Michelle Malkin links Grover Norquist to Boston Marathon bombing

[Charles Kozierok]

The right-wing civil war continues, and in particularly ugly fashion:

“I think of course political correctness has always been the handmaiden of terrorism, on top of that political pandering, and unfortunately neither party has its hands completely free of this,” she told Sean Hannity while discussing the bombing suspects.

“If you go on my website right now, michellemalkin.com, I talk more about the first president of the mosque that the bombers attended, Abdurahman Alamoudi, who has ties to the GOP — and in particular Grover Norquist — that a lot of people in the establishment had never, never condemned,” Malkin added. “If this had been a liberal who was tied to it, everybody on the right would be screaming about it. So both parties, both establishments are guilty of not speaking up enough and not doing enough to stop these people.”

Right, because obviously if the bombers attended a mosque that some guy was the president of, and that president knew Norquist, then Norquist must be implicate. 🙄

For those who aren't aware, while Norquist is useful to some in the GOP in promoting aspects of their agenda, he's also loathed by others for his unforgiveable sin of marrying a Muslim woman and having ties to that community.

 

[Anarchist420]

I thought it was pretty damn politically correct to condemn muslims. It's not politically correct to advocate for abolishing the State though.

 

[Jaskalas]

Right, because obviously if the bombers attended a mosque that some guy was the president of, and that president knew Norquist, then Norquist must be implicate. 🙄

She explains herself better than that.

Now we learn that Norquist’s convicted terrorist pal and former funder, Abdurahman Alamoudi, was the first president of the radical mosque attended by the Boston bomber brothers, Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev

People are looking at where the brothers inherited the Islamic terrorist's view of Islam. Their mosque is an easy target for such blame.

 

[Moonbeam]

Love is the enemy on many levels. It weakens the mind and opens the heart to unusual thinks. It is the mortal enemy of fanaticism and makes the other disappear. It can even destroy the sense of self and cause a deluded mystical state in which only love is real. And no matter how deep the cultural conditioning may be and however deeply it is eradicated, the potential for this vicious delusion returns with every new born child.

The above expressed what I believe is a fear that infects the world, a fear of feeling because the capacity to feel is the capacity to suffer. So madness then, in my opinion, is the suppression of all feeling and this is connected at our deepest levels to memory. To feel again what has been and is repressed threatens to awaken the earliest memories of when we first felt what we fear.

If you have had the 'pleasure' of watching somebody experience a psychotic break you will see someone in the grips of an experience a paranoid concatenation of associations the events of the present turning into the events of traumatic memory. It is this panicked string of associations that identify the experience as madness because the connections between reality and trauma are manufactured. They are self manufactured delusions that keep us from feeling the old true reality. This is the external manifestation of fear that occurs when the suppression of feeling starts to fail.

The alternative for the folk who experience this are madness and hospitalization, etc., or surrender, say in a psychologically save environment, a padded cell, say, where the person can relive and remember. The latter can return the person to mental health.

But we can see this happen all the time on a lesser or smaller scale among visionaries as they think of themselves, that see crazy connections, folk who project their traumatized state on the world and imagine they experience insights that are real but invisible to other people.

Such folk can gather to them an audience of similarly paranoid believers which also has physiological reasons that explain this.

The traumatized, and that is all of us, seek to return to mental health, the feeling of oneness that is love, the state of wholeness in which we were born, the state we had before trauma and what happens because of this is that we unconsciously are impelled to return to the trauma to work it out. We create a reality in which we will feel again what we fear to feel. This is why we turn the world to shit. But because this is happening on an unconscious and robotic level, we have no idea that the reality we create is a manifestation of what we fear. We create the other, the terrorist billion of that other religion, for example, and see them everywhere because they cause us to feel what we are too terrified to consciously remember. We pick at the scab but never pull it off.

What this boils down to is that thought is fear and thinking is madness. Thought is always of the past and connected to the thoughts feelings generated there. Thought is association. Thought is avoidance of apperception, the ability to be right here in the only reality there is, the now.

So for my money thought is fear and disintegration and love is being, in a state of integration.

 

[Charles Kozierok]

People are looking at where the brothers inherited the Islamic terrorist's view of Islam. Their mosque is an easy target for such blame.

That's fine, but I still see nothing more than guilt by association with respect to Norquist.

 

[Moonbeam]

She explains herself better than that.

People are looking at where the brothers inherited the Islamic terrorist's view of Islam. Their mosque is an easy target for such blame.

