Norway, media lies, and the consequences of not being prepared

by David Morris on July 28, 2011

Welcome to this week’s edition of the SurviveInPlace.com Urban Survival Newsletter, sponsored this week by UrbanSurvivalPlayingCards.com and Target Focus Training.

Last Friday, a mentally deranged individual in Norway named Anders Behring Breivik detonated an explosive at a government building in Oslo, killing 8 and then killed 68 people at a youth camp on a local island. It was a horrible event, and to add insult to injury, it’s been horribly misreported by the media.

I want to discuss how this relates to preparedness, but first I want to clear up a few things regarding this attack…

To begin with, media outlets have called Breivik a “Right Wing Christian Fundamentalist.” A good chunk of my audience would consider themselves to fall, partially or completely, under one or both of those descriptors, and probably took offense to these labels as much as I did. But IS he a right wing Christian fundamentalist? Does it matter? Does the question deserve any space in a preparedness newsletter?

I can confidently say that the answers are “sort of”, yes, and yes.

Was Breivik a right wing Christian fundamentalist? The answer depends a clear definition of terms. Those terms mean different things to different people in the US, as well as having different meanings in the US and Europe.

The media thinks that “right wing” is a descriptor that encompasses knuckle-dragging neanderthal, racist, sexist, and any other “ist” that happens to be particularly derogatory at the time. Reality and history tell a different story.

For the last 220+ years, “right wing” has historically defined people who supported self reliance, limited government, voluntary individual charity, individual rights. “Left wing” on the other hand, has historically been a descriptor for people who support government control, redistribution of wealth, and centralized decision making.

Whether or not he was right wing or left wing is immaterial to me. I know people who are both right leaning and left leaning and neither group would go out and murder people based on that attribute. What matters is that the terms are not defined in the conversation and are left up to the reader to figure out based primarily on past input. In this case, the media calls anyone that they want to demonize “right wing” and gladly groups a mass murderer into this group without doing any fact checking.

Then what about the “Christian Fundamentalist” part? Breivik stated in his manifesto that he called himself a Christian because that would hopefully allow his “movement” to get support from the greatest number of people. Not because Jesus is his savior. Not because he goes to church. Not even because his parents went to church. He took a page out of Hitler’s playbook and defined himself based on what he thought would be most politically expedient.

He calls Christians “weak”, says he’s not religious, calls religion a crutch, plans on praying to God for strength to go kill innocent people, uses the term, “Christian-atheist” as a type of Christian, includes pagan god worshipers under the umbrella of “Christian” and says that Christians shouldn’t be allowed to influence public policy.

As a point of clarification, writers and anchors have referred to Breivik’s Facebook page that said he was a Conservative and a Christian. Facebook deleted his Norwegian Facebook page shortly after the attacks. The Facebook page that US media has been using was actually an American Facebook hoax page that was created AFTER the attacks by a prankster.

So, if you believe that “Christian Fundamentalist” defines someone who doesn’t read, follow, or even particularly like the Bible, and is a fan of mass murder then maybe he is a Christian fundamentalist. I think it’s safe to say that he isn’t and wasn’t and that the media is simply trying to create a reality in the minds of their consumers that is as unflattering as possible for Christians.

Does it matter what he’s called?

To an extent, it does…especially when inaccurate labels are placed on someone who takes sociopathic actions like this for the express purpose of demonizing people with different political and religious positions. Jared Loughner (Arizona shootings) and Timothy McVeigh (Oklahoma City bombing) were also portrayed as “Christians” in an attempt to make Christians look bad, but they were also just sociopaths…both of whom denounced Christianity.

If you’re not a Christian, or even if you are anti-Christian, you might not see the trouble with this, but I still believe it is important to have the facts clear in your head. Why? Because we are in an odd time in history where the media tries to maintain the myth that they are objective and non-biased.

A non-biased media is like plain flour ash cakes. They take up room, but there’s no life, flavor, or excitement about consuming any more than you have to. Up until a few decades ago, the media was openly biased and didn’t try to hide it. They had names like “The Republican” and “Arkansas Democrat” and in many cases, the same town would have two competing newspapers. It sparked thought and debate, and readers weren’t under the illusion that they could turn their brain off when they started reading.

If you pick up a paper that you think is non-biased and see that a “right wing fundamentalist Christian” killed a bunch of people, the information gets stored in your head completely different than if you realize that that same paper has an anti-personal liberty and anti-Christian bias. In the first case, you store the information in your mind as if it’s true (which it isn’t). In the second case, you correctly dismiss it as propaganda.

This applies to politics, religion, and almost anything broadcast immediately before a predicted disaster (hurricane) and after any disaster. Most broadcasts will be done under the illusion of objectivity, but will really be designed to get the audience to take a particular set of actions.

How does this event relate to preparedness?

There are several lessons here…enjoy every moment you’ve got, don’t believe a media outlet that says they’re “neutral”, and more, but the biggest one in my opinion has to do with what happened on the island. As someone who is taking the necessary steps to be prepared for post disaster situations and possible breakdowns in civil order, it’s important to develop the mindset to be able to deal with sociopathic behavior.

Breivik was an obvious sociopath. He did not care about his victims as fellow humans. According to his writings, he WANTED to be taken alive so that he would have the opportunity to influence more people during his trial and imprisonment.

While you might not ever deal with this sort of extreme sociopathic behavior, I think it’s important to have a plan for dealing with it on a personal level…especially lethal force encounters.

Some people are wired to have sociopathic tendencies. Some get them when they’re drugged, drunk, or deranged. For people “on the bubble,” I can see parents giving up “normal” morality to be able to provide for their families.

In any case, there’s a good chance that the first indication that you’ll have that you are being threatened by a sociopath won’t come until they’re actually taking violent action. There’s no need for a sociopath to posture…you’re just standing in the way of something they want and the quickest way for them to get what they want is action…not talk.

Keep in mind that this is a worst case scenario, but if the cost, in terms of time and money, is the same to prepare for a “normal” lethal force encounter as it is to prepare for a lethal force encounter with a sociopath, it makes sense to prepare for the worst case.

