Totalitarianism And Mass Murder

Want to know how it happens? It starts like this:

“I have always been opposed to the death penalty in all cases…”

“Even mass murderers [like Breivik] should not be executed, in my opinion.”

“GW deniers fall into a completely different category from Behring Breivik. They are already causing the deaths of hundreds of millions of future people. We could be speaking of billions, but I am making a conservative estimate.”

Once one is declared an enemy of the people, all becomes possible.

14 thoughts on “Totalitarianism And Mass Murder”

  1. Ah yes, the go to expert on climate, a music professor. I bet he’s written a few hymns for the religion.

  2. Also, once again we see the progressive mindset of refusing to prosecute true criminals and instead punish a lot of other people to whom they simply disagree. This is the same process happening after Newtown. Let’s gloss over the murderers motives, heck lets not even probe them. Instead, let’s license everyone in the US in order to get a firearm, or at the very least, blanket limitation on what they can own.

    Here’s a thought, why not hold the actual murderers accountable for their actions?

    And yes, this is a progressive mindset/strategy. Social conservatives want to end abortion because they consider it murder. They want to end it, not sentence every women who ever had or considered an abortion, and sure as hell not does who support abortion. And no, a handful of nutjob bombers doesn’t change this fact.

    1. It’s not just the murderers. Every adult needs to be accountable. That includes the teachers. We have had enough mass shootings to warn us that it could happen anywhere. It is especially likely in various ‘gun free’ zones. The adult thing to do is for enough to take responsibly and carry everywhere.

      What if we knew that on a certain day a park full of children was going to be shot up and equally knew that no law enforcement would be anywhere near. What would responsible adults do? They would defend the children. That is what adults (and the definition itself includes taking responsibility) do.

  3. How many people are going to die because they cannot afford heating energy this winter because of AGW believers pushing onto the rest of us fuel taxes?

    AGW believers are ones doing the murdering in here. This jackass’s comments are just the icing on the cake.

    1. Once one is declared an enemy of the people, all becomes possible.


      AGW believers are ones doing the murdering in here.

      Well I guess that explains the death threats that Hansen, Mann and other climate scientists receive.

      1. As opposed to the very public threats Hansen has made in public to “deniers” while somehow maintaining his tax funded job.

      2. Some AGW believers are in a class by themselves. Now, I’m something of a jerk on the internet. In part, it’s because it’s hard to empathize with people who commit basic errors of thought and start by looking for a fight (eg, firing broadsides into strawmen caricatures of beliefs I respect). I also have a habit of holding a lot of unpopular opinions and defending them fiercely.

        Anyway, I’ve been insulted, ridiculed, completely misrepresented,target of obscenities, all sorts of stuff to hurt the feelings. But the worst comes from some really hysterical AGW supporters. I have been assured that when the AGW revolution comes, I will be first against the wall for my crimes against humanity, which I might add consisted solely of not buying fully into the catastrophic AGW narrative.

        Having said that, I do agree that these people probably are getting death threats. It seems some people are enraged by mere disagreement to the point of making threats.

        My view is that the people mentioned, Hansen, Mann, and others are advocates. That’s a valid job in itself and it does serve a useful function in our society (our legal and political systems are based on it, for example, and these guys are operating as part of the political system). But people need to remember that the role of advocate is to further a particular ideology or argument, not to conduct impartial science.

        One cannot defeat an argument by punishing or killing the people making the argument.

  4. “He’s been propagandized…”

    This is why we need manditory courses in media and manipulation (both commercial and governmental) taught at the junior high school level in an even handed non political manner.

  5. And people wonder why some of us don’t like gun control.

    I imagine if you talked to any AGW alarmist individually about this, they would think its horrible but as a group this type of language is all too common and as a group they don’t hold each other accountable.

    1. “And people wonder why some of us don’t like gun control.”

      I was thinking that too, but it quickly expanded to…

      First they came for the AGW Deniers,
      and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a AGW Deniers.
      Then they came for the NRA Members,
      and I didn’t speak out because I wasn’t a NRA Members.
      Then they came for the gun owners,
      and I was finally safe because I turned in ALL my guns…

  6. The next time you (anyone) are in DC, try out the following: walk through the Holocaust museum’s timeline exhibit, and every place you see or hear the word “Jew,” mentally substitute the word “Denier.” It will scare the living daylights out of you…

      1. Peterh,
        THE worst thing that was ever entered into the guns / no guns argument was the words “hunting” or “hunters”. The LAST thing on the Founders minds when they wrote the 2nd Amendment was bagging deer, dove, groundhog or duck!

        Their prime concern was bagging the leaders of an onerous government. And by bag I don’t mean capture or take out of office. The writers of the Constitution had plenty of experience fighting to preserve first the Colonies and then throwing off King George.

        They wrote the 2nd Amendment so that American Citizens could SHOOT people who wanted to harm, subjugate or kill the aforementioned American Citizens.

        There is a little known story of the Warsaw Uprising during WWII. Around 700 Jewish resistance fighters armed mostly with only hand guns and Molotov Cocktails initially, held off heavily armed Gestapo and SS Troops aided by tanks. They were outnumbered and packed into the ghetto so their fighting was all a holding action. And ultimately they lost their fight. But they DID fight.

        Imagine the fight the Jewish peoples of Europe might have put up if their countries had not disarmed the citizens after WWI.

        Now imagine the fight that will occur, should the armed American Citizens REFUSE to be disarmed. There are 200 million guns in the country right now, and roughly 90M gun owners.

        There are about 3M active duty and reserve personnel currently. There are about 1.1M to 1.4M sworn, Federal, State and Local LEO’s. But given the attitude and conservative to moderate political attitudes of many of those people, they are AGAINST any destruction or cut back in the strength of the 2nd Amendment. But even IF they weren’t, even IF that 4M+ LEOs and military personnel followed orders to disarm the citizens?

        Just HOW would that work Peterh?

        90M gun owners being disarmed by 4M ‘disarmers’? A factor of more than 20 to 1 ratio? It sounds pretty bad for the disarming side to me. Right now, I do not know even ONE gun owner who is willing to turn in his ‘assault rifle’, much less any other firearms, so they’ll HAVE to take them forcibly. As firm as I am in belief in and protection of the 2nd Amendment, I believe we’ll retain our rights, but there will be many ‘losers’ in any fight for our guns.

        The term ‘molon labe’ isn’t just for bumper stickers, t-shirts and tattoos. It’s a line in the political stand that was drawn long ago in 1934, and has at various times been quite wide. Newtown has the Anti-Gun groups slobbering for a total gun ban AND some have called for confiscation. Yeah, The term ‘molon labe’ is way more than a bumper sticker, t-shirt and tattoo. It’s a line in the political stand, that’s about to be drawn wider or washed away with blood I fear.

  7. What? How did Anders Behring Breivik kill all those people in Norway using semiauto pistols? After all, Norway has strict gun control laws. Maybe supergeniuses like Chris Gerrib and “Che Guevara” Jim might have an answer.


Comments are closed.