Tiger Beat suddenly realized they made a mistake trying to appeal to the Wingnut Crowd.
John O’ Sullivan, National Reverse Spew:
Breivik Puts Norway on Trial
We liberals can be a cruel lot, often assuming a complete lack of genuine morality and empathy in our wingnut counterparts simply because of how they act and what they support.
Sure, conservatives may eagerly support continuing and expanding systems of racist, sexist, homophobic bigotry, may indiscriminately support the bombing of brown people, any brown people, are unable to empathize with the suffering of anyone poorer than Scrooge McDuck and may universally rally behind the murderer of a child simply because of the races of the people involved and a vague connection to a law they support because of a tangential link to the only constitutional amendment they’ve ever liked…
I’m sure I had a point in there… Oh right, it’s that, sure, the path of wingnuttery can lead to a lot of sordid and horrifying moral positions, but we really shouldn’t assume that’s the same as complete abandonment of any semblance of human morality.
I mean, sure, their blind following of their authoritarian impulses and the reduction of life into a sports match between “two teams” you support no matter what, has led to some unthinkable public choices in recent years, but there is some spark of life in the old wingnut hind brain.
They do recognize that there are still lines that they dare not cross. You don’t just up and kill people… unless they happen to support legal medical practices that happen to help women. You don’t openly support the KKK… unless they dress in 1700s cosplay and call themselves Teabaggers. And you don’t openly masturbate about how rugged and handsome and manly serial killers are…
Phew. I was really afraid that-
- I honestly can’t decide what turns me on more. Breivik’s Nordic good looks and striking political philosophies or the very thought of liberals being forced to betray their principles.
Well, why the fuck not? I mean, conservatives have basically been tripping over their own balls (an impressive feat to be sure) to be the first one to abandon any semblance of humanity so as to be the “pure conservative” free from any filthy connection to the “corruption” of liberalism.
We’ve seen them literally declare War on Empathy in the Sotomayor confirmation, step up their rate of terrorism, openly sabotage the country during a Depression because quote they want to destroy the president endquote, introduce legislation and openly debate reintroducing child slavery, rally around the cowardly murderer of a child and treat him like their goddamn Gandhi, and nominate a fucking Transmetropolitan villain as their presidential candidate.
So why not masturbate to the lone gunman child killer they helped create now that people seem to mostly have forgotten that he was a product of America’s right wing?
Fuck, in many ways, it’s a step up.
Let’s just get this over with.
Norway’s trial of Anders Behring Breivik for the mass murder of 77 people last year has not really captured the attention of National Review Online as yet, but it is provoking some anguished debates in Norway and across Europe. It is also raising some very uncomfortable questions.
Yes, totally just anguished debates among the left. Definitely none among the right as they try and figure out how they can keep creating more of them without having Norwegian Ninja sicced on their ass.
Sure, IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION, but I’ll give them half credit for being halfway aware that Breivik is definitely a topic for discussion among someone. It’s sadly a step up from the usual response on the right to Breivik, which is screaming about how he’s not their fault and besides the victims totally deserved it for having one or two swarthy people among them.
The first such question is: Why should there be a trial at all — or at least a trial that treats the verdict as something in doubt? Everybody knows that Breivik murdered 77 innocent people; we all know just why he did so. His rambling paranoid web attacks on Norway’s social democrats for betraying Christian civilization were given wide publicity on the day after his rampage. Today he is not denying but rather boasting about his crimes. Nothing crucial to justice is in doubt.
Why could the court not simply hear his plea, take very brief factual evidence identifying Breivik as the perpetrator, pronounce him guilty, and then dispatch him off to anonymous obscurity for the rest of his life?
Trials with that brisk format used to take place in Britain following guilty pleas. Something like that could surely have been justified here. Indeed, it might be a moral improvement on what otherwise cannot help being a show trial.