I love guns, but this doesn’t necessarily mean that you have to have a gun to be prepared and the adults on the island wouldn’t have necessarily needed guns to take out Breivik. It certainly would have made it easier, but the absence of a gun should NEVER take you out of the fight if you’ve trained your mind correctly.

Could you eliminate a lethal threat to yourself or a loved one? That’s an important question to ask, because there’s no need to buy firearms until you can answer it with a “Yes!”

I don’t know whether any of the adults tried to stop Breivik or not. The real question is what you would do in that situation. Specifically, what if you were in the same situation they were in and you didn’t have a firearm?

Would you know to attack targets like the groin, throat, and eyes, or would you try to grab and wrestle him to the ground?

Would you know how to use your body weight so that you didn’t have to rely on superior size or strength?

Would you be able to instantly flip the switch in your mind to go from a kind, caring, sane, social person to someone who could eliminate a sociopath’s ability to continue to injure or kill and then effectively transition back to sane, social behavior?

These are issues that warriors, “sheepdogs”, and protectors have dealt with throughout history.

I’ve talked about this before, including two emails this week, but with increasing instability, the events in Norway, an increasing number of riots, and the early signs that flash mobs are beginning to get more violent, being able to protect yourself from violence is an urgent concern.

I won’t say much more than I already have this week, but I’ve fought MMA competitively and trained in various respected self-defense disciplines and the one that has been my foundation for the last 16 years is Target Focus Training. I’ve traveled to the live training multiple times, own EVERY VHS and DVD they’ve ever released, train locally with others several times a month and on my own daily.

It’s the “system” that gives me confidence in my 110 pound wife being able to take care of herself, my parents’ ability to take care of themselves with old joints, and my ability as a protector to take out lethal force threats when a firearm isn’t an option as effectively and efficiently as possible.

If you haven’t checked it out yet, I want to encourage you to do so by going to Target Focus Training to see the special offer they’ve put together for my readers.

Is it cheap? NO…this is top of the line training. Think of it as buying a solid, American built tool that will last a lifetime vs. a cheap foreign knockoff that’s poorly made and will break in a few months. The cheap version will feel better as you’re leaving the store looking at your receipt, but the quality one will feel better for the rest of your life.

Will it work for anyone? That’s a tough one that I can’t answer categorically. Here’s what I can say…since Target Focus Training is based on training your mind, using body weight instead of strength, and taking advantage of fundamental weaknesses in the human body, I would recommend that people try it before trying anything else…no matter what your physical condition is.

Why do you keep telling us about Target Focus Training? Because it is fundamental preparedness training that you will benefit from immediately and because it is a “product” that I use and train with on a daily basis. I have 100% confidence in it because of 16 years of experience using it

Back to Norway…what are your thoughts on what happened and how it’s been reported? If you read all or part of the manifesto, what were your impressions? Have you been taking any additional or new preparations in light of what’s going on with the debt ceiling? Do you have any experience with Target Focus Training? Let me know your thoughts on these and other issues by commenting below.

God Bless & stay safe,

 

David Morris

 

 

 

 

 .

Be Sociable, Share!

{ 49 comments… read them below or add one }

Vote -1 Vote +1jennifer
July 29, 2011 at 10:31 am

The Media, wrong again!!
Everybody knows that it’s Sarah Palin’s fault, oh yeah, and Bush too.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
July 29, 2011 at 10:36 am

Don’t forget Newt, Cheney, and Halliburton….

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Jim
July 29, 2011 at 10:44 am

You are so right about the necessity of defining terms. I have personally heard Jews who survived the holocaust accuse the nazi’s of being “Christian.” Talk about warped definitions!

Reply

-4 Vote -1 Vote +1Walt
July 29, 2011 at 10:46 am

You write: “a mentally deranged individual”. Having followed the news on this calamity, how exactly have you concluded that Breivik was “mentally derenged”.

Were the mass murderers who shoved Jews into the ovens mentally deranged?
Were the Japanese who slaughtered thousands in Nan King China, mentally deranged? Were the machete wielding blacks in Rwanda mentally deranged?
Were the 500 U.S. soldiers who slaughtered 150 Native Americans at Wounded Knee in 1890, mentally deranged?
How about Lt. Calley & Ernest Medina for their acts in My Lai on March 18, 1968?

All horrific acts for sure, all acts of evil….none done by “mentally deranged” individuals. However, if you had applied this particular label to the loon in Arizona who slaughtered innocents, I would be in perfect agreement with this particular description.

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
July 29, 2011 at 11:17 am

I would say that all of these people were mentally deranged, including the Norway shooter. Depending on how you want to define the term…

1. His brain is not “arranged” in a healthy way that includes empathy for other humans.
2. His actions are not healthy for himself, other individuals, or society as a whole.
3. I would say that he is not sane.
4. His mind has been upset to the point where it doesn’t seem to be capable of functioning normally with other people.

Perhaps your comment would be more clear if you were to write down how you define “mentally deranged.” With my simple understanding of the term, I don’t see how you could make a case that all of the people you mentioned are mentally healthy.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Kara
July 29, 2011 at 2:42 pm

Hi. I have worked with “Special Populations” for years, and I concider myself a pretty good judge of “normal” vs “deranged”.
Having put forth my credentials… I want to say that David is “spot on” with his diagnoses of this gentleman in Norway. I got a good look at his face on the TV and the hair stood up on the back of my neck. I have seen that look before – in the eyes of a boy with childhood schizophrenia. The child was “normal” much of the time, but when he got that intent “glassy” look to him, it was time to call for reinforcements! You never knew whether he was going to be homicidal, or suicidal, at any given moment. It amazes me that no one had noticed that this particular young man (in Norway) had problems! The next time you see his picture on tv – concentrate on his eyes… if you ever see that particular look on an opponent – it’s time to be elsewhere.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Lou
July 29, 2011 at 10:23 pm

