Anders Behring Brevik's online following and the way forward.

I have an idea: let's keep the old thread mainly for news updates and (limited) discussion of these, and open up new threads for aspects we wish to debate more thoroughly, otherwise I fear the original thread will run off in a thousand directions, making any debate over more than 3 posts quite impossible to track.

So, I'll start the first one:

ABB's aim was to start a revolution through his actions, specifically to inspire others to do as he has done and outlined in his manifest. Judging by the reaction of Norwegian society, this seems to have failed. But there are quite a number of supporters on facebook. While the overwhelming number is of course negative, he does appear to have some support, and a lot of them seems to come from the balkans, ie. Serbia and croatia.

Is this juet trolling, or is there a possibility that he has attracted followers and we will see others joining his cause?

It's a lot easier to 'like' a cause on Facebook than to actually take action to support it. There are plenty of people who support this guy's goals, but there will be very few willing to follow his example.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

It's a lot easier to 'like' a cause on Facebook than to actually take action to support it. There are plenty of people who support this guy's goals, but there will be very few willing to follow his example.

---

The right-wing blogosphere, on the other hand, takes a firm stand AGAINST him... And they are anonymous. The people who post in favour of him, does so with their full name and open for all their friends to see, so it would appear that in certain enviroments, it's not a social stigma to support an action like this.

I see a paralell here to the circles where there is no stigma if you praise islamic terrorism. And we all know what h come out of those circles....

I think that the real problem is that, in a world where we all create our own destiny and right and wrong, more and more people are choosing to kill the people that they disagree with. To come up with an argument against that is pretty tough. Some people just want this. You can't really do much about it, just defend yourself and move forward. You can almost treat it like a natural disaster. This is who these people want to be or feel compelled to be.

Personally, I just play video games to be the war lord I want to be. I've reached a point in my life where I want to balance family and experience other things than just my inherent desire to engage in warfare and destroy others; video games are a great way to experience life and also be a socially accepted bloodthirsty monster. This guy made a decision that eliminates his ability to be or do anything else in life. He should have spend more time realizing that video games are a good way to balance your inner killer with the person who wants to live and love.


One thing, as bad as it sounds, is that people like this guy keep this world interesting. Could you imagine if you honestly had to read about peace and love all day long and there was no war or living nightmare on earth. My one argument against the concept of heaven is that none of my interests would port up there. We all spend our time, arguing about these terrible things on a war games forum. You know, as politically incorrect as it is and how bad it might make you feel, that there is nothing we'd rather be doing than talking about this, how we want to tear republicans/democrats apart. Without this stuff, what would we talk about? Glee? Yo Gabba Gabba?

Conflict, xenophobia, ideological strife makes the world go round. I'm just glad that the kids who went through the ordeal are now at peace.

video game violence /=/ actual violence

As per your thinly veiled appeal to God and higher power I disagree entierly. The absolute judgement of any God has never had any deterent on a crazy person. Humanity is fully capable of being ethical and moral without the man

I don't think anything will happen on the scale of the Anarchists of the early 1900s, or Jihadists... Even though Europe has it's fanatics, their views are far from accepted by the majority-- You know the saying "Desperate times requires desperate measures."? People in the west really aren't that desperate-- not yet anyways, people may agree with what he's spouting; but I don't foresee this being a weekly/monthly/or even yearly thing... the average nutter needs more substance than what he's put forward.

What are you talking about? Belief in God will not keep you from killing people. God is against killing generally, according to most holy books, but he's also against lots of stuff that we do any way. My statement was about all people, religion didn't really enter into that post beyond the "heaven" part. Killing is just socially unacceptable. If you don't care about society or the generally agreed upon social pact, who cares. Even if you believe in God, do you believe that he's really all that bothered by killing if you are a decent guy otherwise?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What are you talking about? Belief in God will not keep you from killing people. God is against killing generally, according to most holy books, but he's also against lots of stuff that we do any way. My statement was about all people, religion didn't really enter into that post. Killing is just socially unacceptable. If you don't care about society or the generally agreed upon social pact, who cares. Even if you believe in God, do you believe that he's really all that bothered by killing if you are a decent guy otherwise?

