Oct 222015
 

News out of Sweden:

Sword-wielding man kills 2 in Swedish school attack

No information on the attacker, who is apparently dead, shot by the cops. A few details:

This took place in the *awesomely* named town of Trollhattan.

The attacker was wearing a weird costume, leading people to think he was a cosplayer or a Halloweenie… until he started chopping at people. Costume include a Nazi-style helmet, a paintball mask, a trenchcoat, boosts and a sword. Some people seem to think he was going for “Darth Vader,” but if so he fell pretty short.

Surfing around the web, there is no data as yet on who the attacker was or why he did it. However, Commenters from around the world have concluded that it’s one of two things:

  1. A Muslim immigrant going all Palestinian
  2. An ethnic Swede going all Breivik on a school apparently loaded with immigrants

Let the ill-informed speculatin’ begin!

Here’s an article written in some weird moon-man language, complete with a photo of the attacker (he posed for photos before going bugnuts):

Hennes lärare blev attackerad av svärdmannen

If *either* of the possibilities given above – Muslim or anti-Muslim – proves to be the case, this could well be the harbinger of entertaining times to come.

 

 Posted by at 9:29 am
  • Macguffin

    The obvious solution is to ban all assault swords. ಠ_ಠ

    • xvdougl

      Sure, smaller hunting swords that don’t feature combat grips will be fine though.

    • Paul451

      Long swords are only rarely used in crimes, more commonly used are hand-blades (around 90% of blade-crime.)

  • Cthell

    I suspect it’ll turn out to be option 3 – notoriety-hungry crazy

    But I guess it’ll be hard to be sure now, since he’s no longer in a position to answer questions

    • Scottlowther

      If this was in the US, the identity of the attacker would be released within a day or so, and at that point a great deal of data would spill forth… his beliefs, political activities, social media, blah, blah, blah. Barring the usual conspiracy theories, we’d soon have a fair to good idea of what the story was. But since it’s Sweden, the identity of the attacker may not be immediately released. I’ll note that the CNN article has been updated to suggest that links with “right wing” groups are being examined. Of course, this being Europe, “right wing” could mean any damn thing, up to and including such far-left ideologies like fascists and outright Nazis.

      Reply

      • Atomic handgrenade

        Given the little I know of Europe “right-wing” in this context means violently anti-immigrant.

        • Scottlowther

          Yeah, while in the US it denotes “wants smaller government.” Given that massive unrestrained immigration will strain European welfare states to the breaking point while depressing the low-end employment market, it’ll be interesting to see how long it’ll take for even the most US-style leftists in Europe such as labor unions to become “right wing.”

          • Atomic handgrenade

            “Yeah, while in the US it denotes “wants smaller government.””

            As it should. somehow Europeans have come to associate “far-right” mostly with those champions of small government, the national socialists.

          • Chris Jones

            Assuming by “national socialists”, you mean the Nazis, neither wing of the Nazis (the socialistic side, or Hitler’s, the racist, fueherprinzip branch), could be considered a small government advocate. Both were (and really, in the event, all that mattered after he consolidated total control was what Hitler believed), believers in an authoritarian state, which is not at all “small government”.

          • Atomic handgrenade

            I was being sarcastic.

          • TheRequimen

            /s

      • Yowie

        You are the only person I know of who believes Naziism is a left-wing ideology. You are weird.

        • Scottlowther

          Then you need to expand your frame of reference. Nazism advocated concepts such as:
          1) Big government
          2) A welfare state
          3) Opposition to free market capitalism
          4) Opposition to ordinary people becoming extremely wealthy
          5) Gun control (for some)
          6) Easy access to abortion (for that same some)
          7) Racial set-asides
          8) Government control of commerce
          9) Government direction of pricing and product availability
          10) Government controlled monopolies
          11) Government control of speech and thought
          12) The quashing of dissent against government policies
          13) The government appropriation of private property
          14) Centralized control and standardization of the education system
          15) Government control of the media

          These are all concepts that the left on the whole would be thrilled to have.

          • guest

            Not the other guy, and not trying to be argumentative or start a fight, but making an observation: Hitler and his party were considered at the time a radical right-wing movement. I think the reasons for this are, in no particular order:

            1. Populism, which was a strange and frightening concept to “traditional” German rightists, who were mainly aristocrats and just wanted to restore the Kaiser to the throne and be done with all this messy democracy stuff and everything that it entailed, like making speeches to the peasant rabble

            2. For all that what Hitler actually did–even before we start talking about war, or genocide–after he took power was pretty radical, and upturned everything from one end of German society and economy to the other, what his speeches were about, what his promises were, were mostly warmed-over 19th Century Gothic Romanticism about the virtues of the sturdy, hard-working German yeoman farmer-folk, who had spend the entire 20th Century getting one raw deal after another, and about how women should go back to Kinder, Kuche, Kirche (“kids, kitchen, and the church”), and how he wanted to take Germany back to this prior golden age of peace and prosperity where smart guys ran the important stuff, and women stayed in the kitchen and kept their mouths shut, just like the Good Father in Rome wanted before that idiot Bismarck started up the Kulturkampf and ruined everything.

            Or, to state this in a briefer manner: “The Left” promised “We’ll build a perfect future if you give us control of the State and let us run the economy and rebuild society.” “The Right” promised “We’ll take society back to the good old days and the traditions of our forefathers.” I think the distinction may be as simple as “our traditions are great, let’s go back to the way things were before” versus “things are horrible, we want to try something new.”