Arizona vs. the other locations which you have referred to is simply geography……One of the prerequisites which defines SOCIOPATH types is this…..has no conscience also, no direct ability to distinguish between RIGHT vs WRONGFUL , with regards to actions…..I do in fact believe that deranged is an antonym for SOCIOPATH…..one and the same….and, so it is my belief that you have sub-grouped certain instances to which you prefer to leave into a different grouping out of a main catagory from which they do rightfully belong under…..It is as if I removed an orange from a bowl of mixed fruit from it’s place on the dining table, and tried to sustain the thought that the orange somehow did not belong in the same bowl as the apple, pear, or banana….but, instead, I would claim that it’s rightful place should be on the windowsill……and, by which CRITERIA did I use to make this assumption ?? Why, my own EGO, of course…..Nice try, buddy….but just because someone puts words in print, does not make it true…..The TRUTH, indeed stands on it’s OWN MERIT…..

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Lou
July 29, 2011 at 10:37 pm

one final word….”loon” is a bird with feathers…..and I also would like to point out to you, respectfully, that the others who were on your list above would also be considered “innocents”……none were guilty…..zero…

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Baba
July 29, 2011 at 10:54 am

Time to study George Soros, me thinks. He appears to own most of the media among other things and people.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Ken
July 29, 2011 at 11:22 am

Amen!!! Let’s have a cup of coffee. God Bless, Ken

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Suzette
July 29, 2011 at 11:50 am

To make a so-called christian a terrorist makes Christianity and radical Islam equal, therefore making Islam more palatable to Americans. There is an agenda………

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Kara
July 29, 2011 at 3:01 pm

Hi suzette. I may be a little confused here, but I was under the impression that a Radical Christian and a Radical follower of Islam were pretty equal in the damage they could inflict. The key word there (in both cases) is “Radical”. There are many fine Christians… and many fine followers of Islam… they do their jobs, love their families, follow their faith, and cause no problems for anyone else.
It’s the “convert or kill ” bunch (on both sides) that cause the problems. BTW, historically, it is not at all unusual for people with Mental Illness to gravitate to these fringe groups. They seem to need the intensity to feed their illness.
All things in moderation is always the healthiest bet. (It’s even in theBible!)

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1Jarrod
July 29, 2011 at 5:44 pm

Hi Kara,
Just wanted to clarify a definition here. The theology of any religion must be judged separately from the behavior of its participants. In history, as in the Crusaders for example, those ‘so-called’ Christians who, in the name of Christ, have sought to kill in order to propagate their belief, were acting in serious contradiction to both the message and the method of the gospel. BY CONTRAST, the demagogues and followers of Islam were operating in total harmony with, and in most cases the direct injunction of, the idealology behind their actions. Lets call a spade a spade, Islam is about war. A ‘radical’ muslim is acting true to his teachings. Whereas a ‘radical’ Christian acting true to his teachings, will love you, and forgive you, and love you some more. For to be a Christian is to follow Christ Jesus. The Bible teaches that if we hate our brother, we are walking in spiritual darkness (1 John 2:11), and that he who does not love does not love God (1 John 4:8)
Thanks, just wanted to clarify that there is a major difference to the two beliefs, just because a muslim seems peacefull, love is not mentioned in their teachings, dig deeper. Anyone who falsely takes on the name of the King and calls themselves a Christian will answer to that.
We must know how to discern the true teachings of an individual by the fruits in which they bear, and if those fruits coincide with what they are told to do through their beliefs.
God Bless you.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Mark
August 9, 2011 at 1:41 pm

Having been a “serious” Christian for most of my life, I’m pretty confident in my assertions about the core beliefs of Christianity, and I agree that peace and freedom are an important part of it. Those who quote violence from the Bible usually do it from the old Hebrew parts of the Old Testament against which Jesus clearly meant to balance his New Testament and New Commandments.

But I don’t know enough about Islam or any other religion to accuse them of being inherently warlike or violent to the core. And frankly, the study of such to try to prove the point one way or another doesn’t interest me. What I think is worth defending is the peace and freedom of my local community. If we prioritize this, and both claim and exercise our sovereign rights to do so, resisting enemies both foreign and domestic, then I think the world would be a better place.

Resist also the idea of reaching outside your community to police remote areas, and especially to impose systems or structures on said remote locations. Trade and commerce are the only legitimate international relations, in opposition to either friend-making or enemy-punishing.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Suzette
July 29, 2011 at 10:03 pm

Hello Kara. I will agree that extremes in any thing hurt people. And the Bible does say to do all things in moderation. But, this man is not a Christian. The media wants to portray him as a ‘Radical Christian’. It makes Christianty and Islam seem the same… being, ‘regular good ‘ole folks that peacefully follow their religion’ verses the ‘radicals’. That is just not so. Jesus taught his followers to love…even our enemies. Muhammad taught his followers to hate…especially their enemies. Islam is a religion of hate. The word here is ‘followers’. Radical actually implies to be totally or extremely committed to a cause. Calling a person that commits murder a ‘Radical Christian’ is a misnomer. A radical Christian should imply that a person loves ‘radically’ as Christ taught, whereas a ‘Radical Muslim’ implies hate ‘radically’ as Muhammad taught.
Beware of thinking that Islam and Christianity are basically the same…they are not. That is what ‘they’ want you to believe.

Reply

+2 Vote -1 Vote +1Zander_SIG
July 29, 2011 at 12:56 pm

This is why our 2nd Amendment is do damn important!

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Reddog245
July 29, 2011 at 1:42 pm

We are dealing with something much bigger than definitions. We are looking at a concerted global effort to shut down our freedoms by redefining “US,” people who don’t want to be controlled by “the best and brightest.” What we have been seeing over the last few weeks is bigger than a crazy guy in Norway. What we are seeing is a series of seemingly unrelated events that all just happen to work out for the good of the socialists. And remember, this is a group that will take full advantage of a crisis, and if one is not available, is willing to create it. (Like the current “Debt Ceiling” crisis that will explode on Aug. 2, causing the world to shut down, since it didn’t happen on June 20, like they originally predicted. All good crisis have to have a deadline.).