---

Quote:

---

I think that the real problem is that, in a world where we all create our own destiny and right and wrong, more and more people are choosing to kill the people that they disagree with

---

This statement makes no sense unless you are decrying the lack of God. The world is less violent than it was once, unfortunatley we are stuck in a nasty catch 22 where our means of deliviring violence are much more potent

Where does right and wrong come from? We all basically create our own, none are exempt. Religious people create their own right and wrong, they just use different sources. It is essentially timeless, it's just that most people used to simply buy into popular concepts of right and wrong, rather than making the whole thing up from scratch like most of us do today. I mean, we buy into certain mass concepts, like that killing is wrong or that fraud is wrong, serious theft, etc. But that's jsut because those things are destabilizing, and most of us value stability. What about those that don't?

I don't think, historically, that there was as much pluralism of ethics as their is today. Religion does not cure this, that post was not about reglion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

ABB's aim was to start a revolution through his actions, specifically to inspire others to do as he has done and outlined in his manifest. Judging by the reaction of Norwegian society, this seems to have failed. But there are quite a number of supporters on facebook. While the overwhelming number is of course negative, he does appear to have some support, and a lot of them seems to come from the balkans, ie. Serbia and croatia.

---

The far right in Serbia and Croatia has just come out of an actual war with 'the Turks'. They would support his cause.

The hardright blogosphere in Western and Northern Europe is, a bit more than on the Balkans, dismayed at the killing of so many valuable blond kids. And secondly, they question whether this will not have a backlash against the hardright, which had been winning elections everywhere the past two years and was in the process of being accepted as mainstream.

This is pretty much what the far right has been talking about. Do you think it is all posturing? They just want to sound like crazy xenophobes for the image? There are a lot of people who think we are already at war with ___________ (your source of hatred here). I'm not sure that the far right loses from stuff like this, but you guys have a better handle on it. It doesn't help Marie Le Pen and people like her, but I'm not sure it hurts more extreme figures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

video game violence /=/ actual violence

As per your thinly veiled appeal to God and higher power I disagree entierly. The absolute judgement of any God has never had any deterent on a crazy person. Humanity is fully capable of being ethical and moral without the man

---

well obvioulsy not on a insane individual with a condition like ASPD who has no remorse or empathy. But some studies have shown a society which believes in a vengeful God with a concept of hell present in the dogma is sometimes more moral. Psychological tests where one test group are told about how vengeful god is and reminded of this are often found to commit less immoral acts that those who are presented with information describing t a compassionate and forgiving God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

well obvioulsy not on a insane individual with a condition like ASPD who has no remorse or empathy. But some studies have shown a society which believes in a vengeful God with a concept of hell present in the dogma is sometimes more moral. Psychological tests where one test group are told about how vengeful god is and reminded of this are often found to commit less immoral acts that those who are presented with information describing t a compassionate and forgiving God.

---

That's why Machiavelli believed it was necessary for a civil governed populace. It clearly helps maintain a subjective moral code. Most people who argue with that argue rather with the legitimacy of the specific code, rather than the general effectiveness to maintain the moral order. In today's age, I'm not sure religion would make a more civilly observant society due to the pluralism and micro-subjectivity of beliefs.

If anything, Religion today encourages the non-observance of many laws and civil ethics. I agree that these laws and civil ethics should be ignored or only partially observed, but many do not. The same society that disbelieves religious codes for their illegitimacy would most likely, over time, develop contempt for a similarly arbitrary and unrepresentative legal system that was built, not for the protection of the masses, but for the protection of the current power order. I believe that laws which protect "general social order" have very little legitimacy in my life, due to the fact that I am not a society, but rather an individual. The defense of "society" translates, to me as the defense of those who control society, rather than the society itself.

I was going to post this in the other thread, but I'm off my "pissing people off" kick:

"You can find stuff like this on the net. It has really upped my Arma gaming and BF BC:2 squad combat. I think most people think of military tactics in the realm of rocket science. From what I understand, the harder part isn't the tactics, which can be learned, but rather the honing of physical resiliance; the ability to live for weeks in the jungle with a serious wound without cracking up or dying. The tactics can be learned by anyone - like chess or baseball. Very few terrorists need to worry about the physical resilience part, as it only aids in your ability to engage in successful tactics. There are very few jungles in suburban and rural areas.

They need to worry about the military tactics, which can be learned in short order by kids and used to tremendous advantage over those who spend more time watching "so you think you can dance" and buy into the idea that the State will protect you, so throw personal responsibility out the window."

