Regardless of the politics of Anders Behring Breivik, his politics weren't responsible for his alleged crime. Holding extremist views in itself doesn't lead you to commit a crime; but it certainly is no hindrance.
If you espouse the idea that Muslims threaten your way of life which is only made possible through the multiculturalism of progressives, it's understandable that you would resent both Muslims and progressives. After all, your way of life is in peril, right?
More and more however, this idea has been gaining traction and can't be characterized as "extremism".
US Presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich echoes those sentiments.
So when Breivik shoots up a youth camp of the left-wing Labour Party, people naturally try to figure out why this took place. Breivik provides us with a rambling 1,500 page manifesto. Some of it plagiarized, some of it his own writing. It's inevitable that not all of its content pertains to his motivation to kill those within the Labour Party. Therefore, the passages that suggest this course of action would be especially salient, would they not?
Is it therefore only fair that judges of high rank with party affiliations to the Labour Party and the other parties who support multiculturalism (and therefore Islamisation) is to be considered category B or C traitors? They obviously have a considerable responsibility and should be considered traitors of their people.So there you go: traitors. So it's reasonable to assume that this fanatic understood the problem within Norway to be the Labour Party's support of multiculturalism which, he believes, will lead to "Islamisation".
Not so if you're Mark Steyn!
|Seth Rogan's Islamophobic|
I'm sure it's comforting for him. It's entirely wrong, but it's comforting. When your livelihood is made possible through publishing such books as "America Alone: The End of the World as We Know It", "Lights Out: Islam, Free Speech And The Twilight Of The West" and next title will be "After America: Get Ready for Armageddon", self-reflection is a luxury you can't afford. He argues:
So, if a blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavian kills dozens of other blonde blue-eyed Aryan Scandinavians, that’s now an “Islamophobic” mass murder? As far as we know, not a single Muslim was among the victims. Islamophobia seems an eccentric perspective to apply to this atrocity, and comes close to making the actual dead mere bit players in their own murder.Steyn is unable to see the link between the violence directed towards the youth wing of a left-of-centre political group that supports multiculturalism when Breivik sees them as traitors.
Of course not! Why?
It is unclear how seriously this “manifesto” should be taken.Steyn's argument is that if you plagiarize parts of your 1,500 page manifesto, you don't mean any of it. Blinders are not worn only by horses anymore. If you can stomach watching the 12 minute video that Breivik had released, it seems pretty much inline with the fear-mongering that Steyn promotes to his readers.
Remember after 9/11 when the identity of the attackers was revealed to the world? The initial reaction in some of the Muslim world was one of disbelief. Some argued that the Americans did it to themselves to spark a war against Islam. Others suggested Osama Bin Laden was a CIA operative. Some argued that because they drank alcohol, they weren't true adherents to Islam. There was a strong reluctance to admit that the extremists among them were responsible for this heinous act.
I guess people the world over aren't that different after all.