This is an explanation that in my opinion doesn't explain anything. As Charles said, it's guilt by association. The questions I would ask you are two.

What is guilt and why do we look to blame? Both of these I believe are the results of unexamined and false unconscious assumptions, firstly that people can be held classically guilty of things that are unconsciously motivated when they themselves, the blamers, feel an unconsciously motivated need to blame.

I believe we all live in an unconscious state of self blame that we are profoundly motivated not to recognize with the result that all the contempt we toward ourselves and won't see, is projected out in the world on others. The hate and blame we feel for others is what we really feel for ourselves. We were made to feel worthless by being put down as bad children in order to force us to conform so we wouldn't be put down by others. We are living circuses.

 

[Jaskalas]

That's fine, but I still see nothing more than guilt by association with respect to Norquist.

I feel as if you never looked. The complaint is that Norquist facilitated an Islamic terrorist within influential circles of the Bush administration. As explained in:

What say you now, Grover Norquist?

Just keep following the trail.

Despite this defiant public declaration of support for terrorists, Alamoudi was welcomed in GOP elite circles at the behest of power player Grover Norquist. Insight magazine reported

 

[Moonbeam]

The obvious implication of Malkin's case, it would seem to me, is that Norquist's 'no new taxes' pledge was an attempt to destroy America.

 

[woolfe9998]

The obvious implication of Malkin's case, it would seem to me, is that Norquist's 'no new taxes' pledge was an attempt to destroy America.

That pledge was much more successful in that endeavor than any connection he may have had to radical Muslims. That's for sure.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

She explains herself better than that.

People are looking at where the brothers inherited the Islamic terrorist's view of Islam. Their mosque is an easy target for such blame.

And it's wrong, the older brother was a member of ... an organisation that isn't even active in the US.

He got fuck all from his mosque, i can tell you that with utmost confidence.

And seriously, Jaskalas? Are you "just asking questions" now? If so get in on the money train run by Beck and Jones and at the very least get paid for being stupid.

 

[Sonikku]

Not the same. Norquist is lawful-evil. The bombers were chaotic-evil. Both are evil, both engage in behavior that adversely effect the lives of other people, but Norquist does so legally. You might as well be comparing Darth Vader to the Joker.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Not the same. Norquist is lawful-evil. The bombers were chaotic-evil. Both are evil, both engage in behavior that adversely effect the lives of other people, but Norquist does so legally. You might as well be comparing Darth Vader to the Joker.

There is such a thing as stupid-evil too.

I have no clue who the hell Norquist is but comparing him to terrorists will have one out of two effects, it will label a group of innocent people terrorists or it will just make sure that the word terrorist doesn't really mean anything anymore.

 

[ElFenix]

That's fine, but I still see nothing more than guilt by association with respect to Norquist.

i think you've misread that. she was pointing out that if, instead of norquist, it was george soros, then everyone on the right would be condemning soros and the mosque president.

she does want to condemn the mosque president, but she's not tossing norquist in there to condemn norquist. rather, she mentions because she thinks righties are not saying anything because he's tied to norquest, and she thinks lefties aren't saying anything because lefties are PC.

*note: i'm not going to malkin's website because i don't want to give her the clicks, so maybe her website does condemn norquist*

 

[dank69]

...
And seriously, Jaskalas? Are you "just asking questions" now? If so get in on the money train run by Beck and Jones and at the very least get paid for being stupid.

I don't think you are grasping the concept of this sub-forum. :hmm:

 

[Charles Kozierok]

i think you've misread that. she was pointing out that if, instead of norquist, it was george soros, then everyone on the right would be condemning soros and the mosque president.

Right, I saw that she said that. But saying "I'm going to guilt-by-association this guy even though he's a right-winger because I would do it if he was a left-winger" is still doing it.

I don't think you are grasping the concept of this sub-forum. :hmm:

Sorry, I didn't realize he had crapped in here as well. I've sent him a general warning about the tone of his posts. What happens next is up to him.

 

[Jaskalas]

And it's wrong, the older brother was a member of ... an organisation that isn't even active in the US.

He got

Spoiler

fuck

all from his mosque, i can tell you that with utmost confidence.

We have two pieces of information here.

1. The first President of the mosque is a convicted terrorist.
2. The older brother shouted at them for not being extremist.

To bring Grover Norquist in on the Boston Bombers is to bank on the first piece of information and disregard the second. I can't take that position. If we follow the second info - it would appear that the older brother's extremism had external sources.

Malkin calls it a "radical mosque". I think I need to join others in calling her bluff on that. Where's the proof?