‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’ by Michelle Malkin Creators Syndicate Copyright 2012 If you aren’t creeped out by the No Birth Control Left Behind rhetoric of the White House and Planned Parenthood, you aren’t listening closely enough. The anesthetic of progressive benevolence always dulls the senses. Wake up. When a bunch of wealthy white women and elite Washington bureaucrats defend the trampling of religious liberties in the name of “increased access” to “reproductive services” for “poor” women, the ghost of Margaret Sanger is cackling. As she wrote in her autobiography, Sanger founded Planned Parenthood in 1916 “to stop the multiplication of the unfit.” This, she boasted, would be “the most important and greatest step towards race betterment.” While she oversaw the mass murder of black babies, Sanger cynically recruited minority activists to front her death racket. She conspired with eugenics financier and businessman Clarence Gamble to “ hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities ” to sell their genocidal policies as community health and welfare services. Outright murder wouldn’t sell. But wrapping it under the egalitarian cloak of “women’s health” — and adorning it with the moral authority of black churches — would. Sanger and Gamble called their deadly campaign “The Negro Project.” In other writings, historian Mike Perry found, Sanger attacked programs that provided “medical and nursing facilities to slum mothers” because they “facilitate the function of maternity” when “the absolute necessity is to discourage it.” In an essay included in her writing collection held by the Library of Congress, Sanger urged her abortion clinic colleagues to “breed a race of thoroughbreds.” Nationwide “birth control bureaus” would propagate the proper “science of breeding” to stop impoverished, non-white women from “breeding like weeds.” Speaking with CBS veteran journalist Mike Wallace in 1957, long after her racist views had supposedly mellowed, Sanger again revealed her true colors : “I think the greatest sin in the world is bringing children into the world — that have disease from their parents, that have no chance in the world to be a human being practically. Delinquents, prisoners, all sorts of things just marked when they’re born. That to me is the greatest sin — that people can — can commit.” Sanger also elaborated on her anti-Catholic animus, telling one of Wallace’s reporters that New York Catholics had no right to protest the use of their tax dollars for birth city birth-control programs: “ (I)t’s not only wrong, it should be made illegal for any religious group to prohibit dissemination of birth control — even among its own members.” When Wallace pressed her (“In other words, you would like to see the government legislate religious beliefs in a certain sense?”), Sanger laughed nervously and disavowed the remarks. Fast forward: Five decades and 16 million aborted black babies later, Planned Parenthood’s insidious agenda has migrated from inner-city “birth control bureaus” to public school-based health clinics to the White House — forcibly funded with taxpayer dollars just as Sanger championed. Several undercover stings by Live Action, pro-life documentarians, have exposed Planned Parenthood staff accepting donations over the years from callers posing as eugenics cheerleaders who wanted to earmark their contributions for the cause of aborting minority babies. “We can definitely designate it for an African-American,” a Tulsa, Okla., Planned Parenthood employee eagerly promised. What has cheap, easy and unmonitored “choice” for poor women in inner cities wrought? Nightmares like the Philadelphia Horror , where serial baby-killer Dr. Kermit Gosnell and his abortion clinic death squad oversaw the systematic execution of hundreds of healthy, living, breathing, squirming, viable black and Hispanic babies over 4 decades — along with several minority mothers who may have lost their lives in his grimy birth control bureau. City and state authorities looked the other way while jars of baby parts and reports of botched abortions and infanticides piled up. Beltway Democrats who now bray about their concern for “women’s health” were silent about the Gosnell massacre and countless others like it in America’s ghettos. Why? The Obama administration is crawling with the modern-day heirs of the eugenics movement, from Planned Parenthood golden girl Kathleen Sebelius at the Department of Health and Human Services to the president’s prestigious science czar John Holdren — an outspoken proponent of forced abortions and mass sterilizations and a self-proclaimed protege of eugenics guru Harrison Brown, whom he credits with inspiring him to become a scientist. Brown envisioned a government regime in which the “number of abortions and artificial inseminations permitted in a given year would be determined completely by the difference between the number of deaths and the number of births in the year previous.” He urged readers to “reconcile ourselves to the fact that artificial means must be applied to limit birth rates.” He likened the global population to a “pulsating mass of maggots.” Listen carefully as this White House dresses its Obamacare abortion mandate in the white lab coat of “reproductive services” for all. The language of “access to birth control” is the duplicitous code of Sanger’s ideological grim reapers.
