To see just how crazy Jared Loughner is, it's useful, by way of contrast, to look at the Wikipedia page about Volkert van der Graaf, the leftist Dutch legal professional who assassinated anti-immigration Prime Minister candidate Pim Fortuyn in 2002. Here are excerpts:
During a second "pro forma" hearing on November 4, it was decided that the trial would be delayed while Van der Graaf was sent for seven weeks of psychiatric observation at the Pieter Baan Center, starting in the first week of January 2003.Basically, this guy just took seriously the stuff the EuroEstablishment had been saying about Fortuyn. Hell, some of the elites kept saying that Fortuyn had it coming even after Van der Graaf had gone and done it.
In a press statement of November 23 the prosecution (Public Ministry) announced that Van der Graaf had confessed to the murder. He said that he planned it for some time beforehand and that nobody else was involved in the plans or knew about them. He said he saw Fortuyn as a steadily increasing danger for vulnerable groups in society. It was thereby a combination of Fortuyn's stigmatising views, the polarising way that he presented them and the great political power that Fortuyn was threatening to obtain. He saw no other possibility for himself than to end the danger by killing Fortuyn.
... The report from the PBC was complete by about March 21. It found that Van der Graaf could be held completely accountable for the killing. The report also stated that Van der Graaf had an obsessive-compulsive personality disorder, which explains his rigid moral judgements. Menno Oosterhoff, a child psychiatrist from Groningen, publicly suggested that the Pieter Baan Centrum may have overlooked the possibility that Van der Graaf has Asperger syndrome. Oosterhoff later withdrew his theory. The PBC report stated that nothing could be said about the chance of another similar crime occurring, since the disorder had nothing to do with the murder. Van der Graaf agreed that he was accountable and that he had compulsive urges. The outcome of the investigation ensured that he would receive a prison sentence and not "TBS treatment".
... During the trial, Van der Graaf described again his reasons for killing Fortuyn. He said how he had hoped that the leaders of other political parties would deliver substantial critique on Fortuyn, but that it never happened. Instead, Fortuyn had the talent to channel criticism so that it never touched him. He said again that he had never spoken to anybody else about his plan to act against Fortuyn, and only made a definitive plan to act on the day before the murder. He said that he was wrestling with feelings of regret for the killing, finding the killing of somebody morally reprehensible, but that on May 6 he had felt himself justified, wanting to fight the danger of Fortuyn, not his person. He explained that his lack of outward emotion was due to being somebody who didn't find it easy to talk about feelings. Asked about the danger of accidentally injuring somebody other than Fortuyn in the attack, he said that he had been confident that that wouldn't happen. ...
To the argument that Fortuyn would have been chosen through democratic means, Van der Graaf said that that was also the case for Hitler. Indeed he compared the rise of Fortuyn to the rise of Nazism in the 1930s.[1] In his final argument he said that he had acted from his conscience, but that didn't justify it, and that it was absolutely not normal to shoot somebody to death.
Van der Graaf also said he murdered Fortuyn to defend Dutch Muslims from persecution. He claimed his goal was to stop Fortuyn from targeting "the weak parts of society to score points" and exploiting Muslims as "scapegoats" in an attempt to seek political power.[3][4][5]
Posts
19 comments:
no other race acts this way. in fact no humans have ever acted this way in the history of man.
sometime around 1950 europeans worldwide all decided that they needed to eliminate themselves and hand over everything they have ever created or worked for to other groups.
Appears now that Sheriff Dupnik launched a pre-emptive strike by blaming Republicans for the massacre.
His office knew that Loughner had made murder threats by phone repeatedly.
Dupnik apparently did not take action against the kid because the kid's mother worked for the county.
Dupnik was trying to head off criticism that he botched handling an obviously psychotic kid.
Steve, I'd really appreciate it if you would address this in this post or another.
It appears that the media attempt to blame Republicans and conservatives for the actions of this psychotic has failed.
The internet and cable TV have changed the game. Your site is very effective. Bill O'Reilly tore into the media last night in a devastating commentary. Megan Kelly picked apart Sheriff Dupnik's behavior in a very professional interview.
I found the info about Dupnik in a little personal weblog.
So, the game has changed. This is a watershed event for that reason.
Makes me wonder how the great political battles of the 60s and 70s, like feminism and civil rights, would have played out had there been a really fierce opposition press and independent blogs. Those movements played out against a one-party press and were fought mainly in the liberal literary world.
OK, Steve, I did it myself.
www.harleyscars.com
Sorry about being off-topic but has anyone noticed that Ted Williams, the "Golden Voiced Announcer," looks just like Barack Obama?
http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://assets.nydailynews.com/img/2011/01/07/alg_ted_williams.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/01/06/2011-01-06_ted_williams_shows_off_golden_voice_as_he_opens_the_today_show_internet_star_enj.html&usg=__lkhGijSsUpRRoAEaLB6olnKsxV4=&h=333&w=485&sz=122&hl=en&start=0&zoom=1&tbnid=CXahTJEjgLG4qM:&tbnh=125&tbnw=155&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dted%2Bwilliams%2Bannouncer%26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DN%26biw%3D1024%26bih%3D677%26tbs%3Disch:1&um=1&itbs=1&iact=rc&dur=464&ei=SXUsTfPCJdn6nwetgJH6CQ&oei=SXUsTfPCJdn6nwetgJH6CQ&esq=1&page=1&ndsp=20&ved=1t:429,r:4,s:0&tx=61&ty=42
Fortunately, I think the average American is smart enough to realize that Loughner is psychotic and that we can't base policy on what psychotics will or won't do. The continuing efforts by the MSM and Team Blue to turn this into an indictment of conservatives will, I hope, only serve to further underline for most people the liberal bias of the media and the sliminess of politicans.
