I'm sure that is part of the case the defense will make. I am also absolutely positive that it isn't the 100% truth. The two states aren't
necessarily equivalent though.
Yes, he was in "game mode." Of that I'm certain.
While I would totally love to explain what I think he's done so few people would even partially grok it, it is probably pointless. Which is why this
will make for an excellent defense.
More people can probably do it - most them probably can't or cannot even imagine the concept of doing it intentionally or excerting some control over
the process of turning it on and off. I would imagine a few of them that can are under the employee of some government agencies, or are working as
mob assassins. Using it in this manner would never occur to most of them. That is the unique thing. The combination of *this* trait in a person
with interest in the body politic as a primary motivator.
The great thing about some truths - that the truth doesn't matter. People can't imagine it, can't even begin to fathom the possibility, so their
brains can't even see it.
Geir Lippestad warning people that the trial is likely to be hard on everyone, and that Anders Behring has no remorse for what he's done.
If someone is expecting that he is ever going to show remorse, I'm sure they will be disappointed. He's been working on extinguishing that for quite
some time. The emotion he probably actually has, I don't know if there is a word in the dictionary for it. Remorseless nostalgic benevolence?
Probably similar the same emotion that some of our world leaders have when they go shake hands with children at a function, and then call in an
airstrike in the same area.
On that note, today I think was the day that his media restrictions are lifted? Wonder if his attorneys put the article with the children's drawings
in it in his package.
All people right of center are to blame for Anders Behring, and all of them are like Ted Kaczynski and Timothy McVeigh. Kaczynski was a true loner
and a neo-Luddite. McVeigh was quite a bit more right wing than Anders Behring Breivik.
I've debated enough people who believe the McVeigh had a point and that his main mistake was the daycare. Those same people usually think he still
deserved the death penalty. They just happen to also think that the government was and is out of control. Bet you never hear about that in the
McVeigh's expression was pretty similar to Breivik's. As are some of his core beliefs, and actions.
What you will notice over and over, is that these people (and their left wing counterparts) all radicalize when denied any possibility of a realistic
means of political involvement. They only radicalize after they realize that they have no other means. This means that the attempt to control
radicalization by shutting down debate is not only unlikely to work; it is likely to spur it. It presumes that in a vacuum of information, that
nobody thinks anything but what they are told they are allowed to. Which I'm sure is a very comforting fantasy for governments and media.
If that were true, we'd all still be living as nomads wandering after herds.
That in the absence of the normal mechanisms tying them to their culture and acting as a moderating force, they transfer up their loyalty to the pack.
In cultures where this mechanism has been deconstructed, and you then shut down means of political involvement.... well the likely result seems
pretty obvious to me.
Which means that stupid people lead by the nose will do stupid things, and that smart people who can think on their own will just be more creative.
Anders Behring, he's been pretty damn creative. Worse, unlike his example counterparts here, he figured out a way to replicate his meme.
Try, try again. Different minds come up with similar ideas around the same time, and eventually one of them sticks. If it has a core of some truth
to it that resonates with some people, it replicates itself and starts getting used. This meme, it has been getting better at it for some time now.
If this one doesn’t take, how much it is improving might be a warning sign that it is about to hit that critical mass that breaks through.
Personally, I think it would be better if it breaks through without the damn weapons. One is a set of ideas, the other is a mechanism for them to
break through. They can be cleaved from one another.
While I know that everyone LOVES this selling of Right Wing types as being the only ones who do this, the fact is that they are really the only ones
you hear about. The media doesn't bring lots of attention to the left wing ones. I know....I know someone who blew up an animal lab. You never
heard about him in the media.
(No I didn't know him because I was looking to know people who did this, or for some political reason. Get your panties out of a knot. And no, it
isn't some online person, but an IRL thing. Don't ask me why, I don't have a reason. I don't look for them, they just jump into my path. I'll never
figure out how I can be a "soccer mom" type walking around in a David Lynch movie.)
Oh look, I'm not the only one who realizes that his writing isn't unattractive. The "rambling" is an effect of the wide topic range, and a lack of an
Some publishers might publish something he writes. In today's world, him being published by a publishing house might actually be worse for him than
him giving it out and it getting onto the net freeform again.
How interesting is that? If you don't care about the money, what is the advantage of the publishing house? In this case, it'd be that them
publishing him would in and of itself be an attention grabber. Otherwise, he can just get his ideas out to someone to publish for him onto the
Internet. And he'll have an instant audience.
edit on 2011/12/12 by Aeons because: (no reason given)