Follow this link:
‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
Well, I’m holding off on some political analysis because there’s just too much news and commentary to digest. I’ll be blogging the reactions to the South Carolina primary earthquake later today. Meanwhile, I’m getting ready for some football. I love the playoffs more than the Super Bowl, and Bill Plaschke does too, at the Los Angeles Times, ” This Sunday is twice as good for NFL fans “: One of the hidden truths in professional football will make its annual appearance Sunday, bitten by frost, pelted by rain, awash in beauty. Advertisers don’t want you to know it. Party planners don’t want you to feel it. The NFL itself would rather you not recognize it. But with the intensity of a John Elway scramble and the passion of a Dwight Clark leap, it is a truth that cannot be denied. Sunday is the greatest single day of the NFL season. Sunday is the real Super Bowl, only twice as much and twice as good. The two conference championship games played Sunday will be more compelling than the one game played two weeks later, and it won’t even be close. Sunday is the Super Bowl minus the capital letters, Roman numerals and incessant glitz. Sunday is real football, played in real weather, in front of real fans, for real stakes. I’ve never seen a Super Bowl winner cry. I’ve seen New Orleans Saints players weeping when they beat the Minnesota Vikings to qualify for their first Super Bowl. I’ve never seen a Super Bowl quarterback quiver. I’ve seen Peyton Manning nearly faint from emotion as he staggered off the field after finally beating Tom Brady and qualifying for his first Super Bowl. The Super Bowl has become so big, both teams feel as if they’ve won by simply being there, and often act and play like it. The conference championships are very different, very down, very dirty. Heroes are made, chokers are discovered, every victory is much sweeter, each defeat more devastating. The conference championship games create so many great moments, those moments have been given enduring names. The Catch. The Drive. The Fumble. Even perhaps the most legendary postseason game of the modern was a Super Bowl semifinal game, the 1967 Ice Bowl in Green Bay. When as the last time the Super Bowl produced something so memorable that it was given a name? The Wardrobe Malfunction? This Sunday’s conference title clashes will be more of the same, a Super Bowl without some highbrow casual fan staring at the TV shouting “Super!” while other fans spend time grazing in appetizer bowls. RTWT. Also, at USA Today , ” Three-and-out: Giants, 49ers set to add to playoff history ,” and ” Three-and-out: Ravens, Patriots provide battle of contrasts .”
The rest is here:
NFL Conference Championship Weekend
After days of criticism, it appears that Newt Gingrich is finally backing off of his attack on Mitt Romney’s tenure as chief of investment firm Bain Capital. After Gingrich connected SuperPAC Winning Our Future released the 29 minute long King of Bain , a film meant to transform Romney’s free market executive experience from the cornerstone of his candidacy to a millstone around his neck, it might be too little too late. The film is filled with the sort of “tugging at the heart strings” that is meant to appeal to your emotions rather than your brain, and is normally a style that we associate with progressive filmmakers and not GOP presidential candidates. This alone is enough to condemn King of Bain . However, the film’s emotional appeal is not its most disturbing aspect. What is arguably more disturbing is that King of Bain depends on the ignorance of its viewer in order for to be effective (Side note: this should tell you something about what Newt Gingrich thinks about his potential voters). It’s this ignorance that makes the viewer vulnerable to the emotional plea and, for this reason, it is important that we understand why companies like Bain Capital are important and how they provide a valuable service to the economy. King of Bain chronicles the effects on individuals who at one time were employed by companies that have been broken up and liquidated by Bain Capital while Romney was at its helm. It gives the impression that the individuals interviewed had been victimized by Bain Capital’s greedy corporate raiders for no reason other than to line the pockets of fat cats who have no regard to the human effects. The fact that Bain’s sole purpose is to make profit for its investors is repeated ad nauseam throughout the film. It also happens to be one of the few aspects of the film that is 100% accurate. This fact also happens to be true for every single successful business that operates within a free market, so we can dismiss this outright as a legitimate source of criticism. Furthermore, firms like Bain generally don’t break up companies that can be saved. The reason for this is as obvious as it is simple: they have no financial incentive to do so. If a company can be saved it becomes a long-term source of profit rather than the short term source that a fire-sale creates. Turning an investment into a long-term source of profit is always a preferable scenario for an investment firm and Bain has numerous examples of having successfully done this. Sometimes, however, companies cannot