This guys an idiot.

Who is?

terrorist

If he wanted to have an outcry against Islam in general he should have bombed a few churches, beheaded a few "infidels" and claimed to be part of the Jihadist struggle to create the worldwide Caliphate. I'm not saying that this would automotically get Norwegians dumping everyone with a tan and a beard on the next ferry but at least anger would be more likely to be directed in the "right" direction.

Kidnap a muslim or several. If they are known to have slightly radical views, so much the better. Blow up a few things. Have some duds with their DNA on them. Then "heroically" shoot them as they were setting up the next bomb at a Christian Primary school. You get your platform, but it is being tried for murder having saved the lives of countless innocent children from the Islamic curse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TuffStuffMcGruff

What are you talking about? Belief in God will not keep you from killing people. God is against killing generally, according to most holy books, but he's also against lots of stuff that we do any way. My statement was about all people, religion didn't really enter into that post beyond the "heaven" part. Killing is just socially unacceptable. If you don't care about society or the generally agreed upon social pact, who cares. Even if you believe in God, do you believe that he's really all that bothered by killing if you are a decent guy otherwise?

---

A quick flick through the Old Testament would show anyone that God is very keen on slaughter, even making the Pharoh proud so he can inflict futher mishaps on him. Prophets of Baal? Kill 'em all. Tribes living suspiciously close to where the Jews want to live? Butcher the lot of them.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

It's a lot easier to 'like' a cause on Facebook than to actually take action to support it. There are plenty of people who support this guy's goals, but there will be very few willing to follow his example.

---

Ya.

Glad for this thread because I couldn't in the other out of respect for the victims, but the multicultural left creates it's own monsters. If people from 100% white neighbourhoods who put their children on 100% white schools keep going for your eyes when you aren't 100% sure that everything is 100% ok, no doubt allowed, people are to break at some point. There is no reason for mass-immigration but votes for labour and that warm feeling it gives them. If other people have to live your dreams you will inevitably wake up in a nightmare

Saw the pics of the day before, 100% white summercamp

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Ya.

Glad for this thread because I couldn't in the other out of respect for the victims, but the multicultural left creates it's own monsters. If people from 100% white neighbourhoods who put their children on 100% white schools keep going for your eyes when you aren't 100% sure that everything is 100% ok, no doubt allowed, people are to break at some point. There is no reason for mass-immigration but votes for labour and that warm feeling it gives them. If other people have to live your dreams you will inevitably wake up in a nightmare

Saw the pics of the day before, 100% white summercamp

---

I'm going to say that you're mistaken on the whiteness of those areas. The 100% white are more prone to be anti-immigration.

Yes, they don't live in the ghetto, but they most certainly got a few friends and/or neighbours that are successfully integrated immigrants (or with immigrant parents).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

I'm going to say that you're mistaken on the whiteness of those areas. The 100% white are more prone to be anti-immigration.

Yes, they don't live in the ghetto, but they most certainly got a few friends and/or neighbours that are successfully integrated immigrants (or with immigrant parents).

---

Make that 99%

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

The hardright blogosphere in Western and Northern Europe is, a bit more than on the Balkans, dismayed at the killing of so many valuable blond kids. And secondly, they question whether this will not have a backlash against the hardright, which had been winning elections everywhere the past two years and was in the process of being accepted as mainstream.

---

can we make a distinction between the extremists and non-conformists of the right please?

ukip have been winning seats, but they are populist-right.
the bnp is arguably hard-right and they have been losing seats.

those finnish fellows, as well as Geerts bunch are likewise populist, and thus fail to conform with political orthodoxy, but they are not extreme in a manner that would justify the label hard-right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

can we make a distinction between the extremists and non-conformists of the right please?

ukip have been winning seats, but they are populist-right.
the bnp is arguably hard-right and they have been losing seats.

those finnish fellows, as well as Geerts bunch are likewise populist, and thus fail to conform with political orthodoxy, but they are not extreme in a manner that would justify the label hard-right.

---

Far-Right, Hard-Right, Extreme-Right, Radical-Right, etc are all terms used to describe the likes of the BNP, fascists, and other such groups which are pretty self-explanatory.