I don't believe his story. I am Dutch and I still remember vividly the episode of Fortuyn's slaying. If you look at the background of van der Graaf, it is clear the man was a hardcore animal rights activist. I find it hard to believe he cared so much about non-white, muslim immigrants that he would sacrifice his personal freedom for them.
In my view the reasons he provided for the killing are a ruse; his real motive had to do with animal welfare. Admittedly, Fortuyn had little to say about this topic although he did support a repeal of the ban on certain practises considered cruel by activists. Van der Graaf just fed the judge this story about defending poor, threathened brown people from a second Hitler to receive maximum leniency and make sure his pet project (animal rights) would not face a backslash.
- VanSpeyk
Steve seems to now be spending more time on the assassination of the Pim Fortuyn fellow than I think he originally did at the time it happened a decade ago.
Since Fortuyn was some Dutch politician nobody in America had ever heard of and it happened so long ago, I'm not sure about the current relevance.
Why not some posts about the assassination of Hendrik Voerwoerd (sp?) the founder of South Africa's Apartheid system, which happened in the late 1940s I think. After all, that fellow was actually PM while Fortuyn was just some rising rabble rouser and gay activist, along Harvey Milk lines...
Dupnik apparently did not take action against the kid because the kid's mother worked for the county.
The kid's mother is a Jewess who worked for the county.
Ergo Marty Peretz & the gang, right on cue, to change the tenor of the discussion:
The Tucson Shooter and the Case for Involuntary Commitment
January 11, 2011 | 12:00 am
tnr.com
Nothing to see here folks - move on, move on.
As an example of a sane assassin, I would suggest John Wilkes Booth. We know a lot about him -- we even have the little diary he kept during his flight with Herold. Booth knew exactly what he was doing and had clearly thought through how it was supposed to aid the causes he supported. He turned out to be completely mistaken, but that was an error in his properly functioning judgment, not a result of insanity. Loughner is as far from Booth as it's possible to be.
> After all, that fellow was actually PM while Fortuyn was just some rising rabble rouser and gay activist, along Harvey Milk lines...
Yes, according to a non or anti White Preservationist like yourself. To others, though, it's...
It is widely reported now Loughner is schizophrenic. Maybe so. If he is, then we should expect that he has toxoplasmosis parasites in his brain.
I would find such a discovery interesting. Maybe we could spare one of the reporters chasing after a Sarah Plain connection to look into it.
Albertosaurus
"no other race acts this way."
On the contrary Jody, black people kill each other all of the time.
"has anyone noticed that Ted Williams, the "Golden Voiced Announcer," looks just like Barack Obama?"
After how many bowls of peyote?
you see, Steve, The Establishment did indeed report on it: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/us/12giffords.html?hp
u were premature
"On the contrary Jody, black people kill each other all of the time."
Once again, Twoof demonstrates his complete lack of reading comprehension skills.
Jody wasn't referring to whites killing whites, you nugget!
no other race acts this way. in fact no humans have ever acted this way in the history of man.
sometime around 1950 Europeans worldwide all decided that they needed to eliminate themselves and hand over everything they have ever created or worked for to other groups.
A lot of ethnopatriots think there's something unique about whites in this regard. I disagree. I think whites are probably intermediate between blacks and yellows on the "independently screw over one's group for personal gain" meter.
The trouble is more that whites are where the money's at, IMO.
Once again, Twoof demonstrates his complete lack of reading comprehension skills.
Jody wasn't referring to whites killing whites, you nugget!
Actually, I was going to sorta-kinda agree with T. Blacks, contrary to popular (racial right, Amren type) belief, are not inherently more collectivist or prone to racial solidarity than whites; if anything, they're more independently-minded. Culture explains the differences, not behavioral genetics.
Just look at how regularly black pols screw over their own (e.g., selling out to the Dem leadership on immigration, when blacks are the hardest-hit).
"Jody wasn't referring to whites killing whites, you nugget!"
I thought that was what the story was about.
After all, that fellow was actually PM while Fortuyn was just some rising rabble rouser and gay activist, along Harvey Milk lines...
RKU, to your way of thinking, can any statement critical of ongoing immigration (particularly the 3rd world variety) -- ie the process of it, as opposed to the "event" of it having once occurred -- be made that might escape condemnation as rabble-rousing?
I can picture your type standing one atop another up the Empire State Building's spire with the fellow at the very top timidly suggesting, "I think it may be time we consider an immigration moratorium," and being angrily denounced by those underneath him as a bigot and rabble-rouser.
RKU, pal, buddy, chum, if not now, when? If not this generation, which?
Post a Comment