Oslo and Neo-Conservative Bigotry

Bruce Bawer, writing in the Wall Street Journal, is upset that the Oslo mass murder might make people who advocate bloodthirsty anti-Muslim hysteria seem like people who advocate bloodthirsty anti-Muslim hysteria. Bawer vainly struggles to save face for the neo-conservative cause, denouncing “the way he [Breivik] moves from a legitimate concern about genuine problems to an unspeakably evil `solution.’”

So, less than a hundred dead Scandinavians is unspeakably evil, but many hundreds of thousands of dead Arabic and central Asian people is apparently just par for the course in Bawer’s view.

The state, all states, are fundamentally monopoly protection rackets. Apologists for statism like Bawer are essential to creating the perception of a threat — and bigotry is one of their most beloved tools.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “Oslo and Neo-Conservative Bigotry

  1. If someone took a loved one hostage and then demanded that you support the War on Terror, would you be liable if you did so? Because for many neo-conservatives, their fellow countrymen are like loved ones and the continued existence of state-sponsored terrorist organizations is like a threat to loved ones. Also a lot of what neo-conservatives say about Islam is based on public opinion polls, state-sponsored terrorism and the justifications for it offered by the Koran, the Hadith and the example of Mohammed.

    Like

    1. Public opinion doesn't justify bigotry, nor do sympathies for soldiers of any kind. I'm not quite sure what you mean about the State-sponsored terrorism though.

      Like

      1. So if the public of a nation such as Egypt supports the execution of adulterers and apostates by a margin of 80% (look it up on Google!), it is not OK to have a negative opinion towards that public? And the sympathy is not just to soldiers but to the civilian victims of terrorist attacks. Such love of murdered American civilians makes a mere ceasefire insufficient–the deaths cause neoconservatives to hate the perpetrators and to demand that they be punished just as the Left's hatred of the American and Israeli governments create a Leftist demand that American and Israeli leaders be punished for "war crimes" in which civilian deaths are mainly caused by the terrorist tactic of using human shields!

        Like

      2. "So if the public of a nation such as Egypt supports the execution of adulterers and apostates by a margin of 80% (look it up on Google!), it is not OK to have a negative opinion towards that public?"
        You live in a country that embraces death penalties, a culture of poverty and political corruption. Does that mean everyone in the U.S. including yourself are bad persons, Hidden Author? The logic is not tenable.
        You are making such amorphous generalizations in the rest of your post that I can't even figure out where you're coming from. And distinguishing between neocons and Leftists in the context you present isn't totally honest. Neoconservatism as a practice and ideology was formed by ex-Leftists in the mid- to late-20th century because they were frustrated with what they perceived as Marxism and the Left's inability to "spread democracy" (in a nutshell.)
        Basically you are saying that all people in the Middle East are bad because some of them are bad, but not all of them are bad cause they're victims too! OR SOMETHING.
        My recent post Goldman Sachs: Win, cheat, or quit. We don’t fucking lose – ever.

        Like

  2. I happen to think that the American government is taking the American people for a ride when it comes to the War on Terror. First troops invade Afghanistan. Al-Qaeda are there but the sponsors in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are ignored. Then troops go to Iraq. Iraq didn't have an Al-Qaeda link but Saddam was an old enemy who rejected the terms of surrender imposed after his defeat. After that came the bombing of Libya. That was perhaps the worst choice of all because Gaddafi actually COOPERATED with America's counter-terror policy. So as time goes on after 9-11, military action and fighting terrorism grow further apart until the link between the two is severed entirely. So I'm a skeptic of America's War on Terror.

    But I also understand how people who are troubled by terror attacks (such as neocons) may wish to kick the asses of terrorists. I also notice how factions such as neo-Nazis, Trotskyists, anarchists, nationalists for nations rivaling America, etc.–can oppose each other in many ways and yet share in common their vendetta against the American government which they cherish more than stopping terrorists. Obviously when one is motivated by such a vendetta, one lacks the concern for the victims past, present and future of terrorist attacks that more patriotic people are likely to feel–that's why I draw an analogy between assaults on the loved ones of neocons and terrorist attacks.

    P. S. The Islamic extremists America claims to fight are a collection of state-sponsored mass movements for a pure Islamic state–you could analyze my or neoconservative views by pondering how an army could fight such an arrangement of hostile people. This idea of a pure Islamic state is problematic because such a state is not limited to one nation but rather exists to impose Sharia (i.e. oppress people) over whichever territories (including urban enclaves in infidel nations) can be acquired by jihad (i.e. conquest, terrorism, etc.).

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s