No, He’s Not Crazy On His Own Terms

Pajamas Media » A Double Tragedy for Norway

Not only has it lost almost one hundred people to a senseless rampage, but legitimate criticism of Islam has been profoundly discredited by association with a murderous lunatic.

Exactly. This whole thing is such a blow to the opposition to Islam the ideology that it’s hard to resist donning the tinfoil hat and wondering if we actually do know the real motivations of this terrorist.

On the other hand, Charles Manson had similarly whacked strategic notions (recall that he hoped to start a race war that would bring down the United States by stabbing white people with forks), and that seemed perfectly sane not only to him but to several followers of his.

It’s easy to write this guy off as a lone lunatic, just as apologists for violent Islam write off the hundreds and thousands of deaths at its hands as the work of lunatics. I don’t believe lunacy in any real sense – the babble-wabble, lip flubbering, listening to dogs from Venus stuff – is the issue in either case. Both this man and Islamists who seek to impose Sharia and Islam on the world by violence are acting out the dictates of an ideology as they personally understand it. Giving either the simple out of insanity seems to me to deliberately mis-state the reality of the situation.

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.


No, He’s Not Crazy On His Own Terms — 2 Comments

  1. Don’t accept the discreding of opposition to Islam. I am not a Nazi. I do not accept Islam as being fit for civilization, but I say that about no other religion. If I am wrong about Islam it is because I believe that a religion cannot change in its fundamentals – that although various groups of people who profess a religion can change, for better or for worse in what they practice under the name of that religion, these groups will invariably spontaneously generate fundamentalists, and when Islam generates fundamentalists, it is very bad news – unless you like living with people who are violent, murderous, intolerant, and always trying to conquer you. Bahai, which sprang from Islam, I accept as being benign and peaceful – but followers of Bahai are not Moslems. If I am wrong, someone should, with respect, show me how I am wrong.

    A Nazi is intolerant of anyone who is not of his own following. I have reacted, with understanding because I study history, to the violence of Islam, specifically, the violence of September 11th, 2001. Nobody interested in truth has any business calling me a Nazi because of this. The Oslo killer was a real Nazi. He acted very much as did bin Laden and his followers. The socialist left, another group intolerant of those who do not profess the “faith” may wish to group me with the Oslo killer, but the Oslo killer and bin Laden are of the same ilk. The socialist left also belongs with this group of intolerant killers. We have their respective “heroes” – Hitler, Stalin, and Mohammed. The left has never answered for Stalin and all the people around the world who followed his ideology and lied about his murderous behaviour. Islam has never answered for Mohammed’s and his followers’ murderous behavior.

    Don’t let a member of the troika – Hitler followers, Stalin apologists and deniers, and Mohammed apologists and deniers – make you feel one ounce of guilt by association. Shove the real association of evil right back into the socialist’s laps. It is the socialists who should be shamed by the actions of another mass murderer, albeit a relatively petty one, whose actions echo the actions of the founders of modern socialism.

    Take it to them.

  2. I asked myself the same questions.

    If the Islamists are the threat, why did he attack the Labour Party headquarters and then their children? Wouldn’t muslims be the anticipated target?

    Then I realized tha,t in his mind, the Labour party was the party of traitors who were giving everything to Islam. Traitors always come before enemies on the target list. (See the actions of leftists in this country when one of them dares to leave the plantation.)

    Killing their children as punishment for that betrayal was the most horrific act against the Labour party he could imagine. It would fit with his statement that what he did was horrible but necessary.

    Calling himself a Christian doesn’t make him one, any more than running up and down hills ringing a bell would make him a mountain bike.

Leave a Reply