Okay, shitnozzle, I understand in our current American system of “if you’re poor and black, you’re going to prison regardless of innocence, and if you’re rich and white, we’ll pay for your limo ride out of the courthouse even if you admit to raping an elderly nun”, it can be hard to remember the point of courts.
But yeah, courtrooms exist for a goddamn reason, because they are a system of equal justice for ALL people no matter what.
In times where there is a high profile case with an infamous defendant whose crime is monstrous it is even more imperative that you give them a fair and honest trial, because that’s what gives one’s justice system the right to exist. If you’re willing to throw that away at the drop of the hat, you don’t have a fucking justice system anymore, you have a barely disguised authoritarian tool for keeping the masses in line.
Hence why the “no trial” bullshit for the Guantanamo Criminals was so egregious, because it meant we literally demonstrated that we had zero faith in the justice system to function if there was any possibility of there being a fair trial.
But yeah, Norway needs a fair trial of Anders Breivik where he is allowed to make his case, no matter how batshit and egregious, because by doing so, they can demonstrate that the Norwegian justice system works. That it ensures guilty people go to jail and innocent people walk free and thus allows people to trust that the justice system will treat them fairly if they should ever get in trouble with the law.
I mean, I know after the Bush years, conservatives have had problems with most forms of legitimate justice, but this is the first time, I’ve actually seen someone literally unable to understand why FAIR FUCKING TRIALS work.
That leads to the second question: Who benefits from a show trial?
Oh right, so much time boggling at the complete fail, I didn’t get to really go into the attempt to assume that giving someone a fair trial to prove the system works is what a show trial is.
Um, yeah, no. A show trial is a trial that is rigged and will not listen to legitimate points. Like say our “trial” of one of the terrorists we tortured at Guantanamo whose incarceration, trial, and subsequent ruling was complete bullshit thanks to us just throwing out the rulebook about what fucking happens to a case when you torture someone. Giving someone all the rope to hang themselves to prove the system works and is unwilling to treat a vile waste of flesh as a supervillain just because they did something evil enough to make the national news is not a goddamn show trial.
Is it the prosecution, by getting a large hearing for its case? Or the public, because it learns important lessons from it? Or the perpetrator because, however vile his actions, he looks like a lone man against the world and gains something from that impression?
Its the system. You know, so it can continue being a system. Thus preventing Norway from becoming the United States where a growing number of people are pretty much assuming the justice system is against them from birth simply because it is.
Some jurists wanted a show trial in Breivik’s case because they thought it would show what a vile monster he undoubtedly is. Norway’s courtroom rules played into that desire. Unfortunately, they also played into Breivik’s calculations, which have turned out to be shrewder.
Yeah, that’s right. The complete failing to understand what a show trial is…
That’s just foreplay for the real… meat of the post as it were. Yeah, the shorter doesn’t lie folks. Breivik ranting and raving about the Secret Muslim Uprising has gotten some wingnuts so hot they’ve completely forgotten that they are supposed to be divorcing themselves from him and pretending that they have nothing in common.
They just can’t help it. The more they try and pretend, the less they can hide their heart’s true desire. With that neckbeard and Aryan features, they must have him. Have him pull on their hair and call them Aaeesha.
Also bonus points for applying the usual “everything liberals do is just to smear a conservative” shtick to proving a murderer’s crimes to a court of law. Oh, deary me, lawd, how could those mean liberals try to prove that the man who shot and killed 69 kids has done something villainous requiring legal response. Why that’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL and IMMORAL and WAH, I say again, WAH!
As Dan Hodges — a Blairite commentator on the Daily Telegraph website who is always thoughtful and (on other topics) entertaining — makes the following observation on how the trial is unfolding:
Ha! A fishwrapper writer for the Daily Torygraph being “insightful”. Yeah, that shows you right where his bread is buttered (right up his ass). I’d ask what color the sky is on his planet, but I’m pretty sure it’s green. So how about that brilliant insightfulness?