First, we saw Rupert Murdoch taken down. He fell from being one of the biggest “independent” news media owners, and about to get bigger, to nothing in a week. Why was he special? He owned Fox News and Breitbart, and while not rabidly conservative, he was the only one of the news media who would not parrot the same line as everyone else, and would raise questions and report bad things about the president.

But more shockiing is how Breivik suddenly came on the scene, and how his seeming act of random violence set the stage for a whole lot more. In fact, take two steps back and look at what ‘Scuba Steve’ did for the governments of the world intent on shutting their people down, including ours:

He was branded a Fundamentalist Christian from the first story. (Personal writings show different, but who will report THAT fact?) The obvious unstated story is that Christians, especially white male Christians with guns, are dangerous. To underline that, he blew up some government buildings, just like our homegrown terrorist, Tim McVeigh. He was also incorrectly reported as being a right-wing radical Christian. in

Bombings are getting passe, but guns are rare in Norway, bet this still happened. The coming story? We (especially here in the US) apparently need TOTAL gun control. For the children…

He is still being painted as a radical right winger-Look, he has a 1500 page manifesto! Who else has a manifesto? The Unibomber! (Oh, he was a liberal? Never mnd…)

But wait, the manifesto is actually a collection of conservative blogs! (another fact conveniently muddied so it looks like he has BOTH a manifesto and a blog collection.) The result of this is that now EVERY conservative blogger that he collected is linked to this act. It has already sent chills down the spines of the ones who have been identified. The point will be that conservative bloggers must have driven him to this. We will need to shut down conservative bloggers.

Then things get very convenient. Look! He already has professional quality pictures, including a professional head shot. No need for a mug shot. Looks like a pretty normal white guy in that one. Blond hair and blue eyes-so obviously Aryan you don’t even have to say it! And then there is the famous Breivik action shot. Let’s spend a minute on the Scuba Steve shot. Wet suit? WTF? Oh, must be a Navy Seal! This just emphasizes the dangerous nature of military people, since this guy wants to be like them.

And the gun? Look close-a Ruger mini 14, a clone of the old M1 carbine from WWII and Korea. Look a little closer-what scuba savvy assassin is going to go under water with a gun with a WOOD stock?!? Why is the wood stock important? Because it is not hard to get public sentiment up about the “black” guns, because the military already uses them. But NOW we have a reason to go after the ones with wood stocks, the ones that would normally be used for hunting. Now, even hunting guns in the hands of a dangerous man (like all the Christian Fundamentalists), are a dangerous thing. Best of all are all the dingleberries hanging off of the rifle, especially the bayonet. What do you bet that there will be a future law that includes things on pictinny rails, “combat aides”, and probably EXTRA penalties for having a bayonet affixed to your weapon.

We can go on and on about this. The bottom line is clear-This guy is such a perfect caricature of the “Right-wing christian-fundamentalist gun-crazy homegrown-terrorist” that you almost have to wonder if he wasn’t created for the part. Plus, he happens to come at a perfect time when President O could use a distraction from his economy and debt talk failures.

I think it would be good to get ready for anything. Food, water, bullets…

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Zuka
July 29, 2011 at 1:48 pm

Read “Bonhoffer” to understand how Hitler and others use the “Christian” label to mislead and suck-in the unsuspecting or uninformed.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1marius
July 29, 2011 at 2:43 pm

I don’t agree at all with your description of a Christian fundamentalist…..I know them and I know what they believe. and I am uncomfortable around them with their Raptures and Armageddons. But I’m not afraid of them. But I also don’t believe Breivik is one of them. I don’t know where he gets his ideas about multiculturalism being a bad thing; surely the world is large enough for many kinds of ideas that don’t include shooting 68 teenagers like fish in a barrel. Or about immigrants. We’re all immigrants here in the US unless your ancestors were Indians (native americans) or dinosaurs. A psychiatrist once told me that sociopaths have no capacity for love, remorse, or guilt and that many of them think they have (or actually do have) qualities of leadership. That seems to describe this murderer. I also don’t agree with your descriptions of right wing (which you seem to find admirable) or left wing (which you seem to deem anything but admirable). It’s just not that simple. And I am neither– as I have lost any affinity for either political party. But I dislike the right wingers for having many qualities which sound very much like sociopathic, such as being without empathy for those less fortunate than themselves. Left wingers I see as bleeding heart liberals and I do empathize with them as I know very many of them, and they are good, kind and often very bright and intelligent people with causes I could endorse. I wouldn’t mind living among them.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
July 29, 2011 at 3:19 pm

Hey Marius,

It’s not hard to know what a “Christian fundamentalist” believes….all you have to do is read the Bible. Unfortunately, most people who the media and society label as fundamentalists DON’T read their Bibles and base their beliefs on what they think the Bible says rather than what it actually does say. While the Torah and the rest of the Old Testament does talk about vengence and the law, the New Testament is full of instructions on loving one another, forgiving one another, and interacting with others with mercy and grace.

As to “my” descriptions of right wing and left wing…I appreciate the fact that you think I could create a definition that would last 220 years, but resent the fact that you think I’m that old :) Those terms and definitions came from the French Parlament during the French Revolution in the late 1700s and had to do with where people sat in relation to the speaker and have been relatively consistant since then. I had nothing to do with creating them.

“Right wingers” as you so affectionately call us, have empathy if you take the time to understand the core positions. Again, right wingers believe in individual solutions and left wingers believe in centralized government solutions. Let’s look at two scenarios…First, in a society with limited government, a neighbor has a situation where they need $100. Since his right wing neighbor isn’t overburdeoned with taxes and regulation, he has $100 to give and gives his neighbor the $100 on the spot…because it’s the right thing to do. The neighbor in need is thankful and vows to do the same for someone else in the future. The right wing neigbor gets the joy and satisfaction of seeing the reaction in their neighbor.

