You all have ran with this ‘could have been laudable’ statement.
You can demonize me, but don’t before you’ve read this post. A man has the right to stand and represent himself against what he has been accused of before judgement is passed. You can say I’m mad, but at least hear me out instead of jumping to that conclusion without a warranted clarification.
The way things are nowadays with the level of Corporate and Bank corruption going on in our Governments a man with the genius and conviction of this man, is a fundamental waste. What I mean to say is, if you’ve skimmed his ideology, he is not that off-base. He is not some virulent neo-nazi nor some raging muslim-killer. If you’ve looked at his manifesto, while his ideas are coarse and extreme, they do not go into pan-ethnic genocide or pogroms as some of you may assume. The guy talks about ending muslim immigration, and forcing people to assimilate or leave. He talks about an inevitable civil war, because he feels his culture and way of life are in jeopardy. This is pretty consistent with about every group involved in the Yugoslav war.
*EDIT = After reading more of his Manifesto, there is alot crazy stuff in there. Howver, from what I’ve read so far, the guy is advocating a ‘war for independence’ and not ethnic cleansing. He uses a number of 48,000 as the number of casualties said revolution would take, going as far as to say, it should take place with minimum number of casuaties to affect the change. His actions seem to be highly inconsistent with his writing. I suppose 100 is a bit less than the 46,000 he’s suggestnig."
I certainly do not agree with his ideas but also I do not entirely disagree with some of them.
Some of the issues he is inflammed over are real, but his reaction has crossed the line. Him taking action wasn’t the problem, it is the murderous aspect that has tainted the interview viewpoint now. Instead of making a point, he’s made a massacre, and only damaged whatever validity his cause had.
To go into why, this could have been laudable;
When we think about the loss of human sovereignty, civil rights, and even social justice in the EU and the USA. No, I’m not talking about reparations or social welfare. A man with enough conviction to have gone through the planning, and effort that it took to orchestrate this, and have it pervert into grand tragedy is lamentable. A tragedy in the violence and loss of human life, but also, a tragedy in that there are legitimate edificies wherein his ‘insurrection’ could have taken place, but instead he ran around and played Call of Duty on a bunch of teens on an island.
If you think about the modern situation in the EU or the USA, would it not be just to have an action akin to the Boston Tea Party of the 1700s? That was a terroristic vandalism, but we know it now to have been justified due to the lack of political representation at the time.
Now bring this back to our situation.
In China, when Executives fail, rob and/or screw the common people in the way the our own Corporate Oligarchy has… those men are imprisoned at the very least, but more often than not, they are executed. Think of the social destruction that Enron inflicted, and the slap on the wrists only a handful of the men involved got…think about the government tearing down our Bill of Rights and damning us with habeus corpus as they please.
The crimes that have been inflicted, outweigh the common robber by exponential amounts, yet the common robber can see 20 years or more for theft that is comparatively minimal. The rights that have been taken away from us, were established as inalienable, yet they have been alienated and the political avenues for opposing those actions are stifled. Those rights were written in the blood of our forefathers in the revolution, those thefts unpunished violate the social contract that holds this society together. Those who have perpetrated these actions have thus lost all legitimacy, and insurrection has thus become acceptable. However our humanity remains, so violence would always be the dead last option.
Thus, I stand by my statement that the action could have been laudable. It would have been so, if it were directed at those violations of our society by those who we have been powerless to hold accountable. I do not think in anyway that his hateful partisan violence was acceptable.
Anders Berweik is someone who had great conviction to fight what he thought was an injustice, and in the end, perpetrated an even great injustice; discrediting his ideology, and harming innocent people. That is truly lamentable.
What I still don’t get is…why did he blow up that Government building when noone was in it, but went on a shoooting rampage where a bunch of teens were…I mean even from his standpoint, shouldn’t that have been reversed?
If you read my post, I’m not advocating what ht e man did. I’m simply saying it is endeavor that turned out the worst way, whereas if it had corresponded to justice, it could have been an extraordinary awakening.