be saved, in which case they need to be “creatively destroyed” as economist Joseph Schumpeter might describe it. In these cases, investment firms will acquire ailing companies and squeeze every dollar of value that they can out of what is left of them. As cynical as this might sound, it serves a purpose beyond the amassing of profit for the firm’s investors. First, the assets that are sold are usually purchased by companies that can make better use of them than the one that failed. Machinery, raw materials, and other forms of physical capital are put to better use than they had been. Second, the revenue from the assets sold is redirected by the investment firm into new companies, allowing new ventures to take root and prosper. In other words, the death of one failing business can support the growth of two, three, or more startups, just as dead vegetation will fertilize the soil and facilitate the growth of new vegetation. The sort of redirection of capital that investment and asset management firms facilitate isn’t just a feature of the free market, it is its lifeblood. It is precisely what makes it superior to a centrally planned economy where failing companies continue to sap resources through public subsidies. We cannot deny that this sort of business that investment firms engage in has an effect on real people and, in the end, will often cost real people their jobs. It’s an extremely unpleasant fact to acknowledge but it is a feature of the free market, not a bug. On the flip side of this unpleasant fact, and what the King of Bain filmmakers are hoping that you don’t understand, is that the redirection of capital into more productive areas of the economy creates jobs as well. Those jobs are, unfortunately, unseen and difficult to quantify. So here’s to Bain capital and other investment firms like it. The truth is that without them we would be more dependent on investment banks like Morgan Stanley or Goldman Sachs. Our other option is having the government centrally manage the growth of our modern economy, something that may appeal to progressives and those who have distributed this film, but certainly shouldn’t appeal to conservatives. Nick Rizzuto is a producer for GBTV. Follow him on Twitter @Nick_Rizzuto .
See original here:
Why firms like Bain Capital are important to the free market
Daily Caller – Texas congressman and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul said President Obama’s use of executive orders “brings the modern presidency dangerously close to an elective dictatorship” in a Fox Business Network appearance on Wednesday.
Read more from the original source:
Ron Paul: Obama presidency ‘dangerously close to an elective dictatorship’
(Daily Caller)
Back at the end of August, I wrote in the Morning Jolt: Jeb Ellis is one of those guys who I wish wrote more, because it always seems thought-provoking, it certainly seems to be generated by discussions with folks at the highest levels of finance and politics (he is President George W. Bush’s cousin, you’ll recall) and sometimes you can feel him nudging the national conventional wisdom in a new direction, paragraph by paragraph : “The Republican ‘establishment,’ such as it is, is quickly coming to the realization that the 2012 GOP presidential nomination is Texas Governor Rick Perry’s to lose. He leads in Iowa and he hasn’t even really campaigned there yet. He’s running second in New Hampshire , which is all he needs to do. And he’s running comfortably ahead in South Carolina (again, without much campaigning), which is the gateway to the South. The South is the base of the modern Republican Party. Perry has become, in less than a month, the Southern states’ de facto favorite son.” Keep reading this post . . .
See original here:
Ellis: Perry’s Missing His Chance to Build a Big Lead Early
I read but don’t normally blog William Jacobson’s Saturday Night Card Game. But last night’s was something else: ” Saturday Night Card Game (The “Negrophobia” card is played) .” The “Negrophobia” card is played at Balloon Juice, ” The Modern Negrophobists reaction to the President’s speech… ” It’s really disgusting, the cartoon and the ideas behind it in the contemporary context. But the commenters are running with it, for example : The modern negrophobist would demand the would be rescuer bring him a large rock so he could sink more quickly. That cartoon warms my heart. I especially like the way the artist depicted the bigot as some sort of weasel/human hybrid. I don’t even know what to say. These people are simply not my countrymen. The sentiment is analogous to the kind of anti-Semitism found in caricatured drawings of long-nosed money-grubbing Jews. In other words, it’s eliminationist. I haven’t finished listening to it, but Dennis Prager, in a clip at Blazing Cat Fur, indicates that progressive ideology is so removed from the basic values of this country as to be functionally anti-American. See: ” Dennis Prager’s Top 10 Ways Liberalism Makes America Worse .” Balloon Juice demonstrates the point 1000s of times over.
Follow this link:
Negrophobia
Arguing federal management in Irene’s wake, the modern-day problem’s overspending and bureaucracy.
Read the original:
Paul, Sanders on FEMA: Anti-Federalist vs. Federalist, or a Battle Over Bloat?