In another parallel society with government welfare and entitlements, a neighbor has a situation where they need $100. In this society, his neighbor thinks to himself…that’s what I pay taxes for and politely tells his neighbor to go get help from the government. The neighbor in need goes to the big government building, takes a number, waits for a couple of hours, fills out the necessary forms, turns them in, and waits 6 weeks for processing. Since the building, paperwork, and people all have to be paid for, most of the $100 that the neighbor paid in taxes got spent already and all they can give him is $20. The neighbor who got taxed is bitter at the government about how much money the government takes and trys to figure out strategies to pay less. The neighbor who got the money feels bitter at the whole process, bitter at the government, and thinks that his neighbor should pay 5x more. Nobody wins.

Most “right wingers” simply believe that if they are going to give $100 to charity or welfare in the form of taxes, they’d like $100 of it to actually get to the people who need the money instead of bureaucrats. When there are cries for getting rid of government welfare and charity systems, it’s not a cry to screw the needy…it’s a cry to stop squandering money that should be going to the needy. Do you really think it’s heartless, sociopathic and shows a lack of empathy to want the needy to get 100 cents out of every dollar given for them rather than the 20 cents that government gives them after it’s wasted the rest?

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Kara
July 29, 2011 at 3:50 pm

David… I’d love to live in the world you describe… but it doesn’t exist. If noone paid taxes, they would go buy themselves another fast car & they still wouldn’t have the money to lend their neighbor… and they’d probably resent being asked!
Case in point, my ex mother-in-law. Remember the aunt? Well, she gave my mother-in-law a dozen pairs of very expensive shoes – that didn’t fit her!
I asked if I could give one or two pairs to my sister (who they did fit – and who really needed shoes). She was horrified that I’d even asked!!! The last I knew, they were still neatly shelved & gathering dust… and they still didn’t fit her!
I’d like to say that this was a rare example of human nature, but that just hasn’t been my experience. THAT’s why social service programs had to be invented. The New Testament gives us a map to a better life… but, sadly, most people have left their glasses at home.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
July 29, 2011 at 4:11 pm

Hey Kara, you could be right, but I think that history tells a different story.

To a large extent, the world I described is how things worked in the US right up to FDR’s New Deal. One of the reasons why people go out and buy themselves another fast car is because they have abdicated their responsibility for taking care of themselves and others to the government and live under the false illusion that the government’s job is to take care of them when and if they screw up.

It’s not the government’s job…it’s the job of family and neighbors. And, if you acted like an ass to everyone in your life in that world back then, you didn’t fare as well when you needed help. Today, you can act like an ass to everyone in your life and not see a reduction in your government entitlements. That makes it very easy to minimize the importance of relationships with neighbors, family, etc.

I would argue that social programs weren’t invented to make up for a lack of charity…they were invented as a method of buying votes, consolidating power, and getting control of more money.

As a prepper, I think about what would need to happen on a micro and macro level if we faced a major disaster that knocked out the economy, banking, and/or the electrical grid and we no longer had the option of relying on the government.

In short, we’d have to go back to the way things were a couple of generations ago and actually know each other and take care of each other rather than counting on the government to do it. People like you would do fine. People like your ex mother in law wouldn’t do so well unless they learned to play nice.

Reply

-1 Vote -1 Vote +1Kara
July 29, 2011 at 3:29 pm

Hi Marius. You are right about many of your points. There has to be room enough for everyone to have an opinion, and to be able to express it w/o fear of reprisal. (I think that’s your 2nd amendment rights talking!)
In the 60′s someone likened the earth to a “lifeboat”. We either have to learn to co-exist, or we’ll all get knocked out into that big cold ocean.
I do, however, have a problem with “wingers”… all of them. The minute you think of yourself as being on a “side”, your mind shuts down, and you can’t hear even the good points brought up by anyone who is not on “your side”. It’s like the child who was fed brussel sprouts (I hate brussel sprouts… maybe for you it would be broccoli…) and decided she was never eating anythng green again. Because of that decision, she missed out on pistacio pudding!
Do I lean a little to the left… probably. I worry about the environment, and it burns me up that they want to cut my Social Security… but millionaires can’t even pay their share of taxes.
A good example would be my ex- husband’s aunt. I was raising 5 kids on $10,000. a year, and she was raising hell, crying & having hysterics because when her husband died, he left her on a strict budget of $50,000. a month! Call me small minded, but I had just a little trouble feeling sorry for her. Go figure.
I applaud you for remaining centrist. Keep your balance & you should do fine.(Oh… and the Native Americans just got here FIRST… that leaves the dinosaurs!

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1VetJim
July 30, 2011 at 1:53 am

Kara, my only issue with your post is the millionaires statement. I believe you are speaking of Obama’s $200,000 or more cut off. I grew up on Long Island and living there, $200,000 does not make you wealthy. The USMC moved me to North Carolina and $200K would definitly put you in at least the upper, upper middle class. Now I am here in Chicago and that $200K barely pays for your parking space. This is why this whole idea of taxing the rich irks me so much, randomly picking a number and applying it to everyone seems kind of insane to me.

One last thought, I am a business manager and if the Gov’t raises the taxes on my business(not talking about jobs here) do you really think I do not pass those costs on to customers in one way or another?