UKIP doesn't fall into this category.
Geerts is a strange case where he is mostly popularist-right, but in one-particular-area, he would be jumping in bed with the far-right and this is where he gets the most flak for these views while other views of his have been quite moderate and acceptable.

In the context of Louis' statement:

Quote:

---

And secondly, they question whether this will not have a backlash against the hardright, which had been winning elections everywhere the past two years and was in the process of being accepted as mainstream.

---

with an element of the (poorly specified) right becoming mainstream in european politics, i took him to mean the populist right which does not include the likes BNP, but instead those winning elections all over europe, those struggling for recognition as a mainstream political movement, and those who will find their anti-immigration stance vulnerable to the events in norway.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...758883,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...757982,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...770045,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...737676,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...772875,00.html
www.demos.co.uk/files/File/prospectarticle1.pdf

To me this is kind of crap that will happen and keep happening as long as there will be humans. There are always nutters who are ready to support or copycat other nutters. Should we loose our sleep over the fact that some cold blooded idiot with agenda might kill you or your loved ones? No. We eventually all die and only few of us can actually decide when, how or why. Living is hard enough. Worrying about death is useless waste of time.

As much as I hate to say it, I may actually kind of agree with Fragony. Look at what's happened here. It makes me want to cry, to be honest. These acts of violence are inexcusable and I hope that the perpetrator realises to full extent how horrific his actions were.

However, what society have we wrought in which the only way people can express their opinions through the means of violence? Even if this was indeed the act of a lone wolf, a single person that in his crazy mind decided the best way to help society is by the cold execution of several dozens of young people who came together to find a way to improve their country in their own way, doesn't it tell us something about the way how we have collectively alienated certain people from society, by automatically refusing to consider their opinions, even if they may be of a controversial nature.

I fear that several subjects have become indiscussable in our democratic societies after World War II. These subjects include eugenics, population control, state-sanctioned discrimination and problems with immigration. I do not think the fall of the Berlin wall had anything to do with it. We have suffered from a collective guilt complex after the horrors of World War II, and for a good reason, because many of our states (in)directly supported the nazis, of which many people here are aware and I don't have to explain. It's good that we have decided that such horrible events should never take place again, but at what cost?

Perhaps if the extreme right wing had not been alienated, but rather had been fought at on their own terms, such a situation could've been avoided. Perhaps. And even then, is it really worth the risk? I'm not sure.

Quote:

---

those finnish fellows, as well as Geerts bunch are likewise populist, and thus fail to conform with political orthodoxy, but they are not extreme in a manner that would justify the label hard-right.

---

National-socialism isn't really something traditionally associated with the right wing either. Economic conservatism and social conservatism should obviously be seperated. Additionally, the term "nazi" has quite devaluated from its original meaning. It's something of a nonsensical word nowadays, merely something to be thrown at a political enemy when all other options have run dry. In any case, Wilders' case is quite different, as his continuous, and in my opinion, quite mindless, support of Israel isn't really nationalistic in nature. Nor will it find much support with the traditionally anti-semitic (again, a word that has been devaluated) rhetoric of the extreme right wing, who (strangely) support the Arab-Muslim struggle against the Israelis. Something with "the enemy of my enemy".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

In the context of Louis' statement:


with an element of the (poorly specified) right becoming mainstream in european politics, i took him to mean the populist right which does not include the likes BNP, but instead those winning elections all over europe, those struggling for recognition as a mainstream political movement, and those who will find their anti-immigration stance vulnerable to the events in norway.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...758883,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...757982,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...770045,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...737676,00.html
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...772875,00.html
www.demos.co.uk/files/File/prospectarticle1.pdf

---

I mean the fascist, extreme right.

There is a dilution of the term, of the political current, coming from two directions. One, succesful hardright parties have developed a 'fascism with a human face'. A kind of fascism-lite. Spearheaded by clean-cut poster boys. Or girls. Not the basement=dwelling troglodytes with nazi-tattoos of old, but smart, clean, rhetorically gifted career politicians. Sometimes, one does wonder where form follows content, where fascism turns into social-fascism, the way socialism and reactionarism have been tamed into social-democracy and Christian-democracy.
Two, European mainstream is becoming de-sensitivied towards hardright issues. Things are now said openly, even by non-hardright parties, which were considered 'incitement to hatred' fifteen years ago.

