Now I know that expecting those right-wing fuck heads over at World Net Daily to publish the truth is something akin to expecting polar bears to give birth to Maltese poodles, but their outright lying over the Norwegian tragedy is both sickening and disgusting. Of course, the rabid right are all ducking and diving, now that that murdering scumbucket Breivik has been labelled a “right-wing fundamentalist Christian”, but the amount of cognitive dissonance that’s going through their minds is amazing.
In the past, they’ve been able to say “Oh, but he’s a leftie, atheist, commie, public schooled liberal” (usually accompanied by the sounds of racist bigot and Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly masturbating furiously, as he updates his bizarre “Young mass murderers” article on his little hate-blog) but suddenly it would appear as if one of their own has gone bad, and they’re in panic mode. You see, it’s ok when some rabid fundie shoots an abortion doctor, but when they shoot 90 lefties, it does kinda make them look bad. It doesn’t help when you’re dealing with American right-wing fundies, most of whom would have trouble pointing out their state on a map, never mind Norway and whose politics extends to “Obama bad!”, without actually knowing why. Luckily they have wing-nut sites like World Net Daily to lie for them – something Joseph Farah even admits to doing.
Did I say lie? Oh yes. It’s not even propaganda – it’s barefaced lying by some nameless cunt who twists facts to suit the perverted world view of fellow fuckheads like Joseph Farah and Chuck Norris.
First up, we get the headline “Norway madman triggered by Clinton’s bombing on Serbia” with the subheading “32-year-old says it was NATO campaign in 1999 that ‘tipped the scales’.” Now, clicking the link takes you directly to an article on the San Francisco Chronicle’s website, entitled “Norway suspect: Serbia bombing ‘tipped the scales‘.”
However, it’s what it said in the article that’s illuminating.
Anders Behring Breivik said he was a boy when his life’s path began to turn. It was during the first Gulf War, when a Muslim friend cheered at reports of missile attacks against American forces.
“I was completely ignorant at the time and apolitical but his total lack of respect for my culture (and Western culture in general) actually sparked my interest and passion for it,” the suspect in Norway’s bombing and mass shooting wrote in his 1,500-page manifesto.
The 32-year-old Norwegian said it was the NATO bombing of Serbia in 1999 that “tipped the scales” for him because he sympathized with Serbia’s crackdown on ethnic Albanian Muslims in Kosovo. A year later he said he realized that what he called the “Islamization of Europe” couldn’t be stopped by peaceful means.
So, hang on a minute. Unless I’m mistaken, those cunts at WND are holding Clinton responsible, because he dared to strike against people hell-bent on genocide. Well, that’s what most straight-thinking people would think anyway. To the inbred morons who read WND, the only good rag-head is a dead rag-head… which is ironically exactly the sentiments expressed by Breivik. In their mind, if Clinton had let the Serbs massacre the Kosovar, this would never have happened.
But wait, as they say, there’s more.
If there’s one person your average inbred, sister-fucking right-wing fundie likes to blame for all the ills of the world besides Obama, it’s poor old Charles Darwin. The minute they can invoke his name, then whatever it was that happened can be laid at the door of those evil evolutionists – everything from Nazism, to Stalin, to athlete’s foot. And once again, they wheel out the same old argument, after skimming Breivik’s manifesto.
Another nameless cunt of a WND contributor (which is good, because otherwise I’d wish that he gets to watch his children die screaming) has scribbled a screed entitled “Terrorist proclaimed himself ‘Darwinian,’ not ‘Christian'” and which contains the section:
Breivik instead hails Charles Darwin, whose evolutionary theories stand in contrast to the claims of the Bible, and affirms: “As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science, and it must always continue to be that way. Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe.”
Now, this I had to see for myself. How exactly did he “hail Darwin”? So I downloaded a copy of his manifesto (ironically from WND) and ran a search for “Darwin.” I found exactly 6 matches.
The first is on page 57, where Breivik quotes Australian author Keith Windschuttle, a former Marxist:
He urges us to remember how unique some elements of our culture are: “The concepts of free enquiry and free expression and the right to criticise entrenched beliefs are things we take so much for granted they are almost part of the air we breathe. We need to recognise them as distinctly Western phenomena. They were never produced by Confucian or Hindu culture.” “But without this concept, the world would not be as it is today. There would have been no Copernicus, Galileo, Newton or Darwin.”
I can’t see any mention of “hailing Darwin” there, so on to the next point.