I find its sterility demeaning. The cramped, featureless courtroom. Breivik seated casually at the table between his attorneys, looking like a man taking part in a civil custody hearing, rather than someone on trial for 77 murders.
It’s an environment that appears to be framing Breivik, not cowing or reducing him as I’d hoped. There is no banality of evil on display here. Breivik actually appears quite an imposing figure, his physicality if anything enhanced by his calm, softly spoken interventions.
Yup, just in case you thought masturbating to Breivik was just isolated to one lone nutbar on the National Review payroll.
Also, yeah, the snippet is basically, gee gosh willikers, Breivik looks like a white guy, not our stereotypical assumptions on what a criminal looks like (i.e. all non-white people, and young white people who look suspiciously liberal looking). Well, that must mean he’s innocent, so he must be winning the Court Room.
Also, I get that Nordic and Swedish people are often fetishized by white countries as inherently hot, but… wow, there are some serious erections popping for that ugly neckbearded motherfucker.
In this atmosphere Breivik says things that are undoubtedly interesting.
Don’t you find with attraction, that everything they say becomes captivating? That their very voice is comforting and warm? And time seems to slow down as the wind wisps through every strand of their hair? Until you climb upon the table yelling “Do me Anders, treat me like the Muslim Menace taking over our souls”?
No? Just wingnut columnists?
His description, for instance, of how he was surprised that many of his victims “froze” rather than attempting to escape was repellent, but it told us something surprising we did not know before.
Humans react like any other animal in times of great stress and peril with some fleeing, some turning to fight, and others freezing in place to hopefully become less of a target? Huh. Completely new information. Or else, it would be if we were some alien life form that never bothered to learn anything about humanity.
As a result, he becomes a little more interesting himself and so (as is plainly one of his aims) a little less blankly monstrous. Occasionally he even makes little jokes at which people in the courtroom laugh. They laugh — it’s a normal human reaction, hard to avoid — but it further relativizes him and his crimes.
I know I’m saying that a lot this post, but wow, I’m not actually sure where to start on this mess, so I’m going to have 3 separate reactions simultaneously that I will list A-C:
A) Oh yes, describing how your victims died like animals in a slaughter and how you showed no mercy in dispatching them when they clearly posed no threat whatsoever to you really endears you to the crowd. I’m betting they were swooning in the aisles to that rugged bit of manliness!
B) Of course, he’s not literally a monster. No “history’s greatest monster” is. All of them were human beings with complexities to them. That doesn’t subtract from their crimes. Hitler wasn’t a better person because he treated dogs kindly while he was ordering the extermination of the Jews. In fact, our obsession with reducing “bad guys” to inhuman monsters is used often to erase the real crimes they commit by making it something caused by “evil” rather than say ideologies that demonize and remove the humanity from perceived “enemies”. Not to mention the way it allows idiots to treat human beings like real life superheroes who can break out of prisons like they were tissue paper if we were to actually trust our justice system to do its bloody job.
C) That’s a terrible usage of the word relativizes!
Yeah okay, the last one is completely out of proportion to the other two, but it’s obviously only there to get the boot in on the Right’s favorite hobby horse “moral relativism” and try and throw one more hidden elbow to the face at it while pretending they mean something else. Why do I say that? Because there’s no other reason to use the barely correct word relativize there when empathize is so much less awkward.
It’s like they can’t help themselves anymore and if they don’t include at least one dog whistle per paragraph, they start getting the withdrawal symptoms again.
Nothing can make Breivik sympathetic, but he will doubtless be satisfied with planting even the smallest seed of doubt about his utter wickedness or irrationality.
A) Hey look, someone just realized they were caught masturbating and are desperately trying to hide the tube sock. It’d be convincing if only liberals shared the same mental impairment as conservatives and also were unable to remember 5 seconds prior.