I think most people here on this forum are smart enough to realise that the idea of a clean-cut left-right spectrum is not in fact very helpful, and is the cause of much pointless debating on the definitions of terms, as well as a convenient source for attacking people through the 'guilt by association' route.

Mr. Brevik has been labelled frequently as being "extreme right". And in the post above, Louis calls the fascists "extreme right". And yet, Mr. Brevik was not by any stretch of the imagination a fascist, or a neo-Nazi for that matter.

Brevik was of the vienna school of thought, he championed laissez-faire economics, not the corporatism/national socialism of the fascist movements. In fact its clearly the opposite. He wasn't less or more extreme than the fascists in this respect, he was something completely different (got to emphasise that).

He certainly wasn't a neo-Nazi. He was banned from Stormfront for not being anti-semitic enough. The alliance between the NSDAP fanboys and those that focus on immigration as a more contemporary issue was always going to be an uneasy one. It's about the Muslims now and not the Jews, but some people just can't let go. This leads to weirdness when the far-left jumps into bed with radical Islamists and has them doing Nazi salutes towards Jewish protesters at their rallies. I always found the ways these particular issues got conflated into grander ideologies to be interesting.

tbh the only thing we can say that the so called "far-right" has in common is that they don't like immigrants. But this is just one issue and doesn't justify any sort of attempt at creating a single left-right spectrum when there are so many dimensions to things. When the BNP are placed to the left of Labour on the economy, you start to realise just how meaningless and unhelpful a single spectrum is (I believe this is what PVC was getting at when he called the Nazi's left wing and Adrian thought he was trolling him).

And as Louis pointed out, even just using the issue of immigration for left-right divides is unhelpful, since the centre-right has always supported immigration for economic reasons, and of late the centre-left supported it for cultural reasons.

So maybe we need to stop labelling so much.

' However, what society have we wrought in which the only way people can express their opinions through the means of violence? Even if this was indeed the act of a lone wolf, a single person that in his crazy mind decided the best way to help society is by the cold execution of several dozens of young people who came together to find a way to improve their country in their own way, doesn't it tell us something about the way how we have collectively alienated certain people from society, by automatically refusing to consider their opinions, even if they may be of a controversial nature.'

Such reflections will turn out to be too much to ask for I'm afraid. While the usual suspects have been remarkably quiet, the Norway shootings are a powerful political weapon to sabotage debate. Argument of doom 'that's what he also said', opportunists like Alexander the Great and C-c-c-ohen are low enough to do that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

As much as I hate to say it, I may actually kind of agree with Fragony. Look at what's happened here. It makes me want to cry, to be honest. These acts of violence are inexcusable and I hope that the perpetrator realises to full extent how horrific his actions were.

However, what society have we wrought in which the only way people can express their opinions through the means of violence? Even if this was indeed the act of a lone wolf, a single person that in his crazy mind decided the best way to help society is by the cold execution of several dozens of young people who came together to find a way to improve their country in their own way, doesn't it tell us something about the way how we have collectively alienated certain people from society, by automatically refusing to consider their opinions, even if they may be of a controversial nature.

I fear that several subjects have become indiscussable in our democratic societies after World War II. These subjects include eugenics, population control, state-sanctioned discrimination and problems with immigration. I do not think the fall of the Berlin wall had anything to do with it. We have suffered from a collective guilt complex after the horrors of World War II, and for a good reason, because many of our states (in)directly supported the nazis, of which many people here are aware and I don't have to explain. It's good that we have decided that such horrible events should never take place again, but at what cost?

Perhaps if the extreme right wing had not been alienated, but rather had been fought at on their own terms, such a situation could've been avoided. Perhaps. And even then, is it really worth the risk? I'm not sure.

National-socialism isn't really something traditionally associated with the right wing either. Economic conservatism and social conservatism should obviously be seperated. Additionally, the term "nazi" has quite devaluated from its original meaning. It's something of a nonsensical word nowadays, merely something to be thrown at a political enemy when all other options have run dry. In any case, Wilders' case is quite different, as his continuous, and in my opinion, quite mindless, support of Israel isn't really nationalistic in nature. Nor will it find much support with the traditionally anti-semitic (again, a word that has been devaluated) rhetoric of the extreme right wing, who (strangely) support the Arab-Muslim struggle against the Israelis. Something with "the enemy of my enemy".