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Brian
July 30, 2011 at 3:24 am

Did you mean First Amendment? The Second deals only with firearms.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Brian
August 3, 2011 at 6:21 am

Kara,
I may be wrong, but I think there were people living here when the Native Americans got here.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Martin
July 30, 2011 at 10:12 am

Marius, You’re right. I am heartless and don’t care about my fellow human beings. At least the lazy ones. I fully believe people who are truley needy, the disabled and others who thru no fault of their own, should be helped with my money. However, the people who don’t want to work or who are too lazy to work should not get a dime of my money. Women who continue to have kids because the gov’t pays them big bucks to do it is wrong, and, to keep paying them is wrong. There are untold hugh numbers of people and families who have never held a job, even in the good times, don’t want a job, and all because the gov’t will pay them to be lazy for their entire lives. This is wrong. If this makes me heartless, so be it.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Grama
July 29, 2011 at 3:57 pm

Anybody care to recite the Ten Commandments?
They were not meant to be the 10 suggestions, but to sustain and protect an orderly,contented society.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Daryl Salley
July 29, 2011 at 4:45 pm

Hey, David,
Spot on, and a very important message. I concur with your promotion of Target Focus Training. I just received my CCW renewal permit ( after a two and a half month wait, during which time I was unable to legally carry as I had failed to renew several months in advance of the expiration date.) Had I not studied TFT, I would have felt severely handicapped without my firearm. Being trained to acknowledge that the brain is your first, and most powerful weapon, I felt confident in my ability to take care of business should the need arise.
I have considerably more confidence in myself as a weapon by using Tim Larkin’s program. Great Instructors! Invaluable information for the “Associal ” confrontation.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1alderama
July 29, 2011 at 6:51 pm

The free market place motivates toward altruistic behavior in people as does Christianity, both promote volunteerism and philanthropy, but under socialism, volunteerism and philanthropy are in short supply and altruism is sacrificed to the philosophy that government provides equally for all. Our democracy is an open representative form of democracy where government is meant to do what governments do best and there is encouragement for a more healthy development of the personality, a personality free to act on altruistic impulses. Christ brought to us the message of atonement which many see as an advance in religious philosophy and thinking. Civilization is not a goal but a movement which by implementation of the principles of cooperation results in improved living conditions of course, but that is the aim, the real aim is towards the development of a healthy personality in us all.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Ron G
July 29, 2011 at 7:17 pm

I agree with Reddog245. It is an amazing coincidence that Murdock is toppled and now this.
I think the left in this country will use this incident to take away our guns. The left will be using
this incident to rally U.N. support.

On another note, the media is using the term Christian to demonize Christian people. Why doesn’t the media use Muslim people like this?

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Brian
July 30, 2011 at 3:27 am

Good question. Answers anyone?

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Jenny V as in Viking....
July 29, 2011 at 9:09 pm

The sad young man of Norvay, I feel was so upset with his socialistic country, teaching more left wing sociallstic ways to teens / twenties, to continue on and on until they perhaps fell to far left, into communistic ways, which brings double/ triple and more in time, of the deaths the young miserable at heart young man brought. He had a war, he had wanted a place to tell why. He spent years of his life, telling his story in a book, ms , first draft or published, which I have not had the opportunity to read, nor know where to find it on a computer if at all. I feel tht he was and is so upset with socialism that he forgot, he could get the floor best by not killing. By perhaps blowing up a water main or just a hole in a back street. Something to draw attention, to give him the floor. To use his freedom of speech rights. No TV news any longer tells any truths to speak of, everything is hidden, smoothed over, therefore the sad young man hurt people to get attention to speak his piece. Is he crazy like the fox? Or so sick at heart he is perhaps beyond cunning, and is sick. Lizzie Borden i believe hatched her parent (s) to death. Was it societies hurts or her rage at something:like the young man;s rage at something unspeakable for him? Everyone has a thresth -hold of pain. He could pain no more without some action. I for one feel sorry for his awful deep pain to cause him to do such drastic measures. . And calling him christian means he simply was not hindu, or jewish, or another personal belief. Meaning no doubt he is from a christian family.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Will
July 29, 2011 at 11:31 pm

@ Ron G, “On another note, the media is using the term Christian to demonize Christian people. Why doesn’t the media use Muslim people like this?”
Methinks it’s because we have the bible and the last book describes what to the elite types would be utopia, a world government, as a sign of the end of days. The only way around those prophesies is to discredit the whole faith, the book and the followers of Christ as extreme and looney, otherwise people in the world might read a little and say “HEY wait a minute, buddy. We don’t WANT a world government!” That is, I believe, the main reason for the institutional hostility that has been directed toward anyone who goes by the name Christian. Forgot to mention before, I believe these manufactured crises are part of a quite old and not so secret plan by the international bankers to get control of the masses so we won’t waste the limited resources that in there minds, rightfully belong to their children and grandchildren. Personally, I really hope that their plot is foiled but I don’t expect it will go that way.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Brian
July 30, 2011 at 3:40 am

I think he’s angry not sad. It is anger that drives someone to do what he did, and undoubtedly planned to do., not sadness. I guess you Europeans have different definitions and viewpoints from us Americans. I think David’s right and the man is a sociopath to begin with. I did look aat his eyes, and they’re dead. Flat out dead. And he is not a Christian in any sense of the word as I understand it. And yes, I am a Christian. I follow Jesus Christ- the God-man in the Bible.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Red Horse
July 30, 2011 at 2:12 pm

Norway is a Beautiful country, but the Government is very dark in there soul.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1bestwestern
July 31, 2011 at 9:34 pm

After the news from norway I wondered, “who is this guy?” I found his manifesto online and while reading through (over several days – it’s verrry looong!) It struck me that many of his points are common to american conservative talkers + pols. He hates multiculturalism, feminism, and derides the mainstream media as leftist. Sound familiar? His religious/political perspective is indistinguishable from that of those who insist usa is a christian nation + invoke their christian creds in every public speech they make. Obviously, 99+% of conservative political figures are willing to argue for their views in the political arena, persuade voters, win elections, and make policies that align with their views. This is equally true on the left, where penning a brilliant op-ed essay is what people do when something strikes them as important. But out at the fringes, there are undoubtedly people such as andars who feel politics is too slow, or that the system is rigged, or that people who just vote instead of blowing things up are cowards. I have no hesitation in saying andars is nuts. He’s crazy, period. But not for his political views per se, which would probably (had he been born american + not committed mass murder) have put him near the top of 2012 gop presidential primary field. Rather, I say he’s nuts b/c he rejected the system option (make speeches/run for something/implement your policies) and chose his own bizarre solution to perceived problem namely islamization of norway + europe generally.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
August 1, 2011 at 9:57 am

Nice try :) This is an example of injecting an idea into a conversation hoping that nobody will call you on it.

