be the so called “outliers” then it will move toward the more intellectually aware of what is happening, lastly it will turn into a full fledged revolution comprised of the 1/3 of the population with the “guts” to put their lives on the line.
My basis for this view in this particular incident, i.e., that he acted to protect “his” people and culture is based upon his postings—some of which you noted, as well as the actual target. Very similar to McVeigh and the Unabomber. This man deliberately attacked the children of the Leftist elite within his homeland’s borders. He did so while they were engaged in an activity which was quite exclusive—their sacred home turf, so to speak. I am guessing, but it looks to me as if it were well thought out and designed to instill terror and fear in that elite. There is nothing more sacred than one’s own child. Going after their children is, indeed, striking at their very heart—the very future, if you will, of their Leftist ideology and physical structure.
I further buttress my theory with examples from history. All underground movements are viewed as heinous by those who they attack. But, the whole logic behind terrorism is, as Molotov stated, to instill terror in those who weld power such that it is impossible for the average man to make a dent in that power. The purpose of terroristic attacks is to instill horror and fear in the enemy as well as to instill hope and a sense of power in the oppressed. As the acts of terror increase, it drains the will to resist on the part of the enemy and encourages open acts of defiance on the part of the oppressed.
Lawrence, my friend, this is how we got where we are now in America. Acts of terror committed by those on the Left. The SDS with their riots, the blacks with their riots and groups like the Weathermen and the Weather Underground with their bombing. All being orchestrated by Communist party apparatchiks. These acts cowed the people and the government—just as they did in Czarist Russia. Those in power seemingly are always willing to appease to hang on to power for a bit longer. It is true that both in Russia and the ’60s era USA, that the government initially acted with violence to suppress it. However, both governments also went on to make “concessions” to the radicals which exposed their weakness and led to more concessions.
This is my prediction. The government will respond in kind to this man’s act of terror. It will become ever more repressive. As a result, there will be more seemingly random acts of violence against the base of the elite. We have reached a critical stage in the Left’s power and its exercise there of. Outliers will respond—those who feel the first stages of a “do or die” mentality where our civilization is concerned.
Time will either prove me wrong or right.
This is Robert B.’s response to Laura G.’s comment that the killer’s actions made no sense from the point of view of advancing anti-jihadism and that he might be a Muslim plant.
Robert B. wrote:
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 9:21.p.m.
Subject: Laura on the Norwegian killer
This is simply more knee jerk hand wringing coupled to a few too many books by Robert Ludlum—Al Qaeda is not the KGB, not by a long shot.
He is as I have said, a man, like Timothy McVeigh and the Unabomber, who see a government betraying its people and, just like they, have taken a very well reasoned, violent approach to calling attention to this perceived betrayal and to instilling fear in those they see as the enemy.
There is absolutely no logical reason for Muslim terrorists to take out their enablers. Heretofore their violent acts in Europe against specific individuals have been against those who openly oppose them. It is incorrect analysis to project one’s own hopes and feelings on others—which is to say that excuses being made by such as Laura are exactly that. The answer is there in front of everyone and what I find so disconcerting is why everyone on the Right has such a hard time seeing this or understanding the inevitability of it—especially here in America where our history is steeped with the idea of rebelling against tyranny. Was it not our very own Thomas Jefferson who said “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time by the blood of patriots”? The blood of patriots also necessarily implies the blood of tyrants, does it not? Indeed it does. As our society decays and our financial situation worsens, expect even more. Perhaps that’s the real reason for the DHS video? That our own government analysts are expecting it as well? The behavior of (in particular the white) men pushed against a wall and to a breaking point is very well documented. I have, furthermore, seen it with my own eyes. Men can get quite ugly when pushed to the breaking point.
Now, the last time we had this conversation you accused me of condoning the murder of innocents when I had in fact done no such thing. I am not doing so now, either. Liken it to a man who analyzes the markets and knows that, given the right situation, the money will leave the markets generally at the very time the markets need the money the most. He therefore acts accordingly and, seeing the market headed in the wrong direction, pulls his money out ahead of the herd, putting it back in after the herd has moved on. Likewise, I foresee this trend and am preparing myself for it—as you should be as well.
Yes, Lawrence, I can be that cold when analyzing human behavior and trends. It came with the territory—a five year degree in Poly Sci, where I actually had to take a class or two on forecasting societal/political trends. I did very well at it and have used it in day to day life when it comes to investment decisions, etc.
LA replied:
Robert, as I’m sure you understand through long acquaintance with me and my writings, I’m not going to post anything saying anything good, or even “understanding,” about McVeigh. I haven’t read this e-mail. I stopped reading it as soon as I saw your praising reference to McVeigh. Maybe you are making good points, maybe not, but if you want me to read them and consider posting them you’ve got to do it sans McVeigh.