On pages 349/350, Breivik has a dip at feminism (another bug bear of the rabid right):
The latest wave of radical feminism has severely wounded the family structure of the Western world. It is impossible to raise the birth rates to replacement level before women are valued for raising children, and before men and women are willing to marry in the first place. Human beings are social creatures, not solitary ones. We are created to live with partners. Marriage is not a “conspiracy to oppress women”, it’s the reason why we’re here. And it’s not a religious thing, either. According to strict, atheist Darwinism, the purpose of life is to reproduce.
Hang on a second… “strict, atheist Darwinism”… that hardly sounds like “hailing Darwin.” Oh well, maybe next time round.
We have to go all the way to page 1227 (of 1518) for the next reference:
People who are familiar with “the game”; the socio-economic rat race where looks, culture and economy are the deciding factors know how the unwritten rules work. We say something, some politically correct BS like it’s the inside that counts, or that all ethnic groups are equal, but we don’t really mean it. The only reason lie publicly and even to our friends is because our countries are ruled by a Marxist entity and we are not allowed to say the truth. Social-darwinism was the norm before the 1950. Back then, it was allowed to say what we feel. Now, however, we have to disguise our preferences to avoid the horrible consequences of being labeled as a genetical preferentialist. Many people I know who supports mass-Muslim immigration (by voting on political parties in support of multiculturalism) deliberately avoids living with Muslims, simply because they don’t like them. But they still support mass-Muslim immigration.
Now, once again I can see no “hailing” of Darwinism, only a rather confused understanding of what “social Darwinism” is – and to call it “the norm” is simply ludicrous. So we still have no hailing of Darwinism, so on the search goes.
On page 1232, we get the following:
Segregation in combination with a complete halt in aid and facilitating the African governments to implement nationalistic doctrines are in fact the best African strategy. Policies like these are in fact the most anti-racist approach of all as it clearly defines the new responsibilities and limitations. Because with responsibilities and limitations, comes opportunity. Nevertheless, people who are very short sighted will consider these policies quite cynical or darwinistic. However, long term, it is the most humanistic and responsible approach.
Hang on, so “short-sighted” people would call the above “Darwinistic”? That hardly sounds like hailing Darwinism. On we go with the search.
Aha! On pages 1386/1387 we have some sort of Q&A session and in answer to the question: “What should be our civilisational objectives, how do you envision a perfect Europe?” he replies:
“Logic” and rationalist thought (a certain degree of national Darwinism) should be the fundament of our societies. I support the propagation of collective rational thought but not necessarily on a personal level. Because, if a woman was purely rational, she would choose to not have babies at all, and instead live her life in a purely egotistical manner. We should strive to become a civilisation where the individual’s acquisition of wealth would no longer be the driving force in our lives. Instead, we would focus much more of our resources to better ourselves and our communities by channelling at least 20% of the budget to research, science and technology.
Well… there’s an awful lot of muddled thinking there, but I’m still not seeing any “hailing” of Darwinism. Maybe he’s left it for the end, like a “Heil Hitler” salutation. Let’s carry on and see.
Aha! On page 1407, we discover that he’s read “The Origin of Species!” There it is! The smoking gun! Oh… wait… he’s also read The Bible, Plato, Hobbes, “1984”, Adam Smith, Dante, “War & Peace”… and no sign of him saying “Wow! Origin is the greatest book EVER! All hail Darwin!”
So, I have a simple question, for the nameless fuckhead who penned this article – just where exactly, outside of your own fevered desire to disassociate from one of your own, did the shooter “hail” Darwin and call himself a “Darwinian”? Show me, you filthy lying sack of shit. You are pathetic and a liar and a disgrace to very term “journalist”. Fuck off back to the sewer you crawled from. No wonder you didn’t put your name to your heap of crap.
I have posted my questions to the WND forums, but as they – in true conservative style – need to be “approved” before posting, I doubt whether they’ll ever see the light of day. Perhaps, by a miracle, WND will prove me wrong, and I can have a laugh at the rabid right’s reaction to my questions.
Just as an aside, I’d like to post WND’s poll questions on the subject of “Are the media justified in sounding alarm over ‘right-wing extremists’?”:
- No, as the Norway terrorist demonstrates, most of the ‘right-wing’ phobia is media slant
- No, a few lone nutballs are not the same thing as the whole religion of jihadism
- No, the shooter in Norway is not even a right-winger, He calls himself a “Darwinian” – see it’s amazing how the fuckheads that read WND actually swallow that shit.