          • Scottlowther

            > Hitler and his party were considered at the time a radical right-wing movement

            Sez who? When Mussolini got fascism going, it was a *blatantly* leftist movement. It was not-quite-as-far socialism. Everyone at the time recognized it as leftist. When Hitler came along and made the Nazis successful, fascism was only seen as “right wing” by the likes of Stalin, who saw the popularity of this socialist movement as a threat to the more “pure” communism movement. And the western press, then as now, was more than happy to take the pronouncements of the furthest-left leader as gospel, and thus a manifestly leftist movement because a right wing movement. Of course anyone who cared to look could see that fascism and Nazism were clearly leftist in the bulk of their social and economic policies; where they seemingly differed from the commies was the blatant racism/nationialism. Which as the likes of the USSR, China and Nork show are hardly non-existent in far-left commie countries.

          • Yowie

            Mussolini was a “Leftist” only because Stalin called him as such? What of Mussolini and Hitler’s own views on the matter? They believed they were of the “Right”, not the “Left”. Mussolini in particular borrowed heavily from Pareto’s writings on the matter, before he came to power. Hitler in turn initially borrowed from Mussolini before forging his own brand of Fascism.

          • Scottlowther

            > Mussolini was a “Leftist” only because Stalin called him as such?

            “Rightist,” in point of fact.

            > What of Mussolini and Hitler’s own views on the matter?

            Prior to being a fascist, what was Mussolini? He was a leader of the Italian Socialist Party and a supporter of Communism. He was expelled not because he discovered the wonders of capitalism, but because he differed with the party on neutrality in WWI.

          • Yowie

            Mussolini changed his views, as did Hitler who was also a member (reputedly) of the Communists. What matter is what they extolled once they were in power, not where their beginnings were.

          • Scottlowther

            > What matter is what they extolled once they were in power

            Indeed so. Giant welfare states, in essence, with racial set-asides. The very *heart* of leftist policies.

          • Yowie

            You really do have strange ideas of what constitutes “Left” and “Right” on the political spectrum. Your ideas are distorted by your own limited understanding of how economics determines one position on the spectrum. Again, most of what you claim as being “leftist” is actually just as applicable to most right-wing regimes. Naziism wasn’t interested in welfare provision, as you understand the concepts today. It was interested in service to the State and the most efficient way (in their view) of achieving that. When Germany was depressed and in recession, then provision of welfare was required to win votes and show the people that the government cared about their fates. Once Germany’s economy was recovered, the welfare provision largely ceased.

            Naziism had nothing to do with a desire for perpetual warfare. I am unsure where you get that belief from. It is not in Hitler’s writings nor the writings of the other Nazi theorists. Hitler sought domination of Europe. Once he’d achieved that, he wanted peace.

            Again, I recommend you do some political theory. It might get you in tune with the rest of the world.

          • admin

            I’m sorry if you’re so insular that you don’t understand that the American conception of right vs. left differs from the European conception. But since this is an American blog run by an American with an American viewpoint, the American definitions will be the ones followed.

          • Yowie

            All of those factors were and remain aspects of the extreme Right as much as factors of the extreme Left in modern political theory. Most importantly, Naziism did not attack private ownership of the means of production nor property. Find your emphasis of gun control, abortion and “centralised education” rather typically of the extreme American beliefs on the issues and both stand outside the classic dichotomy on economic issues which determine whether a person is of the “Left” or “Right” in their viewpoint.

            What you are describing is a typical Totalitarian social view, rather than an economic one, where the State intrudes in all aspects of society and the private individual, rather than strictly their economics.

            I’d recommend you study some basic Political Theory, rather than concentrating on this from your own parochial viewpoint.

          • Scottlowther

            > Naziism did not attack private ownership of the means of production nor property.

            Correction: they did not attack them AS MUCH as full-on Socialists do. If the Nazis decided that the State needed your property, they took it. Yes, they let factory owners make a profit… so long as the factories made what The State wanted the factory to make.

          • Yowie

            Private individuals still retained ownership of their chattels, even when they had been deposed from control of them (ie factories) under Naziism. Willy Messerschmidt still was given money from the profits his corporation, bearing his name carried. You seem to misunderstand also this occurred in a wartime economy. How much private control was retained in the UK and the USA during wartime over what factories produced?

          • Scottlowther

            Nazi control over production was not a purely wartime thing. Do you think they would have relinquished that if they had won the war or reached a permanent stalemate/armistice?

            That said, a permanent state of war seems to have been an important feature of Nazi ideology… as it is with modern American leftist ideology. The longest, costliest, damn near deadliest and most futile and useless war in American history is a vital program of the left, and boy will they screech if you suggest actually ending the War on Poverty. They, like another leftist movement from 70 years ago, *need* a permanent state of war to prop up their basic mythology.

          • Herp McDerp

            16) AND, up until the time Hitler popped the weasel, the Third Reich and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were close allies.

        • xvdougl

          You need to meet some new people.

          • Yowie

            Why? The University Faculty Room has much better understanding than this forum does of the issues under discussion.

          • xvdougl

            Yep their selling you the same Kool-Aid with a different label.

  • publiusr

    Moving to Trollhattan. if the shoe fits…

  • James

    The fuck that is a awesome name. Why the hell aren’t their guys in the schools walking around with battle axes and women in silver mail lounging around with a flaggon of mead.