Also, I think you sent me an earlier e-mail that also had a positive reference to McVeigh, and I did not do anything with it.
Robert replied:
That is so knee jerk.
What it comes down to is I was right in my assessment at 10 AM [sic] in the morning unlike you and your other readers. Bit by bit some of them made the same points that I did and you did not post.
Yet, my post at 9 AM [sic] nailed it to the wall. Why can’t you simply admit that I was right? He is, for better or worse, another McVeigh. And like McVeigh, there was nothing untoward about what he said (in this case) online that would have led anyone to believe he was going to do what he did.
And, again, like it or not, these acts will not only continue to happen, they will intensify and become more frequent. Sticking your head in the sand and wringing hands will not change this.
Robert B. wrote:
Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2011 9:35.p.m.
Subject: Norway
“Norwegian media report Breivik set up a Twitter account a few days ago and posted: ‘One person with a belief is equal to 100,000 who have only interests’
Read more from Daily Mail.
I think that proves my 10 AM email to you as being the most correct one you had all day. I am sorry that you have not admitted to that. It goes without saying, of course, that the Left will “diagnose” him as being mentally ill (ala 1984) and therefore not representative of the backlash they are creating with their social engineering policies.
Again, it will get worse.
Robert B. wrote:
Sent: Sunday, July 24, 2011 11:54.p.m.
Subject: Re: Laura on the Norwegian killer
You know, Lawrence, I said nothing more than Shrewsbury said and I said day before he and yet you published him but not me.
And, even more astute than Shrewsbury, I predicted this in my exchange with you vis-a-vis McVeigh several years ago.
Again, I will reiterate, I got A’s in forecasting classes. I have picked Apple stock in 1998 when it was $11.50 a share and today that 1998 share is worth over $780.00. The only thing about Norway that surprises me is how long it took for someone to follow McVeigh. I expected it sooner than this. But I do expect more to come. The Left made it clear a long time ago that it has no time for the Right. As such, younger men than you and I, men with more to lose in the long term, will begin to act out …
Robert B. wrote:
Sent: Monday, July 25, 2011 12:04.a.m.
Subject: The Left’s reaction
All in all, the Left retrenched after the Oklahoma City bombing—they had been on a witch hunt for white male separatists before that—their witch hunt ended after that. Furthermore, your readers get the Unabomber wrong—he was not a Leftist. I read his manifesto and I compared it to his victim list. The Unabomber went after Left leaning judges, academics and government types, not Right wing people and institutions. he railed against a government that he saw as one steadily eroding personal freedoms.
Mark my words, the Left will be tippy toeing after this for quite awhile. The MSM will talk about it and so will bloggers, but the man in the street is terrified just now, quite terrified. Breivik followed Molotov’s rules of terror to a “T”. He struck deep and personally. And the message it sent was one of “you can run, but you cannot hide”—not even your children. There is no fear greater than the possibility of violence being inflicted by the common man walking down the street. When everyone becomes a possible suspect, the paranoia runs very, very deep.
Robert B. wrote:
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2011 1:08.p.m.
You wrote:
“Maybe, far from resulting in the increased rejection and even persecution of cultural conservatives and Islam critics, as many on the right have feared, the terrible Norway event is going to lead to their views being widely recognized for the first time and even accepted as part of mainstream political discourse.”
Also predicted in one of my emails
- end of initial entry -
LA to Robert B.
I’ve just posted an entry containing your e-mails that I previously rejected, plus some of our subsequent discussion.
Robert B. replies:
Wow—you surely did.
I give ground on your view of my usage of “understand.” I should have used the words such as “predictable,” or “to be expected,” or that “Behavior such as his is not unexpected.”
My use of “understand” means that I fully grasp the political situation. I fully grasp the idea that no indigenous government has ever, in the history of the world, sought to replace its own indigenous peoples with a new one. That I fully comprehend that such a blatant policy will inevitably lead to behavior such as Breivik’s and McVeigh’s.
Alan Levine writes:
I would like to know the source of Robert B.’s statement that the violence of the 60s left and the black riots were orchestrated by Communist apparatchiks. This is a lot of nonsense. There was no central organization for any of these things, which were “spontaneous” outpourings of the stupidity, viciousness and self-pity of those involved.
It is true that many of the SDS were “red diaper” babies who were the offspring of long-term members of the CPUSA, but they had rejected the Communists and the latter’s discipline precisely because the Reds weren’t sufficiently extreme, or psychotic. It is also news to me that terrorism in Tsarist Russia was orchestrated by the Communists. It went much farther back and was primarily associated with the Socialist Revolutionaries, not the Marxists. It did not “cow” the educated Russian public for the simple reason that most of the latter either sympathized with the terrorists to some degree or simply hated the Imperial government so much that they were unwilling to act against the terrorists. The slopping over of liberalism into sympathy with the far left, or its paralysis in the face of the latter’s atrocities, is actually one of the few respects in which Imperial Russia foreshadowed later events in the West!