---

Thoroughly excellent post Hax, I am very much agreed, and seem to remember trying to advance a similar argument vis-a-vis the BNP in british politics.

Never back a wild animal into a corner, there seems to be a lesson in there somewhere for the healthy governance of a representative democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I mean the fascist, extreme right.

There is a dilution of the term, of the political current, coming from two directions. One, succesful hardright parties have developed a 'fascism with a human face'. A kind of fascism-lite. Spearheaded by clean-cut poster boys. Or girls. Not the basement=dwelling troglodytes with nazi-tattoos of old, but smart, clean, rhetorically gifted career politicians. Sometimes, one does wonder where form follows content, where fascism turns into social-fascism, the way socialism and reactionarism have been tamed into social-democracy and Christian-democracy.
Two, European mainstream is becoming de-sensitivied towards hardright issues. Things are now said openly, even by non-hardright parties, which were considered 'incitement to hatred' fifteen years ago.

---

fair enough, but i believe the populist right is a far more significant force, now and in the future, for european politics.

re ther european mainstream is becoming de-sensitivied towards [[hard]]right issues - this to me is all part of the normal tangent away from socialism that has been happening for nearly a generation now, and will continue to occur for another generation, until there is no real difference between what people claim to be social-liberalism and social-democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Thoroughly excellent post Hax, I am very much agreed, and seem to remember trying to advance a similar argument vis-a-vis the BNP in british politics.

Never back a wild animal into a corner, there seems to be a lesson in there somewhere for the healthy governance of a representative democracy.

---

I dare saying that if Norway had a Geert Wilders who's rethoric goes too far even for me, this probably wouldn't have happened. The idiotic head of the labour party here seems to persist in the old way though, it wasn't enough for him that Wilders distantiated himself, the implication is obvious. Glad to say that most show the same dignity Norway has (which can't be praised enough), save a few collumnists nobody takes seriously

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

As much as I hate to say it, I may actually kind of agree with Fragony. Look at what's happened here. It makes me want to cry, to be honest. These acts of violence are inexcusable and I hope that the perpetrator realises to full extent how horrific his actions were.

However, what society have we wrought in which the only way people can express their opinions through the means of violence? Even if this was indeed the act of a lone wolf, a single person that in his crazy mind decided the best way to help society is by the cold execution of several dozens of young people who came together to find a way to improve their country in their own way, doesn't it tell us something about the way how we have collectively alienated certain people from society, by automatically refusing to consider their opinions, even if they may be of a controversial nature.

I fear that several subjects have become indiscussable in our democratic societies after World War II. These subjects include eugenics, population control, state-sanctioned discrimination and problems with immigration. I do not think the fall of the Berlin wall had anything to do with it. We have suffered from a collective guilt complex after the horrors of World War II, and for a good reason, because many of our states (in)directly supported the nazis, of which many people here are aware and I don't have to explain. It's good that we have decided that such horrible events should never take place again, but at what cost?

Perhaps if the extreme right wing had not been alienated, but rather had been fought at on their own terms, such a situation could've been avoided. Perhaps. And even then, is it really worth the risk? I'm not sure.

---

An excellent post, which unfortunately overlooks two things:

Those PC taboos are taboos of old. They are already ancient, of a previous era. There is no silence. There is no silencing of hardright proponents. Far from it. Immigration, the failure of the multicultural society are not taboos, they completely dominate European debate. So much so, that one could rather speak of an obsession. Every frontpage of every European newspaper, every internet forum, is all about Muslims, immigration, resurgent nationalist reflexes.

Secondly, Norway's hardright isn't marginalised at all. As everywhere else, it has been winning elections, is now Norway's second largest party, has governed Norway by propping up a rightwing coalition.


It is in this atmosphere of broken taboos, of the hardright's meteoric rise to power, that this terror attack took place. Not in an atmosphere of repression. Although the perception of the terrorist itslef might have been one of repression, and his frustrations based on his thinking Europe is not turning hardright.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Secondly, Norway's hardright isn't marginalised at all. As everywhere else, it has been winning elections, is now Norway's second largest party, has governed Norway by propping up a rightwing coalition.

---

I take it by "hardright" we are using your definition as previously given; "fascist, extreme right."

