Chain dogs of political correctness

Submitted by Ianus (Poland), Jul 27, 2011 at 18:09

The moment I saw the arresting story about Anders Behring Breivik it became obvious to me that he has got not the slightest chance of either a fair trial or an unbiased treatment by the media. He won't be given a fair chance of presenting his argument according to its merits but will be depicted as insane or a scoundrel or both. Browsing some media I have already noticed plenty of evidence to that effect even though it is difficult to see who has copied his version from whom.

As usual in such highly disturbing cases what I call chain dogs of political correctness have been unleashed against the trouble-maker and they are doing the job they have been trained for -i.e. dehumanizing and delacerating the prey indicated from above - quite well. The first thing the chain dogs do is encircle and disconnect the prey they want to destroy from the outside world and its resources. In plain text - they have removed his videos from Youtube, his facebook account has been deleted. His compendium - not a "manifesto" as Dr. Pipes following probably some PC media calls it - is very hard to find and if found it is not so easy to download. This is a routine procedure by the authorities to exclude any possibility of comparison or contrast between the version spread by mass media and versions mass media will never consider.

Now Dr. Pipes quotes a few passages from the compendium but I doubt they are the most interesting ones. Without reading all the book yet (which is still available at scribd.com even though I have a presentment it will be removed soon from there as well) I definitely prefer the following ones :

" Most Europeans look back on the 1950s as a good time. Our homes were safe, to the

point where many people did not bother to lock their doors. Public schools were generally

excellent, and their problems were things like talking in class and running in the halls.

Most men treated women like ladies, and most ladies devoted their time and effort to

making good homes, rearing their children well and helping their communities through

volunteer work. Children grew up in two–parent households, and the mother was there to

meet the child when he came home from school. Entertainment was something the whole

family could enjoy.

What happened?

If a man of the 1950s were suddenly introduced into Western Europe in the 2000s, he

would hardly recognise it as the same country. He would be in immediate danger of

getting mugged, carjacked or worse, because he would not have learned to live in

constant fear. He would not know that he shouldn't go into certain parts of the city, that

his car must not only be locked but equipped with an alarm, that he dare not go to sleep

at night without locking the windows and bolting the doors – and setting the electronic

security system.

If he brought his family with him, he and his wife would probably cheerfully pack their

children off to the nearest public school. When the children came home in the afternoon

and told them they had to go through a metal detector to get in the building, had been

given some funny white powder by another kid and learned that homosexuality is normal

and good, the parents would be uncomprehending.

In the office, the man might light up a cigarette, drop a reference to the "little lady," and

say he was happy to see the firm employing some coloured folks in important positions.

Any of those acts would earn a swift reprimand, and together they might get him fired.

When she went into the city to shop, the wife would put on a nice suit, hat, and possibly

gloves. She would not understand why people stared, and mocked.

And when the whole family sat down after dinner and turned on the television, they

would not understand how pornography from some sleazy, blank-fronted "Adults Only"

kiosk had gotten on their set.

Were they able, our 1950s family would head back to the 1950s as fast as they could,

with a gripping horror story to tell. Their story would be of a nation that had decayed and

degenerated at a fantastic pace, moving in less than a half a century from the greatest

countries on earth to Third World nations, overrun by crime, noise, drugs and dirt. The

fall of Rome was graceful by comparison.' (p.12)

"You cannot defeat Islamisation or halt/reverse the Islamic colonization of Western Europe without first removing the political doctrines manifested through multiculturalism/cultural Marxism…"(p.5)

Dr. Pipes also adds the remarkable sentence : "A close reading of his manifesto suggests this (i.e. damaging conservatism, the counterjihad, and -in particular- those authors he cited in his writings) may have been purposeful.' But he gives nowhere a link to the source. As a distinguished scholar he should know better than anyone else that quoting a source requires a reference or a link to it. It's unfair to suggest "close reading" without giving the reader a chance to have a glimpse into the full text.

Furthermore , Dr. Pipes says "In this way, Behring Breivik resembles the Unabomber, Ted Kaczynski, who engaged in violence as a means to market his 1995 manifesto, Industrial Society and Its Future. Indeed, the tie between these two is very close: Hans Rustad documents how extensively Behring Breivik plagiarized from Kaczynski, changing only some key words."

I find this charge far-fetched and unfair. First , the subject matter of the two texts is different. Where does Kaczynski say anything about Islam and Islamization? The compendium is instead about Islamization, its Western enablers and consequences.Islamization is a mortal threat to our civilization, and reducing it to a problem of marketing seems hardly serious.

Hans Rustad quoted here as authority is rather a precarious source. He founded the blog document.no where Anders Breivik was a regular poster, praised the site and its founder. They agreed on most things like Islamisation and support for Israel. Now when the former blogger was discredited for his violent acts, his former supporter does his best to vilify and demonize him too by adding the charge of plagiarizing to that of mass murder and to whitewash himelf perhaps. Anyway, the charge of plagiarizing can only be made if we are denied the possibility of reading the compendium. How can you accuse anyone of "plagiarizing" if he tells you in the preface

"I have written approximately half of the compendium myself.The rest is a compilation of

works from several courageous individuals throughout the world." ?

It's hard to write 'sine ira et studio'(=without wrath and bias) on a subject where everything is visibly full of 'ira et studium'.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".