The Breivik trial

It began on April 16. I’ve recently commented on it over at VFR (I and Larry Auster have had an exchange about the question of Breivik’s criminal insanity and what it means for the trial and its verdict, but as of this writing, only my first comment is up), and, less recently, on Breivik and the attacks themselves in columns on Alternative Right and Brussels Journal.

8 thoughts on “The Breivik trial

  1. But doing so allows the multi-cultists to subsequently tar all voices that sound remotely like his as hate-filled extremism.

    They already do. Breivik is merely living up to what they have constantly accused Conservatives of wanting to do since 1945.

    They essentially play the small risk that he’ll actually attract others to his cause off of the much more likely gain that it will utterly and completely silence all opposition to Norweigan cultural disintegration.

    How has that moderate opposition been doing so far? Have they accomplished anything? The Left is so emboldened there that they wage campaigns to force boys to sit down to pee.

    Breivik correctly anticipates that the only thing the Left understands is violence. If Conservatives chimped out like Muslims did at every infraction, they would get their way a lot more.

  2. ASDF’s comments remind me of a conversation I had with a couple East Indians. The topic of Mahatma Gandhi came up. I assumed East Indians viewed him as he was typically viewed in the West – a successful champion of Indian independence.

    They had little but contempt for him.

    I did not (and do not) know much about Indian independence, so had little to say in response.

    I don’t agree that the only thing the Left understands is violence. What it *doesn’t* understand very well is martyrdom – people willing to give up their lives, comforts, and so on, for their beliefs. They tend to regard this as folly, delusion, or so on.

  3. Insanity is just one type of evil. But it’s the only sort that moral nominalists can admit to their worldview, because it is the only sort of evil that objectively disorders thought as such. So they cannot understand any sort of evil except as a type of insanity.

    What they miss, of course, is that, just as nominalism rules out knowledge as such, moral nominalism logically rules out moral knowledge as such, and is itself therefore understandable as a sort of moral insanity.

  4. We haven’t addressed it directly yet, but if you go to View from the Right and use its search function to find articles that mention nominalism, you’ll find a lot. I’ve written about it extensively over there, and so have several others.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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