So the progress party, which according to wiki has the following platform:

"Founded by Anders Lange in 1973 largely as an anti-tax movement, the party highly values individual rights and supports the downsizing of bureaucracy and increased market economy,[8] although it also supports an increased use of the uniquely Norwegian Oil Fund to invest in infrastructure.[9] The party in addition seeks a more restrictive immigration policy and tougher integration and law and order measures."

Is now to be branded fascist and extreme?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progress_Party_(Norway)

i feel like i must reiterate my previous call:

Quote:

---

can we make a distinction between the extremists and non-conformists of the right please?

ukip have been winning seats, but they are populist-right.
the bnp is arguably hard-right and they have been losing seats.

those finnish fellows, as well as Geerts bunch are likewise populist, and thus fail to conform with political orthodoxy, but they are not extreme in a manner that would justify the label hard-right.

---

'It is in this atmosphere of broken taboos, of the hardright's meteoric rise to power, that this terror attack took place. Not in an atmosphere of repression'

It only looks like that, in reality what you call the hard-right is still teethless, it will take at least 20 years to get the babyboomer generation from the (unelected) key positions. Harsh words in parlement mean nothing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Ya.

Glad for this thread because I couldn't in the other out of respect for the victims, but the multicultural left creates it's own monsters. If people from 100% white neighbourhoods who put their children on 100% white schools keep going for your eyes when you aren't 100% sure that everything is 100% ok, no doubt allowed, people are to break at some point. There is no reason for mass-immigration but votes for labour and that warm feeling it gives them. If other people have to live your dreams you will inevitably wake up in a nightmare

Saw the pics of the day before, 100% white summercamp

---

STOP SPREADING YOUR GODDAMNED LIES.

I'm not asking you to change your political stance, frags. I'm not asking you to vote labour or praise immigration. I have no problems with you continuing your right-wing gibberish and general lies. I have already dealt with your claim/outright lie that we lefties live in white neighborhoods, and I am not surprised to see you disregard it and continue as if you didn't know it to be a lie.

However.

I ask one thing of you. That you stop spreading the lies about the victims of this attack, the lies that directly lead to their branding as traitors and subsequent execution. In the light of things, I consider this a rather modest request.

Utøya was far from '100%' white, and had you been interested in something besides spewing your filth, you would've found out easily.

http://www.dagbladet.no/terror/ofrene/

The above link contains the confirmed names of the dead and missing. 38 so far. There is little reason to suspect that his killings was anything but random, and that he killed mostly everyone he was able to. So, it can be assumed that the makeup of the dead largely reflects the makeup of the camp.

7 of them are in some way not ethnic norwegian. 7 out of 38 is roughly 18%, or about one in five, which corresponds nicely with my impression from the time I was there in 2008. As the percentage of immigrants in the country as a whole is around 8-9%, this means that the immigrant representation was about double. Consider the extremely low percentage of immigrants who vote, the represenation of immigrants was actually sky-high.

As an additional bonus, here is Brevik's street: http://www.1881.no/?Query=Hoffsveien+skøyen&qt=8

While I obviously haven't looked through all 1500 residents, I have browsed a little, and it looks quite white to me.


And this marks the end of this particular discussion for me. I have said all I want to say, and will say no more. Don't take this as an attempt to keep you quiet, frags, I really don't care if you continue dicussing it. Just know that there will be no more involvement from me.

The youths at Utøya were young and idealistic, whose goal for being there was to do their part in making the world a slightly better place for everyone.

Lies after lies made them out as evil monsters intent on destroying the rest of the population through scheming and treachery. This eventually cost 68 of them their lives.


Have some respect for yourself, Frags, don't believe in such horrible lies.

Read what you want to read

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Saw the pics of the day before, 100% white summercamp

---

Not true at all. Besides, what a cheap excuse for an argument. Some people have no shame.

AII

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Read what you want to read

---

\

But there are pictures

"Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

Not true at all. Besides, what a cheap excuse for an argument. Some people have no shame.

AII

---

You know better then taking it litteraly, but feel free to do so. Ask yourself this, you know the research done on lone wolfs, social system deficiency, doesn't that count anymore when the system is yours?

A man does get 300,000 NOK by being a lone wolf, my money is someone is funding this old chap

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

A man does get 300,000 NOK by being a lone wolf, my money is someone is funding this old chap

---

My money is on Alan Lake. We discussed that in the other thread. Lake is a businesman/millionaire and sponsor of the EDL and a very militant sort of fellow who may have supported Breivik in various ways.

