Why Manifestos Never Work

Submitted by M. Tovey (United States), Jul 27, 2011 at 13:22

Manifestos have come and gone, just as their authors and protagonists; all of which manifested in unison a common complaint: disregard for others perceived of a different mindset/ideology/religiosity. While there may be a desire to isolate and distance the usually malicious intents of such and their actions along with their protégés and others of likeminded proclivities, it cannot easily be done. They have achieved the shock value, if not first in the publication of their views, then in execution of exacting their personal notion of vengeance for the perceived dismissal of their thoughts; or in the case of the Norwegian perpetrator the shared thoughts of other such enemies of society.

However, there is one aspect of this latest in a long list of crimes against the state and the people, an observance of the quick and ready ease to make the allegation that this was an act of a 'Christian' extremist, a vicious labeling process that is easily affixed by the secularist mentality striving to obtain a divorce from the 'religious' influences the progressive ideology asserts is the basis of all societal ills. Read carefully, that even in the quick excerpts in Dr. Pipes' article, the discernment of truth is that the Norwegian perpetrator was NOT a disciple of Christ; nor are his actions authenticated by any truth in the Holy Bible except that of his sins of murder.

Instead, we read of his intentions that are manifest in all of those whose ideology appears to compel the necessity in his own mind that the only way to enforce the provisions of the 'manifesto' is to resort to violence, in complete contradiction to the true Christian command to love. We find then that the alternative mentality that compelled the violence is of the Adversary, of a demoniac mindset that uses terror to afflict society in a way that results in the perversion of justice and the truth necessary to maintain some sense of societal normalcy.

The American version of that comes to mind here, mentioned briefly by Dr. Pipes as he makes the association of McVeigh, bringing to the mind of this reader the surreal serenity left behind of the Oklahoma City incident marked by the miniature chairs commemorating the very young lives lost in the mix of all those who perished to satisfy the blood lust of the perpetrator. So too, does the Norwegian perpetrator make his unjust claim for blood, since by his actions he displays his irreverence for the truth and the sanctity of life and replaces it with his rants and actions of an altered mind.

While there are arguments for and against making a terrorist association with the Islamic revolution and its acts of terror around the world, it is not hard to understand why many are making that association. When one is involved in processing the crime scene that is left behind and earmarked with indistinguishable violence, the ability to make a discernment of the difference is blurred. And further, if the society, left with making the determination of just what kind of justice is necessary to ensure the fabric of society is not torn irreparably, does not 'make things right,' then another casualty of the incident is truth, a result the Adversary relishes.

In one analysis, the actual damage done, in collusion to the assertion of Dr. Pipes, is in the ability of the progressive mindset to insist that a different approach to governing the population is now in order; that a society that produces the likes of the Norwegian perpetrator needs a reformation to align with the global search for peace. Here too, we can see an association of the 'ummah' mentality of the Muslim sector, the many factions of which have similar compulsions to 'change the world.'

And folks, maybe that is what all of this leading up to - how to change the world. The only problem is that, if left to mankind to solve, it never will be solved; and that is the real problem.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".