ICYMI, be sure to read my earlier entry, ” Charlotte Allen: ‘The Mess at Widener Law School .” I’ve been thinking about the case and will have more later. Mostly, I’m trying to figure out Deans Ammons’ animosity toward Professor Connell. Charlotte Allen notes : Connell’s most egregious offense … and probably the offense that brought down the full-bore wrath of Ammons upon him, was a series of classroom hypotheticals. The scenarios involved Ammons herself and Connell’s efforts to kill her (hypothetically) after she threatened to fire him (hypothetically) for parking his car in her parking space. In one of the hypotheticals Connell rushed into Ammons’ office with his .357 magnum and shot her in the head—except that the “head” turned out to a pumpkin artfully painted to look just like the dean. The idea was to ask the class whether under prevailing legal rules he should be tried for attempted murder—or not, since no harm actually befell her. Imaginative and macabrely humorous hypotheticals, often pitting professors against deans and other campus authority figures, are a standard feature of Old Law School pedagogy. The idea is that the students will absorb and remember the underlying legal principles better in a context of humorous narrative. Hypotheticals show up not just in law school classrooms but in exam questions and moot-court competitions. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan was repeatedly murdered in classroom hypotheticals when she was dean of Harvard Law School. Indeed, as Professor Jonathan Turley indicates, ” Widener Law Professor Suspended For Using Dean In Hypotheticals “: I must confess that I routinely incorporate the Dean at our school in the same type of hypotheticals as well as any contract professors. Indeed, my final every year involves some struggle between myself and the Dean and contracts professors. Absent something more, I fail to see the basis for such disciplinary action. Other professors have raises objections to the case on sites like Volokh. In his letter, [Widener Vice Dean J. Patrick] Kelly accuses Connell of an “outgoing pattern” of misconduct, and cites his use of such hypotheticals, including “cursing and coarse behavior, “racist and sexist statements” and “violent, personal scenarios that demean and threaten your colleagues.” Without more, the allegations raise serious concerns over academic freedom and privilege. I am most disturbed by the statement of Gregory F. Scholtz, associate secretary and director of the American Association of University Professors. AAUP is organization that is expected to defend academic freedom. Yet, Scholtz is quoted as saying “Education is all about pushing the boundaries, and it’s all about controversial ideas, but the question always is when does it cross the line. Given our modern culture and the violence that exists, you’re really asking for trouble when you talk about killing people.” Really? That is news to those of us who teach torts and criminal law. It is common for faculty to incorporate colleagues into hypotheticals as good-humored jokes. At my school, contracts professors respond by incorporating me into their own hypotheticals. I have never found it even remotely bothersome or insulting. It keeps the attention of students and adds a needed element of levity in lectures. It’s routine. And Turley has more on how chilling the Lawrence case is for academic freedom. Also, at Volokh, ” Interview With Lawrence Connell, the Criminal Law Professor Suspended for His Hypotheticals “: Q: Can you give me an example of a hypothetical you might have used in class, to which the students who complained might have been referring? Can you describe the context in which you would have used it? A: Yes, here is one: The Dean has threatened to fire me if she comes to school one more time and finds that I have parked in her designated parking space. Upset about the possibility of losing both my job and the parking space, I bring my .357 to school, get out of my car, put the .357 into my waistband, walk to the top floor where her office is located, open the door to her office, see her seated at her desk, draw my weapon, aim my weapon, and fire my weapon directly into what I believe to be her head. To my surprise, it’s not the Dean at all, but an ingeniously painted pumpkin — a pumpkin that has been intricately painted to look like the Dean. Dick Tracy rushes in and immediately wrestles me to the ground. I am charged with the attempted murder of the Dean. The hypothetical raises various issues about attempted crimes that might entail discussion that spans more than one class. Some of the classroom discussion in the first, for example, will address the two basic philosophical problems of why we punish attempts, which are failed efforts at crime, and why we punish attempts less than successfully completed crimes. A retributive argument, on the one hand, is that the attemptor has demonstrated his moral culpability by his bad conduct, and the degree of his punishment should not depend on a fortuitous turn of luck. On the other hand, a retributivist might argue that punishment in the absence of harm is unjust. For retributive purposes, has Connell demonstrated his moral culpability by shooting what he believes to be the Dean? Or does the fact that he merely destroyed a pumpkin suggest that his punishment would be unjust? It’s obviously a powerful heuristic. More on this tonight. I’m checking around for more on Deans Ammons’ motivations to persecute Professor Connell.