B) Yes, there’s so much doubt about his wickedness when he describes his conscienceless slaughter and tries to blame it literally on “bu-bu-but the muslims are worse” (oh, yes, that bullshit is coming soon). Well, certainly to people who want an excuse for worshipping him as a living God who finally did what they’ve been wanting to do, but have been too cowardly to do for years.
C) Ha. Yes, because the Left are the one’s concerned his actions might not come across as “irrational”. No, I believe the Left has been rather vocal about how “rational” his actions were. No, not because they were based in reality, but because it’s perfectly understandable where someone got the idea that they needed to kill kids to stop Muslim encroachment when their “Manifesto” was nothing more than copy-paste from the average right-wing website.
Or did you already forget why you were so desperate to make him an irrational “lone wolf” in the first place?
That is why it is so dangerous that he will apparently be allowed to bring on extreme Islamists as witnesses for his defense. In effect he is claiming justified homicide — which in this case means justified mass murder — presumably on the grounds that it is legitimate to murder people if they promote, inter alia, the immigration of extremists.
Yup. I told you it was coming. Yeah, so very sympathetic and reasonable he is what with the describing his victims deaths and ranting about needing to bring in radical Muslims for defense.
Also love how the columnist is going hook, line, and sinker for this. He’s allowed to make a defense and he’s right-wing! That must mean he’s demonstrated his case and the Left and the mean old prosecutors have no response, because conservative manly men who “stand up” to things are always right.
Yeah, no, see, before about rope, the giving thereof, and the subsequent actions one performs with said rope.
And you’d think the Right-wing would be slightly more concerned with their Nordic dreamboat linking in Court the direct connection between his actions and unfounded right-wing paranoia. Forget putting the nail in the coffin for the Right in Norway, this is a potential blow against the Right everywhere. Especially if say wingnuts do something stupid like say… promote it on their fucking nationally known blogs while crouched over like fucking Aqualung!
But then, that just brings up the ropes again and so on and so forth.
If that is not the reason for having Islamists as defense witnesses, what is?
Oh, bloody hell, don’t make the adage about ropes any more shopworn than it already is. We won’t be able to use it for bondage afterwords.
Also, append to “Fair Trial, your complete lack of understanding about”.
And if that is the reason, what on earth would be the state of Norwegian law if Breivik were to be acquitted on those grounds?
Probably pretty bad. But then see, Norway isn’t so terrified by completely unlikely remote possibilities that they abandon their justice system at the drop of a hat like us.
It allows them to shame us by showing that said fears are complete bullshit and that trusting and improving one’s system is the best course of action.
Also, if that happened, all it would do is reveal a rot already in existence in the Norwegian justice system. And if that’s the case, better it come out now during a high-profile trial than just letting it fester and rot.
Perhaps if we had taken the real lessons of the OJ trial (justice is purchasable and having racist cops mishandle evidence can let an obvious killer go free) instead of what we did learn (that we’d never suffer another black man going free again, regardless of innocence), maybe our justice system wouldn’t be an international joke.
A very remote contingency, I grant, but worth considering. For if Breivik cannot possibly be acquitted on the grounds that his 77 murders were justifiable, then there is no good reason for having these witnesses. They certainly didn’t witness anything.
I know I keep circling around this like a buzzard hoping to get first dibs on the eyeball, but I just can’t help it. He really can’t handle the notion that the Defense is allowed to defend itself and try to prove their inane bullshit in a court of law. As a proper authoritarian, to him, any criminal case ends the moment the cops grab you off the street. Fuck, at the moment, a cop eyes you suspiciously for being too much of a goddamn hippie.
So, the only thing he can think of to explain why the Defense is allowed to defend itsself in a court of law is either secret shadow show trials to attack good manly Conservative Gods or proof that the Defense is really on to something and this will finally allow conservatives to go on killing sprees as long as they blame Al-Queda first.
Sorry, Johnny Oldboy, going to have to delay your Battle Royale/Hunger Games fantasies just a little there, but it’s just how Courts are supposed to work. Honestly, if I was the prosecutor and the Defense wanted to pull a stunt like that, I would not only allow it but buy the Defense Lawyer a drink for making my job that much fucking easier than it already was.