Roland D. writes:
It’s your website, and I think it’s untoward for people to harangue you about your editorial decisions.
I send you material fairly frequently; either you find it relevant to your readership and post it, or you don’t. The key point is that it’s your readership—the only person who has a say-so on what’s posted on your website is you, and people who push you to post their commentary really should (a) learn some manners and (b) go post it elsewhere if their commentary doesn’t meet your editorial criteria.
The trouble with being a public figure is that people tend to think they somehow “own” a piece of you, and take liberties which they wouldn’t with their next-door neighbors. While you go out of your way to engage with correspondents, even those with whose views you disagree, nobody is entitled to have his commentary posted on your website except you.
July 27
Buck O. writes:
I’d simply like to concur with Roland D.’s statement. I’ve always thought the same and assumed that it was obvious to everyone. Lawrence Auster’s writings and his moderation of VFR’s content is what makes VFR, and is its essential character. I send material that I have no expectation of being posted. Sometimes I just want LA to see it, in case he hadn’t. Or, I want to say something silly or I think that I’m adding something, when I’m not.
We all know that there does not exist anywhere, another website that sets such a high standard and maintains it so consistently, with this amount of daily content. It amazes me.
I don’t know if anyone noticed, but VFR blew past entry 20,000 with “Times on the killer’s manifesto,” three days ago.
I congratulate you, and thank you once again.
LA replies:
I hadn’t noticed! I’ve been aware, in recent weeks, that I was getting close to entry number 20,000, then I forgot to check.
Robert B. writes:
Roland D. wrote:
It’s your website, and I think it’s untoward for people to harangue you about your editorial decisions.
Roland D. misinterprets. I made no demands to be published and in fact said in one of my responses that they were mostly for Lawrence any way. I have had many “conversations” with Lawrence over the many years and most have not been published. My only point was that others where being published who seeing bits and pieces of the whole, but not the whole and certainly not at 10AM in the morning. Most of Lawrence’s readers and, indeed, the whole Right blogosphere in deep denial over this man and his actions. Since this what I predicted what was coming several years ago, I was not astonished nor in denial. In fact, buried somewhere in Johnson’s LGF archives are very similar predictions made by me. Fiordman knew me there under my real name.
LA replies:
For the record, which I should have said when I posted Roland’s comment, I did not feel that Robert B. was haranguing me or doing anything improper by pushing for his comments, which I had rejected, to be posted. He felt strongly that he had a valid position, and that I had posted other comments that were similar to his, and therefore there was no reason for me not to post his as well. His demand, or request if he prefers, put a certain burden on me, as I had to go back and read all our previous correspondence on the subject, and further, as he was not accepting the distinction that I had made between his comments and others, it would have taken a lot of work to explain my position further, and even more work to post an edited version of his comments which left out the parts I found objectionable. His thoughts were all part of one continuum and couldn’t have been fairly abridged in any case, and so the choice was either to post his comments in their entirety or not at all.
At the same time, Roland and Buck make a valid general point.
Robert B. continues:
Buck O. wrote:
“I’d simply like to concur with Roland D.’s statement.”
And what has that got to do with the price of bread? The proof is in the pudding. And the greater point here is that the Left has driven the average man in the West to despair. Western Man is not the same as Eastern Man—who never knew freedom when the Communists took control of his nations. They were always serfs. But Western Man, he has known centuries of increasing freedom. His history is steeped in these freedoms and the struggles to obtain them. He will not “go quietly into the night.” The Left’s dysfunctional society has been bringing out the worst in some people for quite some time now, it is only to be expected that it will also bring out the “outliers” on the Right—those who see their world slipping away from them and their rightful heritage being given to the “other.” In desperation—they will act out. The Left expects this, to some degree, it is why they refer to “white privilege”, “angry white men”, disgruntled white men” and Obama’s infamous “Bible and Guns” speech.
Robert B. writes:
Alan Levine wrote:
I would like to know the source of Robert B.’s statement that the violence of the 60s left and the black riots were orchestrated by Communist apparatchiks. This is a lot of nonsense. There was no central organization for any of these things, which were “spontaneous” outpourings of the stupidity, viciousness and self-pity of those involved.
I would suggest Mr. Levine read Horowitz’s “Hating Whitey.” Horowitz was a member. He makes it quite clear who was pulling the strings. I would also recommend the various books written about what was in the KGB files (Malkin and Coulter for starters) when they were opened. [LA replies: This is not an adequate answer to Mr. Levine’s point. While there may have been Communists behind specific violent events, the idea that Communists orchestrated the black urban riots is extremely implausible. I would doubt very much that Horowitz makes such an assertion.]