Follow this link:
Professor Lawrence Connell’s Hypotheticals
With at least 95 innocent people dead from the grizzly Norway attacks, the world has been presented with a puzzling case study. How should Norway, a traditionally peaceful nation with strict gun laws, prepare for future terrorist attacks? We have the facts of Norway’s recent tragedy: an armed man with multiple automatic weapons opened fire on scores of youths at a summer camp located on the island of Utøya. Tragically, it took the police almost 90 minutes to respond to frantic phone calls for help. Over an hour? According to one of the would-be victims, they attempted to call an emergency hotline but it did not work. They instead had to call the nearest police station in Hønefoss located about 15.5 miles away from the dock directly across from Utøya. Why did the hotline not work? Why did it take police officers well over an hour to travel less than 20 miles on country roads? According to police officials, one of the reasons it took them so long to get to the island was because there were no boats available. Surely, these facts alone would give one reason to reevaluate the state’s current security practices. But when asked if the massacre would prompt Norwegian politicians to consider stronger security measures to ensure against these types of tragedies, Oslo’s mayor Fabian Stang responded, “I don’t think security can solve problems. We need to teach greater respect.” Just take a minute to reflect on his comment. The mayor says that the appropriate response to youths being gunned down is to teach “greater respect?” How do you teach “greater respect” to an unhinged maniac with a bag full of assault rifles? Who is crazier: the lunatic or the “sane” man who thinks he can reason with him? To say that it was a lack of “respect” that led to the Norwegian shooting spree is tantamount to saying that it was a lack of emphasis on the food pyramid (excuse me, “food plate” ) that led Jeffery Dahmer to cannibalize 17 victims. Why not simply call evil by its name? To respond to evil by saying that society needs to “embrace tolerance” or to call for more “openness,” and to not at least consider taking steps to guard against it, is naïve, unproductive and dangerous. And what does he mean by “greater respect”? As defined by who? How does he plan on implementing “greater respect”? Does he actually have a solid plan, or is this one of those meaningless phrases that politicians love to throw around? For the mayor to reject the notion of reevaluating security methods–ones that don’t involve the police taking well over an hour to travel 15.5 miles–and to instead claim that people need be “nicer” to each other is not only insulting but it also speaks to a darker problem in modern thought. The mayor’s response shows that he lacks one of the supreme virtues: prudence. His answer reveals that he is unwilling to exercise caution or circumspection in regards to real dangers or risks and that he fails to exhibit good judgment. To be prudent is not just to know what the right thing is but also to act on it . Therefore, in order to be or act prudently one must know the “good,” and to act upon it in accord with the situation. However, because prudence is an intellectual virtue, and is heavily based in experience, knowing the right thing to do in a situation, and doing it, involves a level of moral reasoning. This is where we encounter the problem. We have lost our deeper understanding and appreciation for the “moral.” Essentially, our modern moral language has been informed by Sesame Street. As a society, we no longer talk about “good” versus “evil,” of morality and immorality, but instead we are taught that man’s highest calling is to be “nice to each other” and to not be “mean.” Without a proper understanding of what morality is, and with a lack of prudential formation, it only stands to reason that the mayor’s response would betray an amount of naivety, that is, a deficiency in worldly wisdom or informed judgment. Responding to mass murder with calls for ambiguous ideals will not deter madmen. Good judgment, informed by prudence, and necessary precaution does. But at least the mayor is not being “mean.” And back to the original question regarding Norway and future precautions: as there is no apparent public desire to introduce a concealed carry permit, easing of guns laws might not be the best answer. Furthermore, one would probably be wrong to suggest that, after several years of relatively successful gun control, Norway should suddenly throw open its doors and encourage every citizen to purchase one. However, what should be acknowledged, and this is where the mayor is wrong, is that a new variable has been introduced into the Norwegian social equation. Crazy people with guns do exist and they do want to cause harm. What this means is that a wise person, informed by experience, must now reevaluate what he once thought a solid formula. Therefore, instead of copping out with a feel good answer like “greater respect,” a truly prudent statesman would have responded to the security question by saying, “Perhaps.”