The final uncomfortable question is: What punishment should Breivik receive?
Ah, we’ve finally come to the crucial point. John O’ Sullivan has a steel erection that could puncture a wood table and has the wetsuits and dildo in place and ready for a bit of fun, but has haltingly come to realize that the National Review is not going to let him get away with posting this under “The Editors” so he can finish up.
So, he’s got the hard-on and as a conservative, you never pull out when you can go “all the way”. So what is he to do?
At present the harshest sentence available to the court is imprisonment for 21 years. In practice that might turn out to be lifetime imprisonment, either in a jail, because he is judged to be a continuing danger to the public, or in a psychiatric hospital, because he is judged to be insane. That is the very least the Norwegian people will or should accept. But is it enough? Does it fit such a monstrous crime? In the light of Norway’s comfortable prison conditions, such a penalty can hardly be called harsh.
Start jerking it to the notion of liberal hippie Norway having to “get tough on crime” (ah yes, now tweak the nipples) and default to the conservatives (yes, we’re always so right, you never understand) by turning brave handsome sexy Breivik into the Right’s very own tortured martyr (mmm, yes, suck it Vagina-Americans and your obsessions with vampires, we know that child murderers are the real bad boys just needing someone to tame the beast within).
And yes, I wish I was fucking kidding.
Hodges feels frustrated at this, asking if Breivik shouldn’t simply have been shot out of hand. He is being less than half-serious here. He marshals all the right civil-rights arguments against such a course. He knows that his feelings cannot and should not be acted upon. But his instincts are expressing a serious moral point, too — namely, that some crimes are so terrible that they require a punishment that reflects that horror. They should not be relativized away, an outcome that Norway currently risks.
There’s that fucking word again. And again being awkwardly inserted where it fits even less. Hell, at least in the other case there was a vague case to be made that it was technically correct if not linguistically awkward. Here, the only way it can make sense is as a dog-whistle. It literally doesn’t make sense unless you read it as a slam against Moral Relativism. And even then, it’s completely nonsensical on a second reading.
And in case you thought I was kidding about the masturbation, we get so many tells. “instincts”, the way he “marshalls” himself, “require a punishment” and for those who think veils are for doxied trollops:
“He knows that his feelings cannot and should not be acted upon.”
And people knock Romance Novels for terrible masturbatory writing.
Oddly, very few people have suggested that the death penalty is the answer here. Jenny McCartney raises the question in order to dismiss it on the grounds — not trivial but not persuasive to me — that Breivik probably wants the death penalty so as to be a historic figure even, if only a Herostratus rather than a hero. But how many of the Nuremberg defendants became historic figures because of their executions? Except for those who were already historic figures, however disgracefully, none of them. Speer, who was sentenced to twenty years, achieved greater prominence and attracted greater interest than any of those executed into obscurity.
Well, seeing as how you’re jerking it like a rabid macaque to how hot it would be if liberals gave in to the endless bloodlust that you and your reptilian ilk daily live, he’d probably want it for the same rush of orgasm he’d feel as he was martyred and remembered as something more than a paranoid 30-something who needed to kill kids just to feel like a man.
That is what I would be saying if there was any evidence whatsoever for Breivik actually wanting the death penalty in any way. Which it looks like the entire sum total of evidence is a bunch of wingnut writers having a giant circle jerk on how hot it would be if Norway decided to give up and become a backwater clusterfuck like America.
And out of curiosity, I checked into his actual defense. It and the case are mostly about whether or not he should be sent to a mental institution for his prison sentence or a traditional prison. Yes, ooh, ahh, manly Breivik’s super cock is going to make Norway go against their principles and create a martyr for the New Crusade.
And why should we be concerned about what Breivik wants anyway?