Lastly, since Lawrence often quotes and paraphrases Dylan, I would refer you to the two hour PBS documentary on Dylan, wherein he discusses the Seegers, father and son. According to Dylan, “Peter, Paul and Mary” were a Seeger contrivance (among others) and the Seegers wrote their music. Most of the anti-war, anti American music played by bands such as CSN&Y were written by the Seegers. The Seegers had a long term plan to use pop music to indoctrinate American youth. According to Dylan himself, Dylan’s “Like A Rolling Stone” was written as his refutation of them. The song is about individualism as opposed to their collectivism. It was the only song he sang at their vaunted Folk Music Festival the year it was released—much to Seeger’s chagrin. There is, it turns out, much on the internet concerning the Seegers and Berkley California radio station. [LA replies: As I have noted before, everything that Dylan says about himself and his songs is a lie. The man has no relationship with the truth. Further, his remark about the supposed meaning of “Like a Rolling Stone” is highly implausible in its own terms. In any case, the subject of the Seegers writing the songs of Peter, Paul and Mary is not relevant to the point raised by Mr. Levine.]
The Communist Part has/had deep hooks into this nation of ours—it is sheer hubris to think otherwise.
Ben S. writes:
Understanding—as in, “I understand why he did it”—can indeed be a loaded word, but taken literally it can simply mean comprehension. I understand for instance how a Third Worlder who has been raised Muslim can be convinced to become a suicide bomber; it is sufficient to convince him that Allah wants him to kill infidels, and that if he dies in the process he will be rewarded beyond anything he could hope for in this life. Breivik is harder to understand, but I believe the following ingredients are sufficient to make him what he is:
1. Comprehension of the threat Islam poses to our civilization.
2. Belief that any means can be justified by a sufficient end. This is his greatest sin.
3. Great tactical ability—he is a self-trained expert in killing.
4. Poor grand-strategic ability. He did not realize that what he did would be so abhorrent that it would strangle his hoped-for resistance movement in the cradle, or at least make it the enemy of the whole of society, with Muslims seeming benign by comparison.
5. Hubris/narcissism. He told himself he could be a hero for the ages, the one who did what the weaklings and traitors could not and would not to save Europe. This was self-reinforcing, motivating him to overcome the obstacles of his conscience and judgement (see 2 and 4).
Conservatives can only be blamed for 1: comprehension of the threat Islam poses to our civilization. Except not really, since his high intelligence could have led to this on its own, as it led to 3. It may be too bad that he was not even smarter, since then he may have understood in spite of himself that his vision for Europe was ultimately unrealistic and incoherent. For instance, I do not think he understands how incompatible Vlad the Impaler is with Christianity, and how impossible it would be to create a new Europe in which they are reconciled.
Ultimately, he was warped to the point of psychosis, as my post at Free Republic demonstrates. To put it succinctly, he suggests that a person who is willing to become a eunuch “and/or” kill children is loyal, provided that he has a clean bill of health.
Buck O. writes:
Robert B. wrote, in response to me concurring with Roland D.: “And what has that got to do with the price of bread?” Ouch! Sharp elbow to a stranger. I was talking to the general reader, the emotional hand-wringers that you, Robert, so distinguish yourself from, about VFR, and to Lawrence about his blog and what’s unique about it—that he decides what is posted—not the reader. In spite of what you half-say, you clearly don’t like that. You should take your vastly superior, smartest-guy-in-the-room attitude and dispense wisdom at your own blog. Lawrence may not deem your demanding, lengthy, lecturing, and aggressive attitude as haranguing, but by definition, it is.
LA writes:
Normally I don’t allow readers to get overly personal with each other, but I did inadvertently allow Robert’s dismissive “price of bread” comment to get through, and so it was fair to allow Buck to reply in kind.
Robert B. writes:
You wrote:
“This is not an adequate answer to Mr. Levine’s point. While there may have been Communists behind specific violent events, the idea that Communists orchestrated the black urban riots is extremely implausible. I would doubt very much that Horowitz makes such an assertion.”
He does, in fact, make this assertion in his book with regards to the 1968 riots which were meant to spark a race war. He also makes this assertion concerning the Black Panthers whom he also came to see as purely thugs. It was his engagment of the last, the Panthers, that convinced him of the evil in the Left.
As far as the Seegers go, Folk music and its influence is well documented.
As I said, a simple Google search will reveal plenty more.
McCarthy barely scratched the surface. It is sad that the people of this country are so blind to what is really happening.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at July 26, 2011 02:51 PM | Send
|