AII

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Adrian II

My money is on Alan Lake. We discussed that in the other thread. Lake is a businesman/millionaire and sponsor of the EDL and a very militant sort of fellow who may have supported Breivik in various ways.

AII

---

Watching his "Four freedoms worldwide"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

A man does get 300,000 NOK by being a lone wolf, my money is someone is funding this old chap

---

Not buying the 'lone wolf' either

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Not buying the 'lone wolf' either

---

Quote:

---

Ask yourself this, you know the research done on lone wolfs, social system deficiency, doesn't that count anymore when the system is yours?

---

That seems like a pretty direct question

MOAR KITTENS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Centurion1

This guys an idiot.

---

That guy might think the same of you. One of you might be right.

From my perspective, he very clearly put a lot, a lot of thought into this. Sure, crazy delusional thoughts, but still 1600 pages of it. As I have read it, the guy is clearly intelligent, but he also have serious traumas / psychological problems.

Norwegian gunman has given hate-filled racists a bad name, insist EDL
As links between gunman Anders Breivik and the EDL emerged the far-right group responded by saying that its members are able to draw a line between ‘intolerance and hatred’ and ‘gun-toting killing spree’.
A spokesperson for the EDL, Joseph Butler, said, “In situations like this its easy to have a knee-jerk reaction and start to question the actions of all decent, hard-working racists.”
“But it’s important to understand that we are a non-violent organisation. We are committed to making the lives of people who aren’t like us a living hell by exclusively peaceful means.”

“Yes we share a common ideology with Mr. Breivik but in this situation our mantra is – love the racism, hate the racist.”

Rival racists the BNP appealed to those who had become disillusioned with the EDL to join their party.
Chairman Rudolph Lee said, “Don’t be fooled by the weasely words of the EDL, it is the BNP that provides a true home for hate-filled moderates in Britain today.”
http://newsthump.com/2011/07/25/norw...me-insist-edl/

If there is one tragic result of all this, it must be that this gunner gives all decent, hard-working fascist hatemongerers a bad name. :no:

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

British society is the only thing ruining what is an otherwise perfectly pleasant place to come and take the blame for a country’s social and economic struggles, according to immigrants polled by pressure group, Liberty.

The poll was commissioned in the wake of Prime Minister David Cameron’s claim that immigrants systematically refuse to congregate at the cluttered bosom of Mother Britannia with their steadfast refusal to learn enough English to realise just how much their neighbours hate them.

A thousand immigrants, supposedly contributing to the erosion of British pastimes such as fish and chips by the seaside and urinating in the street, were asked what was the worst thing about living in Britain with all answering ‘British society’.
Immigrant Rajesh Sharma explained, “You know, we get that when we are given our three bed room semi-detached house and weekly citizen eclipsing allowances, it’s not really ‘free’.”
“Life among the British society is the debt that we pay.”

“We must be prepared for the most horrendous abuse from the nation when everything goes tits up on the job front, and shoulder the blame that would otherwise be directed at the government.”
“They come knocking at our doors instead saying oh ‘you take our jobs, you take our jobs,’ waving sticks and wanting to kill us.”
“But that’s not true. We don’t take your jobs, we just take the benefits paid for by taxes taken from you. That’s very different.”
http://newsthump.com/2011/04/14/mass...st-immigrants/

Don't worry folks, the EU is on the case:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/...776985,00.html

European Commissioner for Home Affairs Cecilia Malmström - "I have many times expressed my concern over xenophobic parties who build their unfortunately quite successful rhetoric on negative opinions on Islam and other so-called threats against society," she wrote. "This creates a very negative environment, and sadly there are too few leaders today who stand up for diversity and for the importance of having open, democratic and tolerant societies where everybody is welcome."

Define the "everyone" who is to be welcome:
a) Everyone who lives in the society?
b) Everyone who lives in the society, as well as those who come to live in that society from outside?
c) Everyone, as in quite literally; anyone and everyone who should have a desire to live in that society?

Perhaps if there was a clearer understanding and acceptance as to what is an appropriate level of immigration then people might not let fear of the third option (c) colour their judgement over the very principle and merits of immigration itself.