Jesus, right-wing, I know you don’t believe in consent, but Breivik’s not going to be able to do you like you want without it. I mean, you could rape him, but it’s just going to leave you even more unsatisfied than you are now.
Some years ago National Review and The Nation cosponsored a debate on the death penalty.
Hello non-sequitur grasp at relevance.
The disputants included the Reverend Jesse Jackson, the late Christopher Hitchens, former New York City mayor Edward Koch, and Professor Hadley Arkes of Amherst.
Jesse Jackson later wondered why he bothered to show up and lent credibility to this clown show.
It was a high-quality debate with strong arguments on both sides.
Snrk. Yes, I’m totally sure that both sides had strong arguments. Why they were so strong that the only link is to a dead Youtube page despite National Review being one of the participants.
Jackson that night made a powerful speech opposing capital punishment on Christian grounds.
And only Christian grounds. There is no secular moral argument whatsoever for the outlawing of capital punishment and certainly no real world evidence arguing against the death penalty both in light of how poor it works as a deterrent for violent crime as well as its horrific consequences with regards to Type I errors resulting from shoddy prosecution and failures of the Justice System.
Nope. None whatsoever. Ignore the hippies and their crazy talk.
But my impression is that he was impressed at the closing argument from Hadley. At any rate he gave Hadley a hug.
Wow. That’s just sad. Yes, Jesse Jackson was totally enamored with your pet wingnut on the panel and totally thought his arguments were superawesome megapenis! After all, why would he show basic debate formalities if he wasn’t bowing before Hadley’s death cock of logic?
Hold onto that thought Johnny, cause its pretty damn obvious you need something to warm your bed at night.
“We do not think that we should have to share the world with those who committed such a crime against God and man,” ended Hadley, quoting Hannah Arendt on the trial of Eichmann in Jerusalem. (I quote from memory.) He then sat down amid the kind of subdued applause that greets a powerful moral point inviting agreement rather than cheering.
Yes, see, when the audience gives you pity applause, that’s proof that you’ve made a really profound point that’s swayed the audience and left them wowed. Wild applause or awed noises? Those are for pansies. It’s all about the pity clap and the rolled eyeballs.
I’m sorry. But I’m just feeling pity for this bastard right now. He’s three seconds from coming and he’s practically sobbing into his tube sock about how his team is totally holding their own intellectually and isn’t just masturbating to their hatreds.
He so wants to be coming from an intellectual respected place literally while he’s in the midst of spasming on the force of his emotional train wreck of a reaction.
I don’t know if I can maintain the same hate for-
Well, Norway had abolished the death penalty in the early 20th century. Following the Second World War, however, the Norwegians reintroduced it in order to have a fit and suitable punishment for the Nazis, their Norwegian allies (notably Vidkun Quisling, who had ruled Norway on Hitler’s behalf), and those who had participated in the Holocaust. They did not think that they should have to share the world with those who committed such crimes against God and man.
And I’m back.
It is worth pointing out here that the tagline for this overlong self-love session is:
If Quisling deserved the death penalty . . .
That would be Vidkun Quisling. You know, the origin of the phrase “a quisling”, i.e. a traitor who sells out their own people for personal power and advancement.
And yeah, a Nazi who literally planted the idea of an invasion of Norway in Der Fuhrer’s head because he was hoping it would allow him to rule Occupied Norway (which it did) and who when so rewarded ordered his country to submit like a bitch so he could live out his power fantasies of owning a country was indeed executed after Norway had banned the death penalty…
Well, kinda. See, they had only abolished capital punishment in peacetime. Leaving it open as punishment for huge war crimes like say… treason. Norway didn’t fully abolish the death penalty in all circumstances until 1979. So it’s not like Norway abandoned its principles to take out Quisling like a boss.
So yeah, he’s a little off-target in his wanking to begin with and that’s before we factor in the little old issue of “Holy Fuckballs, is this fucker trying to retro hero-worship a fucking Nazi as well?!?”
