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

[HoreTore]

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?

[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.

[HoreTore]

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....

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[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

[Samurai Waki]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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?

[Strike For The South]

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?

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[Centurion1]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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."

[Centurion1]

This guys an idiot.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Who is?

[Centurion1]

terrorist

[rory_20_uk]

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.

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.

[Fragony]

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

[Ironside]

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).

[Fragony]

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%

[Furunculus]

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.

[Beskar]

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.

[Furunculus]

In the context of Louis' statement:

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

[Kagemusha]

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.

[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.

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".

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Fragony]

' 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

[Furunculus]

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.