Norway: Let's Try with Images

So, let's try with images, as it appears fellow lefties had a lot of difficulty understanding my warning.

The footage below shows Prof. Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber's climate change presentation in Melbourne, last week, being interrupted by an opponent to the idea of anthropogenic climate change:

This is how I interpret the scene:

1. The display of the "carbon-free noose" constitutes a symbolic threat to Prof. Schellnhuber.
2. The person making the threat must be considerably radicalized to take that step.

I don't know Schellnhuber's politics. From his Wikipedia entry, I couldn't glean anything. For all I know, he could be entirely disinterested in politics, be an ultra-conservative or a liberal, a Fabian socialist or a Marxist.

However, in this link, he is being accused by the noose-holding man of being a "Green Fascist" and a "British agent".

The first conclusion I draw from the episode is that there's probably just a little step between a symbolic and an actual physical threat.

I suppose it takes some really radicalized people to carry out a physical aggression. But as the video shows, there are some people considerably radicalized already, although perhaps, hopefully, not radicalized enough. This is my second conclusion.

My third conclusion is that Schellnhuber's real political beliefs are not relevant to a potential aggressor; his position on the climate change/carbon tax debate is all it takes

Does it mean he is under imminent danger? I don't know; hopefully not.

Should he change his views, whatever they are, just because some people are angry at him? That's not for me to answer.

The only thing I can say with certainty is this: in my view, he should be careful.

Now, exercise a little imagination: put yourself in the role of presenter; change the topic of the presentation, from climate change to multiculturalism (which you support); and change the accusation, from "Green Fascist" and "British agent" to "cultural" Marxist.

After these imaginary changes, does the resulting scene differ in any meaningful way from the scene above?

Now imagine you heard for the first time about this last weekend's events in Oslo, Norway.

Whatever subtle changes, they appear only after Anders B. Breivik and are for the worse: threats are no longer necessarily symbolic, and we do know that there are people radicalized enough to carry out physical threats.

And your real political beliefs mean shit: if you support multiculturalism, you are a "cultural" Marxist. Full stop. In fact, you are a "cultural" Marxist even if you actually are a "capitalist globalist", for Christ's sake!

Whoever is to blame for this situation, for the purposes here it's immaterial: if you spoke in favor of multiculturalism, you are a potential target.

True, Australia is not Norway post-Breivik. But Norway wasn't Norway post-Breivik one month ago, either.

I close my case.

------------------------------------

If the reader is a lefty, and wants my advice, it's simple: don't fool yourself into the sense of false safety reflected in the newspapers.

However, what you make of the above is up to you.