But I digress. Let’s let old Johnny continue.
If the Norwegians were to reach the same decision about Breivik on the same grounds, is there anyone who would not understand?
Wait, is this the point of that random non-sequitur about some forgettable wingnut dickwad trying to debate way out of his depth? He really thought that Hadley time-traveled to Occupied Norway and convinced Norway to totally betray the principles they didn’t actually betray for reasons they didn’t actually do it for, thus proving that right-wingers have the biggest intellectual cocks even when they are on trial for serial murder or some such shit?!?
Wow, Johnny old boy, that’s… a new level of pathetic. Even the guy who died with Standard Republican Masturbation Method #7 would look down on that display.
Who wants to read some day that Breivik is corresponding with the Unabomber?
A) Of course, because the Unabomber is the last terrorist you could even vaguely link to liberalism (and even then it was kinda a big fucking stretch seeing as how he was just a weird neo-luddite and his manifesto is mostly filled with in-depth critiques of Leftism and its “immorality”), which brings up
B) I think we’d be more concerned with him corresponding with Pam Atlas and well… you. You know, the same fucking jokers he was corresponding and religiously reading before he decided to go on his killing spree? The same ones he copied and pasted to form his “Manifesto” like some Sadly, No! troll? Yes, please do remind everyone of exactly who was Breivik’s inspiration. Not to mention
C) The Unabomber is rotting in prison. For life. He’s never going to see the light of day again and it really doesn’t matter what he thinks because he no longer has a means to act on those thoughts in the destructive way he had. See, that’s what happens when the Justice System does its job and is allowed to function. Criminals who are dangerous to public society are locked up. In backwards hippie nations like Norway, they might even be subjected to genuine rehabilitation designed to make the criminals into better citizens who can be reintroduced into society without lapsing into their old ways.
So yeah, ooh, so scary. I know you want to live in the exciting world of comic books. But there’s no such thing as Supervillains. They aren’t real. If two notorious criminals talk to each other, they aren’t going to hatch an ingenious plan to break out and form a team-up to take out Superman, they are going to ramble at each other and no one will care.
Because real humans no matter how “evil” their crimes are just that, puny little humans who decided in their cowardice and need for importance to do something to try and make themselves seem more important than they were by destroying the lives and experiences of others.
And when you feed that delusion, you’re FUCKING REINFORCING THAT SHIT!
Or that he has smuggled out a manuscript justifying his crimes?
Billy Bob Gringo in a pork grinder, you’re going to make me break out the A, B, C again, aren’t you?
A) He did. It’s called his Manifesto. You should recognize it, it’s mostly made from copyright violations of your peers’ works.
B) Yeah, I’m betting you are terrified of that, because the more he rambles, the harder it is to separate him from what is rapidly becoming a mainstream Republican party platform item.
C) HE DOESN’T NEED TO! You and you’re fucking kind will do it for him. Fuck, your contemporaries started doing it at the same time they were running screaming from any connection to him. Not to mention that you’ve been doing it IN THIS FUCKING POST.
Self Awareness! Do you have it?
Who now thinks that Quisling was wrongly executed?
Besides you? … Apparently. Well, fuck, if Buchannan can write a book detailing how the nazis were just underappreciated flower children who never wanted to do any wrong and Jonah Goldberg can claim that they were working for the same liberal forces that made up the entirety of the internal resistance to them, why not start claiming infamous traitors and capos as right-wing saints martyred by mean hippies. Fuck, at the current rate, it’s pretty much even money that we get a major Republican figure praising the Nazis before the 2016 election.
But yeah, that’s the end-note. Jacking off on the bloody stump of Quisling. Because apparently bloodlust is now a literal notion on the Right.
Cause Rule 34, motherfuckers.
‘Shorter’ concept created by Daniel Davies and perfected by Elton Beard. If I have to dodge anymore wingnut cum blasts, I’m gonna start demanding hazard pay. We are aware of all Internet traditions.™