If you’d like to back up what you’re saying, I invite you to cite a few examples of the page number and paragraph of the statements you read that match conservative talkers and politicians, as well as examples of “common” American conservatives and politicians who the statements sound like.

Also, I don’t think you’ll find too many conservatives who dislike other cultures…we just don’t like multiculturalism jammed down our throats.
You also won’t find too many conservatives who don’t believe in equal rights…we just don’t like femanism jammed down our throats.
The mainstream media IS leftist by every metric I can think of…air time for candidates, the political contributions of the employees/owners, softball vs. hardball questions, etc. The general thought is that we are too stupid to make decisions about how to run our lives and we need the government to do it for us.
And there’s almost no connection between what he says and Christianity…in fact, he says he’s not religious and has decided to co-opt Christianity to reach a bigger audience.

In any case, I do hope that you’re taking basic steps to prepare yourself for disasters and unstable times.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1bestwestern
August 1, 2011 at 8:23 pm

i don’t wish to choke the msg board with a superlong fulfillment of your request for examples of a match, but here’s one you’ll recognise: the threat to our way of life posed by creeping sharia-ism (this is a sub-topic in his treatise against multi-culturalism generally)
“There is no separation between the religious and the political in Islam; rather Islam and
Sharia constitute a comprehensive means of ordering society at every level. While it is in
theory possible for an Islamic society to have different outward forms — an elective
system of government, a hereditary monarchy, etc. — whatever the outward structure of
the government, Sharia is the prescribed content. It is this fact that puts Sharia into
conflict with forms of government based on anything other than the Quran and the
Sunnah.
“As one may see, there are few aspects of life that Sharia does not specifically govern.
Everything from washing one’s hands to child-rearing to taxation to military policy falls
under its dictates. Because Sharia is derivate of the Quran and the Sunnah, it affords
some room for interpretation. But upon examination of the Islamic sources (see above),
it is apparent that any meaningful application of Sharia is going to look very different
from anything resembling a free or open society in the Western sense. The stoning of
adulterers, execution of apostates and blasphemers, repression of other religions, and a
mandatory hostility toward non-Islamic nations punctuated by regular warfare will be the
norm. It seems fair then to classify Islam and its Sharia code as a form of totalitarianism.”

^^^thats andars on p68.

Republican presidential hopefuls, eager to shore up support with primary voters, have unleashed a series of rhetorical attacks against Islamic law, or Sharia, in what is widely seen as an attempt to burnish their conservative credentials.

Former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty says his decision to shut down a state-sponsored mortgage program designed to appeal to devout Muslims — who are forbidden by Sharia law to collect or pay interest on loans — demonstrates his commitment to rooting out Islamic law….

Herman Cain, another likely GOP presidential contender, said over the weekend that he would not appoint a Muslim to his administration or the federal courts because he believes all Muslims “force their Sharia law onto the rest of us.”

“There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government,” Cain, founder and former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza, told ThinkProgress. “It does not belong in our government.” …

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/tim-pawlenty-gop-presidential-hopefuls-blast-sharia-law/story?id=13238930

have you read his book? i know, it’s long (1500+ pages!) and i havent finished it myself, but it’s very obvious that his positions re feminism, affirmative action, ‘cultural marxism’, and so on would be well received among conservatives. i don’t for a second equate political conservatives’ positions to what andars did in oslo. that isn’t and wasn’t my point @ all. clearly the man is a psycho b/c of what he did, not his political beliefs. but he says he’s a christian, and maybe that’s why the news reported as such. i’ve only heard opinions that he can’t possibly be one, nothing to bolster that claim except the ‘no true scotsman’ logical fallacy.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
August 2, 2011 at 9:18 am

BestWestern,

Thanks for your reply. You actually made my point quite beautifully. The particular section of Anders’ manifesto, like many sections, were directly lifted from other websites.

Google recognizes 42 places where these paragraphs existed before July 2011…some back to 2007. It originally appeared at http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam-101.html

So, what we’ve got here is a guy who has said that he assumes the label of groups that he wants to co-opt going out to the web and using their content in his manifesto.

Perhaps…just perhaps, the reason why he sounds like Jihad watch, in this case, is because his content is taken directly from Jihad watch. Taking it a step further, maybe the reason why he sounds like conservative bloggers and politicians is because he has also taken content from their websites in an attempt to make his views seem in line with theirs in order to co-opt their members.

As to the “Christian” “debate”, as I said in my post, Anders basically uses the word Christian as a label for non-Muslim. Anyone who’s not a Muslim and not a Christian will tell you that this is incredibly inaccurate. In addition, he comes out and says that he’s using the Christian label in an attempt to co-opt Christians.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1bestwestern
August 2, 2011 at 4:49 pm

no, the reason he sounds like jihad watch & us conservatives like cain, pawlenty & peter king is that they are in agreement. you clearly haven’t read andars book (not that i blame anybody for that – it’s longer than tolstoys war & peace, yet far less rewarding!). from page 1st to last he’s explicit about turning back islamic encroachment on euro culture. it’s the main topic of the book, so while he may have plagerized (he does footnote alot, so he may have given credit. not sure) he’s hardly co-opting anything. it’s his opinion too. you asked for statements by current conservatives and i provided them. again, it’s pointless to try and distance from him based on political themes. they’re identical. the point is he differs from mainstream american conservatives, not on the issues, but on what they mean & what ought be done. nobody in our national politics is looking to destroy the system by extrapolitical means like andars advocates. they wouldnt be in politics if they weren’t committed to working within the system. that’s the difference, and it’s a big one!

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1bestwestern
August 3, 2011 at 9:47 pm

last one (and this guy actually ran in the gop primaries)…

HANNITY: You say the West is passing away. What do you mean by that?

BUCHANAN: Well, there’s not a single Western country where native-born Western peoples are reproducing themselves. Birth rates in Europe, some of them are down to half of what is needed to replace themselves.