Excerpt from:
Imprudent Oslo mayor rejects security improvements following massacre
I linked previously to the New York Times ‘s report: ” Right-Wing Extremist Charged in Norway .” The Times altered the headline at the newspaper’s website, ” Christian Extremist Charged in Norway ” (and Memeorandum, at 7:50pm, had ” Death Toll Rises to 92 in Norway Attacks “). And now it’s altered it again, ” Oslo Suspect Wrote of Fear of Islam and Plan for War .” The Old Gray Lady is notorious for altering its news reporting, without citing changes, in furtherance of its progressive political agenda , so that’s a glimpse on the witch hunt reporting that we’re already seeing. FWIW, here’s this from the introduction at the report: OSLO, Norway — The Norwegian man charged Saturday with a pair of attacks in Oslo that killed at least 92 people left behind a detailed manifesto outlining his preparations and calling for a Christian civil war to defend Europe against the threat of Muslim domination, according to Norwegian and American officials familiar with the investigation. Also, the Wall Street Journal has this, ” Suspect Identified With Far Right .” After a boilerplate lede, the report indicates: While Oslo police have remained largely silent about Mr. Breivik’s possible motives and background, the 32-year-old described himself on a now-shut down Facebook page as a Christian conservative with hobbies in hunting and body-building. He also had at one time been a member of the youth movement of the Norwegian Progress Party, which is widely considered as a right-wing populist party. Populist parties are generally oriented toward elite opposition and economic injustice. Outright racist appeals are generally secondary or a function of economic dislocation. And in the European context “far-right” parties conjure images of the Nazis or the French National Front under Jean-Marie Le Pen. And for that matter, Norway’s Progress Party has been shifting toward a moderate neo-liberal economic program for over a decade, attempting to downplay party schisms over immigration. So for all the media reporting, it’s not definitely accurate to cite Behring Breivik as a “right wing extremist.” He doesn’t evince a coherent or systemic ideological program. I’ve read through portions of his Internet postings, translated from Norwegian. See: ” This is a complete list of comments Anders Behring Breivik has left at Document.no .” Positions that would normally be considered extreme right wing, especially in the traditional European context, aren’t in evidence: Anyway, we are not in a position where we can pick and choose our partners. That’s why we have to ensure that we influence other culturally conservatives to take our anti-racist pro-homosexual, pro-Israeli line of thought. When this direction has been taken we can take it to the next level. That’s interesting, especially the anti-racist and pro-gay statements, and of course historic European right-wing ideologies were implacably anti-Semitic. And get this, at Telegraph UK : Eyewitness reports from the island of Utoya, where the shootings took place, have also described a tall, blond haired, blue-eyed Norwegian man dressed as a police officer. On the Facebook page attributed to him, Mr Breivik describes himself as a Christian and a conservative. It listed his interests as hunting, body building and freemasonry. His profile also listed him as single. The page has since been taken down. The odd point is Behring Breivik’s identification with freemasonry, which would contradict the media claims of him being at Christian zealot. New York Daily News also stresses freemasonry, ” Who is Anders Behring Breivik? Norway shooting suspect’s profile emerges .” All in all, most media reporting is lazy and incoherent. And to top it off, James Alan Fox, a criminology professor at Northeastern University, identifies Behring Breivik as a clinical mass murderer rather than an ideological terrorist. See, ” Norway massacre fits the mold “: As details surface in the days and weeks ahead about Friday’s massacre in Norway and about Anders Behring Breivik, the man believed to have perpetrated the bloodbath, we will hopefully be able to make some sense of what now seems so unfathomable. However, even with the sketchy information uncovered in the immediate aftermath of the shooting/bombing, the crime and the accused fit the mass murder mold in many respects. … Mass murderers do not typically see themselves as criminal, but instead as the victim of injustice. They often consider themselves as a heroic champion for right over wrong and their crimes as absolutely justified. RTWT. In sum, while no doubt Anders Behring Breivik dabbled in conservative politics and social movements, it’s not the case that he had a clear cut ideological agenda. He identified as culturally conservative, but he did not attach his beliefs to classic racial supremacy theories or historic anti-Jewish movements of genocidal purity (“right-wing” by definition). He combined a frustration with the growth of Norway’s multiculturalism with what would normally be seen as tolerance toward social and religious minorities. The latter points are tendencies that are championed by progressives. For Behring Breivik to exhibit these things, along with expressions of freemason beliefs, and a ” hatred ” of the modern institutional church, indicates a more complex pyschological profile than MSM outlets have portrayed. We saw a similar pattern of conclusion-jumping almost immediately upon the Jared Loughner shooting in Tuscon early this year. RELATED : See the interesting discussion from Dana Loesch, at Big Journalism , ” A Quick Lesson for Media on the Definition of “Right Wing” .” Also, from Mike McNally at Pajamas Media , ” Can the Left Resist the Temptation to Exploit the Norway Attacks? ”
See the original post here:
Anders Behring Breivik — No Clear Ideological Program