Europe’s danger is it’s being invaded from across the Mediterranean. Islamic peoples are coming. And they not only come from a difficult culture and civilization; they come from one that’s been at war with the West and becoming militant. The United States, the native-born American population, is static or less than that, and the immigrant populations are exploding. And we got 36 million immigrants in America right now, Sean, as many as has come all in our history.

HANNITY: You were way ahead of this issue, way ahead of the curve and on this issue. For years you’ve been talking about the susceptibility, the vulnerability we have on the issue of immigration, more specifically to our borders. You were saying this long before 9/11.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/hannity/2006/08/23/pat-buchanan-defends-controversial-immigration-comments#ixzz1U1p5iKdr

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1David Hibberd
July 31, 2011 at 11:00 pm

You raise the question of being able to eliminate a threat if the need arises. Each member of my family has on their keychain a kubotan. My wife and I attended a class on their use. Two incidents were reported. One where an older lady was attacked and tried to use a knitting needle to fend off her attacker. She stabbed him over a half dozen times with no effect because she didn’t target vital spots. A single blow to one of his eyes would have stopped her attacker and when he went for medical help, a knitting needle in the eye would have easily identified him. The second case concerned a young lady attacked at night. Her first blow using her kubotan struck his temple. The second broke his wrist. She reported the incident and the next day when a young man went to the hospital for treatment, his wounds matched the kubotan and he was arrested. It provides some peace of mind for about $7.00. I recommend checking with state laws about their possession.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Brian
August 3, 2011 at 6:56 am

David,
What is a kubotan, and where does one find them?

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1David Morris
August 4, 2011 at 10:04 am

Kubotans are most easily described as small sticks. They can be as small as a writing pen and, once you know the techniques, as big as you can manage to hold. You can use them to focus strikes, increase penetration, as a way to apply leverage to an opponet, and as an aid for restraint. It’s a wonderful “weapon” to learn since it has so many uses and since there are so many everyday items that you can use to apply the techniques.

Reply

+1 Vote -1 Vote +1Brian
August 6, 2011 at 11:52 am

Thank you, David.
But where would I get one and where could I go to learn how to use one? I have two compression fractures in my thoracic spine and two flat discs in my lumbo-sacral spine which let out most Karatai training. I am, however open to suggestions.

Thank you.

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Paul
August 8, 2011 at 8:21 am

Brian,

I sell the Kubotans and they are in fact an excellent “tool” to have on the key chain or simply to have handy. They are very inexpensive and I will throw in free shipping if you are interested. http://www.lastprotection.com/personal-protection.html

Also here is a link to a YouTube Video – fast forward to about 1 minute in and this guy goes into pretty good length at how to use it. Tad cheesy intro but you will get the idea of some of it’s uses. Hope this helps

Reply

Vote -1 Vote +1Paul
August 8, 2011 at 8:21 am
Vote -1 Vote +1Sabine
August 10, 2011 at 2:55 am

[I had a choice of approving or deleting this post. I decided to approve it, but can't let some of the statements go uncorrected. There are additional opinions that I would argue are false, but chose not to comment on. edits/notes are in brackets.]

It matters to describe him as rightwing fundamentalist..since before any knowledge was out, so many media described him as a islamic fundamentalist terrorist. [It's no more correct to incorrectly label him as a rightwing fundamentalist than to incorrectly describe him as an Islamic fundamentalist terrorist] People from the muslem cultural area being negatively projected on every second so unfairly…

With two terrorist wars instigated by the US, killing millions of people(children and women and men) and destroying totally and traumatising two countries, their hospitals, schools ,roads ,watersupplies, medical care, farmland and much more [not sure what you're referring to here since we've BUILT hospitals, schools, roads, water supplies, medical care, and helped farmers convert to LEGAL crops in Iraq and Afghanistan] and forcing them to be refugees and living in poverty in unfriendly countries, suffering too much having done nothing… all instigated by right wing government robbers and supported by right wing christian voters.The same responsible for destroying civil rights all over the world. [Actually, spending 5-10 minutes learning history will show you that both "right wing" and Christian ideals push power, decision making and responsibility down to the individual, which is the CORE of civil rights.]

The feelings about right wing christianity has changed a lot therefore . .It is important to use the same manipulative language on a person who sees himself as part off christian rightwing culture.[in his own words, he does NOT see himself as a Christian, but rather admitted to assuming the descriptor in an attempt to make his message more widely heard].

I and so many like me, feel that what we have been buliding up through a decade of good institutions and possibilities for all , have been reaped by the right wing [don't confuse right wing and political parties. Right wing does and has meant personal liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government for over 200 years. BOTH Republicans and Democrats have been left wing in their big government leanings over the last half century] politicians and misused for war and killings and feeding an elite and banks .

We do not want our taxmoney to be misused like that. We think too that a country should have storages of food for their citizens so that not all millions should use space for that in their small homes [Since food=power, WHY would you want to concentrate all of the food (power) in the hands of government?]..that a lot of things are working much better if we do it in cooperation and as part of governing . What the rightwing is very willing to do, is use money for is prisons, arms, war weapons and military and police.[again, you're confusing right wing (limited government) and left wing (centralized power)]. why not good things like big storages of butter corn and meat like all countries had just few years back and hospitals for everyone and such.

The US is in so many peoples eyes a terrorist country not respecting the suvereignity of nations around the globe having manipulated 30 wars during the last 70 years.. I think that right wing politicians and voters always misuse the term terrorist so its almost like medicine to call Breivik a rightwing terrorist…we many people around the world feel terrorised by right wing elitists [that's a contradiction of terms...right wing=DEcentralized power and elitist=centralized power] and their medias and world policy.

Never the less now as things are as they are, we also need now to think more of personal steps for personal survival. So here right left and middle meet..as do chritians and nonechristians to exchange personal survival themes..How good it is when grouping stops and we are just human beings that share in respect for eachother and life….[and hopefully a respect for facts, logic, reason, and history.]

Reply

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: