I've got a 4,000-word article up at American Conservative on Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist. I think you'll find that it explains more about this whole horrible event than you'll find elsewhere. First, here are a few random observations:
Breivik, a smug egomaniac who boasts, “I have an extremely strong psyche (stronger than anyone I have ever known),” looks rather like a 1975 Chevy Chase signing off from Weekend Update on “Saturday Night Live” with the catchphrase, “I’m Chevy Chase … and you’re not.” ...
Breivik’s weightlifting and narcissism—“I’m in the middle of another steroid cycle at the moment … I have a more or less perfect body”—call to mind Yukio Mishima, the bisexual militarist novelist and bodybuilder who attempted to overthrow Japanese democracy in 1970. Mishima then committed ritual seppuku, stabbing himself and having an acolyte behead him. (But notice the “more or less” in Breivik’s boast; Breivik is always tempted by the Norwegian urge to try to appear reasonable.)
The Norwegian killer’s assault is reminiscent of the 1997 shootout in North Hollywood, in which two steroid-using, body-armor-wearing bankrobbers fired 1,101 rounds of ammunition at the LAPD. At the time, they were assumed to be the first of an inevitable wave of unstoppable Terminator-like criminals. Fortunately, 14 years later, they remain the American high-water mark for criminals who could have appeared in a Michael Mann movie like “Heat.” Hopefully, Breivik will remain an outlier.
And here's a summary of my main argument in Breivik’s Brain: The Norwegian killer is no Christian fundamentalist but a right-wing imitator of Marx and Lenin:
Among terrorist monsters, Breivik is perhaps the most lucid since the Unabomber, whom he plagiarizes in the 1516 page “compendium” he posted online just before his crimes. So I undertook the unpleasant task of trying to understand what motivates him. Is he a Christian fundamentalist fanatic, as has been widely assumed by the U.S. press? Or is there something else going on here that won’t make sense from an American perspective?
Having thought about this rotten person longer than I’ve wanted, I have finally grasped that Breivik only makes sense when viewed on his own terms, which are those of the bloody history of continental European ideology. Breivik, I’ve come to realize, is a Marxist heretic.
Breivik’s hundreds of pages of planning 72 years of conflict in his manifesto 2083: A European Declaration of Independence reflects a Marx-like confidence in his own science of history. His turn to terrorism to begin the recruitment of a revolutionary vanguard is reminiscent of the urge of the first major Marxist heretic, Lenin, to hurry history along with violence. Like the second world-historical Marxist heretic, Mussolini, who substituted for Marx’s emphasis on class his own emphasis on nation, Breivik wants to substitute “culture.” He argues that white leaders influenced the Frankfurt School of “cultural Marxism” import Muslims to deconstruct the indigenous conservative culture they hate. In response, he will set off an (oxymoronic) “conservative revolution.”
Read the whole thing (there's lots more) there.
Posts
122 comments:
I've got a 4,000-word article up at American Conservative on Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist. I think you'll find that it explains more about this whole horrible event than you'll find elsewhere.
...
Breivik, a smug egomaniac who boasts...
:-D
--Le Sigh
Is he a Christian fundamentalist fanatic, as has been widely assumed by the U.S. press? Or is there something else going on here that won’t make sense from an American perspective?
He will be whatever the various political and media factions need him to be...regardless of any contradictions.
The Neocon Christian Right has a perfect opportunity to make the Alternative Pagan Right look bad - while the commies laugh all the way to the bank.
It may be of at least tangential relevance to note that the late
psychologist Hans Eysenck and his students explored the underlying similarities between the political far right and the far left. His
pre-scientific formulations of a
"toughminded" factor (a P-factor)
in human pesonality was basic to
his viewpoint. From both positions are personalities that much moreso than the average person are disposed not to flinch from odd and unusual thoughts, perceptions, behaviors; not to cotton to close human relationships, but rather covet personal distance ; not to overlay human sexuality with undue sentiment but to have a strong primate view of human sex realities; etc. When under stress such personalities become disorganized, they tend not to become neurotic but to move directly into psychoses. Mental competency issues in this event at hand may serve to resurrect regard to Eysenck's viewpoints and to seek to revise them in accord with evidence that does not fit them??
The Neocon Christian Right has a perfect opportunity to make the Alternative Pagan Right look bad - while the commies laugh all the way to the bank.
Whoa, so many shadowy conspiratorial groups, so little time.
It may be of at least tangential relevance to note that the late
psychologist Hans Eysenck and his students explored the underlying similarities between the political far right and the far left.
People who are seriously into politics, whether left or right, tend to be aspies.
Whether they're libertarians or collectivists is largely down to chance, rather than a well thought-out process.
The idiotic nature of those two examples proves it.
Yes, I do agree that self-promotion may well have been one of his main aims. Consider the carefully posed photos that he made of himself. The excessive, unreadable length his document may have been his way of posing as a deep thinker.
It is amusing that Liberals seem to believe that violence by minorities is caused by oppression of those minorities by the white capitalists or whatever.
Clearly, Steve is having none of that.
peter hitchens often goes into the effects of drugs on psycotic behavior
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
One more mass killer, one more drug-addled mind
This is Peter Hitchens' Mail on Sunday column
It's the drugs, stupid. In hundreds of square miles of supposed analysis of the Norway mass murder, almost nobody has noticed that the smirking Anders Breivik was taking large quantities of mind-altering chemicals.
In this case, the substances are an anabolic steroid called stanozolol, combined with an amphetamine-like drug called ephedrine, plus caffeine to make the mixture really fizz.
Drugs definitely played a role, but keep in mind that he was intentionally using drugs to maintain the levels of megalomania he found necessary for his plan. He was using drugs more than they were using him.
I say do not fallaciously throw out the baby with the bathwater. Suppose Breivik hadn't carried out the violence and merely presented himself with books, videos, articles, messages, and images of himself. Would he be so objectionable?
Also, 'smug' people tend to believe themselves too good for 'action', which is deemed too vulgar.
And egomania is typical among thinkers: Nietzsche, Freud, Marx, Rand, Vidal, Mailer, Jung, Johnson, Sartre, Huxley, Burgess, etc.
In fact, it's hard to name important artists, thinkers, and leaders who were not egomaniacs.
"I've got a 4,000-word article up at American Conservative on Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist. I think you'll find that it explains more about this whole horrible event than you'll find elsewhere."
So, Sailer thinks he understands Breivik more than anyone else...
Speaking of egomania...
"Breivik, I’ve come to realize, is a Marxist heretic."
This is just a variation of Jonah Goldberg's 'fascism is leftism'.
And there was Sontag with 'Soviet communism is fascism with a human face'.
So, a 'conservative' says Hitler was really a leftist, and a leftist says Stalin was really a rightist. In other words, our monster is really 'your' monster.
Of course, no one is purely anything. Everyone's a mix of this and that. A pure Christian would be a pacifist without private property, but how many such Christians exist?
But if ANYTHING motivated Breivik, it was racial demographology. He wanted Europe to remain white, and Nordic countries to remain Nordic. All other ideologies were secondary(or strategic)to him, which is to say he would even prefer a white communist country to a multi-cultural capitalist country--not because he likes communism but because he's for anything to save his race.
He may have used methods and ideas of Leninism and Marxism, but his underlying obsession was racial survival. So, Sailer got it backwards. Breivik flirted with leftist ideas to save his race... just like many in the Third World adopted communism as a weapon of NATIONALIST liberation. This isn't to say Ho Chi Minh wasn't a communist. He was, but he gravitated to communism as the best weapon to resist French colonialism.
You left out the part where his father abandoned his mother when he was 1 and effectively cut off communication with him when he was a teenager.
I think that Peter Gabriel's "Family Snapshot" might offer some explanation for his behavior (not the sole explanation, but I don't think that you can factor out this abandonment).
OT Steve do notice the non-coverage of the massive Israeli protests?
google news turned up no American MSM who is usually so curious about israel..
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/31/protest-israel-house-prices-salaries
Saying that Breivik accepts the Marxist framework is no special insight. Leninism works because of structural problems in modern society; if using that makes you a Leninist, well we all are then.
Steve normally is pretty brilliant in his personality analysis, but nobody has done a coherent analysis of Breivik because we don't want to recognize that he is one of us. He just is. Of course his manifesto is pretty retarded in some points (reconquest of Anatolia?), but is there anything there that we really disagree with?
Thing is he is just one of us, who grew some balls. So we can't hate him, as much as we want to escape from the guilt by association campaigns the left wants to crucify us with.
.
Of course this guy has a pretty weird psychological profile, I mean we all are for the cause of white preservation, but who risks jail? The guy sacrificed a not so bad lifestyle just to fight leftism.
Then again, Leftism morals made his father abandon him, his mother became retarded, he got beat as a child, he can't get a decent wife in his own country. The guy felt he had nothing to lose.
I sometimes believe that if american whites didn't have the last resort of marrying Asians women there'd be more desperate white males hunting democrat carpetbaggers (or their children).
He doesn't look like Chevy Chase. He looks like Michael York.
"I've got a 4,000-word article up at American Conservative on Anders Behring Breivik, the Norwegian terrorist. I think you'll find that it explains more about this whole horrible event than you'll find elsewhere."
"...
Breivik, a smug egomaniac who boasts... :-D"
Knowing Steve, you know it was intentional. He has a very low key self-effacing sense of humor.
I'm suprised that nobody yet compared him to Varg Vikernes.
I read on Wiki that the Muslim population of Norway is pretty miniscule. No doubt it will bigger in the future, but the racial situation isn't nearly as bad as most U.S. states.
> just like many in the Third World adopted communism as a weapon of NATIONALIST liberation. This isn't to say Ho Chi Minh wasn't a communist. He was, but he gravitated to communism as the best weapon to resist French colonialism.
There's definitely some merit in such views; on the other hand I think 'Nam actually did practice economic communism for a long time, and accordingly suffered great poverty almost up to the present. Even though the country's IQ is only ~90, that's not so bad and I suspect its C may perhaps be the same as that of say France. If so, the poverty was completely unnecessary and man-made, and a GDP/capita of $15,000 is quite possible, C being no less important than IQ.
Just for the record, Breivik isn't quite the first 'anti-immigration' atrocitist (if that's a word!).
Some years ago - maybe 10 years ago, my memory is hazy and I can't be bothered to check - in England there was a series of pipe-bomb attacks against areas with heavy immigrant populations, like Brixton in South London. (For good measure, there was also a bomb in a gay pub in London's Soho, which brilliantly succeeded in killing a pregnant heterosexual woman who happened to be there with a gay friend.)
The attacks were comparatively crude, and didn't kill nearly as many people as Breivik, but the perpetrator was an anti-immigration obsessive loner like him.
Re my earlier comment, I found this report on the pipe-bomber in England about 10 years ago:
http://www.bernardomahoney.com/forthcb/ootdie/articles/tbwttuarw.shtml
Oddly enough, he is now almost completely forgotten in England - I haven't seen a single mention of him in the recent reports on Breivik. Maybe that is because he only killed 3 people, though terribly maiming many more.
Steve, one little quip about the article:
Pro-Christian identity
I believe the term "Christian Identity" is used to refer to a racialist movement started in the 19th century, that one of the 12 tribes of Israel was Anglo Saxon. I don't think that's what you meant here.
I read on Wiki that the Muslim population of Norway is pretty miniscule
yet they still manage to commit 85% of the rapes in Oslo.
by guess is that Scandinavians are so effemanized that even a small number of muslims can make a huge impact, where in, say Glasgow they're likely to meet some lingering vestiges of anglo saxon martial prowess.
I was an a midsummer sweden event in NYC some weeks ago, lots of native swedes (not swedish american) they all were remarkably effeminate.
It all seems very fishy.
This guy is supposed to have come up with this reasoned anti-immigration manifesto.
Then he commits an atrocity guaranteed to strengthen the hand of the pro-immigration lobby, undermine any Norwegian nationalists, hand carte blanche to the security services to attack anyone else deemed to be a nationalist etc etc. Never mind allowing the usual liberal suspects to jerk themselves off at the thought of those evil nazi terrorists the media are always warning them about.
Since these are all guaranteed outcomes one is entitled to suspect that these were always the intended consequences, the manifesto is just piling on a bit more.
If he really is quite inasane otoh, well then motivation is irrelevant, he would thought of some cause or other anyway.
True, he's got some Michael York in there, but he looks more like Chevy Chase.
Interesting analysis Steve. I think you're right about Breivik being a leftist - he's simply too smart to be a conservative. (Note you can have a high IQ and be crazy/evil).
The Communists under Lenin were the most successful terrorist group in history. They were superb at identifying the enemy and taking them out. Breivik seems to have that same quality.
If you wish immigration restriction (so much that you're willing to murder) then the correct target is not the poor immigrants, but the members of the elite (or even better their kids). They are the ones responsible, and they're only 'targets' against whom terrorism will have any effect. So, you don't kill poor little Marty Muslim - you murder someone who has power and been pushing open borders.
Thankfully, the few "Rightwing" killer/nuts we have in the USA don't understand that. And I hope the FBI is looking out for this kind of terrorism here.
"This is just a variation of Jonah Goldberg's 'fascism is leftism'."
um, it is. Fascism was an explicitly Marxist, revolutionary movement in the early 20th century.
Crack a book.
"True, he's got some Michael York in there, but he looks more like Chevy Chase."
You're just envious because you probably look like John Belushi.
Breivik's future prediction is rooted less in Marxism than a combination of Malthusianism and Eugenicism.
Marxist futurism is triumphant. Marx told his adherents, "Do not worry; history is on our side; contradictions within capitalism will lead to its demise; a time will arrive when it will be ripe for us to take power." If anyone feels this way today, it is Mexicans in the US and Muslims in Europe(and maybe Jewish elites who look forward to a future when the West is 'diverse' and easy picking in the game of 'divide and rule'). Mexicans feel history is on their side with huge surge of numbers in the US. And Muslims feel likewise in Europe; 'we will demographically bury you'. Like Marxists, they eagerly look to the future, which is on their side. They want the future to arrive as ordained by certain trends in history: economic or demographic. Marxism foresaw a period of chaos and violence, but it was to be for the benefit of the Proles(and radical intellectuals who led them). Indeed, radicals and workers need not worry or bother too much. Just let history take its course and the moment will come. Just wait for the ripened fruit to drop on their lap.
Lenin extended the 'contradictions within capitalism' to 'contradictions within imperialism', and argued--not entirely incorrectly--that WWI was the product of dialectics of imperialism, with great powers seeking domination over the world. Within it, Russian and German elites had bled one another dry, and so it was natural that both Russia and Germany should be ripe for mass revolution. Russia became communist, Germany came close.
Malthusianism, otoh, foresees a bleak future. Population rises but land and food supply remain the same. There is catatrosphe ahead, so this future must be avoided at all cost and by all means. Similarly, Eugenicists made a gloomy Idiocratic argument--that if current trends continue, IQs will drop. Also, non-whites will increase and whites will lose their domination and genetic uniqueness through mixing.
To the Marxist, future means downfall of old order and triumph of old order.
To Malthusians and Eugenicists, the future--if trends continue--means downfall of the civilized order and total chaos without redemption or hope for anyone.
So, if Marxist futurology says 'bring on the future',
Breivikism--like Malthusianism and Eugenicism--argues 'we must do EVERYTHING POSSIBLE--to prevent the future'. Orwell wrote 1984 not because he wanted its prophecy to be fulfilled but in order to prevent it(at least for Western Europe as Stalinism already took over the East). Similarly, Breivik is not so much a futurologist as a future-preventologist. His work is less a 'scientific' prophecy than a warning about the future. Breivik's hope is that Europeans today will wake up and prevent 2084. It also has parallels with ATLAS SHRUGGED and ROAD TO SERFDOM, which, as fiction or tract, warns us where we are headed if government grows bigger.
Come to think of it, Marx was more prophet than scientist about the future, but then, future is a tricky thing. Who foresaw the fall of Soviet Union would happen in 1991?
It'd be cool to be like the super genius guy in ASIMOV'S FOUNDATION, who can measure the future like a chess player who can see many variations of possible moves ahead. But that is just sci-fi... though Jews do seem to be more adept at it than others.
Anyway, Michael Corleone showed in GODFATHER that you sometimes gotta be cold-blooded and strike first. He understood the future well enough that if he didn't do something, they would do something to him. Be a hitman or be hit.
I'm with Geoff. Just speculating, but I think perhaps Breivik might have turned out better with some male guidance.
Another big future-preventologism is the climate-change-ism. It says it will be End of Mankind if we don't do something about greenhouse gases.
You're just envious because you probably look like John Belushi.
You tryin' to say something about John Belushi's looks?
"peter hitchens often goes into the effects of drugs on psycotic behavior
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/ "
So, if a Muslim terrorist smokes hashish before he kills people, we blame the hashish than Islamism?
I heard 9/11 attackers went to a bar and got drunk a few days before the attack. So, we should blame alcohol?
When your victims list is 100% politicians and their kin destined to rise into the Party -- then you are an assassin.
In terms of outcome ABB executed a perfect own-goal.
Even now it's hard to believe this wasn't a false flag operation.
The 'Christian' tag was added to his Facebook while he was in custody. How cute.
Latest MSM nonsense:
Apparently, he 'must've' had plastic surgery to look more like a Nazi, because its impossible that Norwegians might look like Germans...
I agree with the other poster who noted that Breivik's actions were guaranteed, GUARANTEED, to hasten rapidly the conquest of Norway by Muslims. If he set out to deliberately aid them, he could not have done better.
Leading one to suspect, he's really an "antifa" or Black Bloc Anarchist type, wanting to discredit any and all resistance to Islamization and what amounts to colonization by Muslims of Norway (and Europe) ...
Or he's just nuts and really, really wanted to kill other people's kids (my favorite theory).
I think the guy is like those Chinese "Bare Branches" bachelors that killed Kindergartners. It takes a special kind of evil to kill little kids, up close and personal. Human beings are wired to protect them, its hard-coded. Only a special kind of hate and envy can produce that action.
Look at this way, the guy says "not that many White Norwegians left." Then he goes out and kills ... a bunch of White Norwegian kids. Just hastening the take-over.
Oslo, Malmo, a whole host of Scandi cities are no-go zones for Whites. Steve has it wrong, you don't have to be brilliant, if you can out-breed and out-turf (by extreme violence aided by PC/Multi-culti/Diversity) native Europeans.
Today its Malmo and Oslo and other Scandi cities where a White person just can't appear. Or parts of the UK which are Sharia-controlled zones where booze, drugs, music, uncovered women, and dogs are all forbidden.
The UK police have done nothing, it has been allowed to happen.
And now we learn that that Breivik had plastic surgery to make him look more Aryan.
So, he is just another liberal, then.
I was an a midsummer sweden event in NYC some weeks ago, lots of native swedes (not swedish american) they all were remarkably effeminate.
Peter Frost has some articles on the estrogenization of the water supply in the north following the adoption of cold water sewage systems in the 20th century.
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/03/urinary-estrogen-theory-part-i.html
http://evoandproud.blogspot.com/2009/03/urinary-estrogen-theory-part-ii.html
"It may be of tangential relevance to note that the late psychologist Hans Eysenck and his students..."
The problem of getting too far gone over mental "health" issues in this matter is that, obviously, what is real or sensible is not something easily determined in this world by a mere polling of people.
It is a sad fact of life amidst the mind saturation by electronic media that a "public" consensus is not the sort of cooking-from -scratch it was along the American frontier--it is now more the mental counterpart to fast food--that which has been formulated and packaged for our convenience. Mental disorder is a mostly self-defeating means of breaking the bull**** barrier, but to some extent dormant mental oddity is an important element of the capacity for originality--the capacity to actually see that the Emperor has no clothes. Eysenck's 1995 book on Creativity also has portions relevant to folks like Breivik. The greater mental issue is the sad fact that whole societies nowadays are capable of being quite loony. Of course, in such circumstances, becoming a lone nut falls short of becoming a seer--steroids or no steroids.
What kind of megalomaniacal lunatic plagiarizes his manifesto, and writes it in English, when he's supposed to be a Norwegian nationalist? So much about this just doesn't add up.
Re the work of Eysenck--there is a lot of evidence that the genetic "dice throw" very significantly influences political and religious orientation. The relevant "chance factors" are not mainly where you grew up, what your family fixed for breakfast, whether you made the middle school honor roll most of the time, etc etc.
"I sometimes believe that if american whites didn't have the last resort of marrying Asians women...
(LMAO; Like any good white nationalist)
...there'd be more desperate white males hunting democrat carpetbaggers (or their children).
Some fav movies of the 68 generation... that later became the elites of EU..
http://youtu.be/GJ1LG08ssaM
http://youtu.be/rDj7Db4_78w
"What kind of megalomaniacal lunatic plagiarizes his manifesto, and writes it in English, when he's supposed to be a Norwegian nationalist? So much about this just doesn't add up."
He Tarantino-ed it. He's an ideological DJ. He assembled a compendium of what he read. It's all very pomo.
Maybe it should be called
DAS IST MEIN KAMPITAL.
I think you are really overthinking this Steve. Whiskey is right, what we have here is a sexually frustrated loser killing other peoples children in revenge for the genetic legacy he will never have. The sexual free market is going to continue to create monsters like this who will adopt whatever political ideology is expedient to disguise their own self loathing. If you want to understand Breivik read Houellebecq´s first two novels. It´s all there.
I think take the guy at his word; sure, he's somewhat unstable, but lots of people are.
Breivik represents the appearance of the white Mau Mau. The reason he surfaced like this is that he perceived there was no realistic way he could express himself through normal political channels, which have been pretty much shut down for anyone wanting to put a halt to mass immigration in Europe.
This is just one of the many mistakes of the authorities, who have succeeded in delegitimizing debate about immigration and driven those with strong feelings underground, or into the courts (eg Wilders).
Occam's Razor says just take him at his word. So maybe he's weird in some respects, but if we want to avoid more episodes like this (I certainly do) then the lesson is surely for society to engage people with strong views openly and see what support they have. The Left does not want to risk this and therefore pushes people like ABB over the edge.
Anon.
At Frontpage mag, an article of interest that has a similar line of thought but draws different conclusions: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/08/01/something-rotten-in-norway/
Everyone who cares to form an opinion on Breivik, should read him in his own words, and not merely his words selectively quoted or represented. Once you exclude his copy/paste of other authors and most of his criminal logistics, his story is digestible and yet complex in a way that few are willing to acknowledge publicly. You can download someone else's opinion, or you can form your own, but at least be honest to yourself as to which you've done.
Whiskey keeps talking about the little kids in Norway; is there any evidence at all that they were? Or is that just more of his tiresome penchant for shoehorning everything into his unified beta "theory"?
I notice that he's refined his assertions from "women" to "wealthy and educated white women." So much for the iron laws of biomechanics. But it had to be so, because Japanese men are uber "betas," but, no immigration in Japan. The funny thing is, I predicted/suggested he do just that in the hit piece on him I drafted for my blog last night.
Maybe "beta theory" is like methadone for the IQ fetishists. Instead of chalking EVERYTHING up to IQ, they chalk EVERYTHING up to "beta theory."
Also, by separating out the losers from the winners quite admirably, Diversity/PC/Multiculturalism acts like one giant shit test, to reveal "true Alphas" (those who thrive under adverse conditions).
See what I mean? Alphas thrive on adversity. You know, like harsh winters, short growing seasons, etc. So Scandinavians are al-, no, wait, let me check my notes. Uh, I'll have to get back to you.
At least IQ fetishists don't use IQ to mean whatever the hell they feel like having it mean at any given moment. Ever read the "beta theory" blogs? It's like watching a cult argue over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. Saying their usage of "alpha" and "beta" is fluid is being very kind.
http://blogs.forward.com/forward-thinking/140297/
Whiskey keeps talking about the little kids in Norway; is there any evidence at all that they were?
The youngest was 14, most were 17-18, see this table:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Norway_attacks#Ut.C3.B8ya
Breivik states he deliberately refrained from killing the youngest kids and this is confirmed by witnesses. See this article (in Norwegian):
http://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/oslobomben/artikkel.php?artid=10089107
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/40417/karma-norway-camp-breivik-shot-up-celebrated-hamas-jew-hatred/
I bet Breivik’s “anti-racism” and “pro-Israel” lines were just cover as they are for many on the European right. Read the latter part of his manifesto where he discusses in detail race differences, the disadvantages of race mixing, genotypes, Nordic genetic preservation, and other topic
"Whiskey keeps talking about the little kids in Norway; is there any evidence at all that they were?"
I believe they were about ages 16 - 33. It wasn't a mass killing per se but more of a political assassination: he wanted to white out the next generation of far left rulers in Norway whom he blamed for mass immigration.
Norway, like a lot of places, seems to want kinder, gentler national socialism. It works (at least temporarily) where you've got a resource-rich, low-density, nationally homogenous population where everybody supports the common weal. That's the vision Breivik saw himself fighting for.
The Left thinks this little set-up is so good, everybody can be a 'Norwegian' and we'll all be happy. The Right, consciously or not, realizes that 'Norwegian' doesn't just mean a passport. And people like Breivik remind us that not everybody is on board for the Left's multi-culty vision.
A problem from my American perspective is cradle-to-grave welfare cannot be sustained, leading inevitably to deficits, inflation and displacement of Family and Church. Demographics among net producers plummet, and the State resorts to immigration to shore up its base--nobody seems to realize that immigrants get old, sick and unemployed too. Democracy degenerates into an ugly spoils fight and the State starts running out of slices of pie to pass around.
When the spoils fights turn into actual shooting wars, I don't see Europeans manning the ramparts for globalism.
I often don't agree with KMac but his writings on Breivik are probably the best analysis:
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/07/anders-breivik-as-a-nordicist/
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/07/breiviks-the-great-satan-his-cult-and-the-jews/
Finally someone mentions Varg Vikernes!
"The Left thinks this little set-up is so good, everybody can be a 'Norwegian' and we'll all be happy."
Some on the Left feel this way, but others want to destroy it because they can't stand the sight of a happy successful homogeneous nation.
Breivik a Marxist-Leninist heretic? I don't see it... except maybe in the sense that Marxism-Leninism declared the bourgeois elite as the enemy of the people, and Breivik attacked the elites of society who were, ironically enough, ideologically of the left but economically and politically of the upper-crust, or bourgeoisie. The rudest awakening for the Left might have been the fact that they are the privileged members of society whom Leftism has long targeted.
Status seeking is a universal trait. Though members of the 'other right' tend to mock white liberals for status-hungry PC poseuring, I think many alt right people are doing much the same to disassociate themselves from Breivik as much as possible. Breivik is probably crazy and his actions were horrid, but some people seem to be going the extra mile to say just how especially evil he is when, in fact, he's no better or worse than your run-of-the-mill terrorist.
Today its Malmo and Oslo and other Scandi cities where a White person just can't appear.
We hear this all the time about Malmo, but my elderly mother spent a couple of weeks there this spring and said it was lovely, the Swedes were lovely, she noticed a few immigrants, but not exceptional numbers.
OK, perhaps there are PARTS of Malmo that have hordes of Muslims...
Cennbeorc
What kind of megalomaniacal lunatic plagiarizes his manifesto, and writes it in English, when he's supposed to be a Norwegian nationalist?
He couldn't decide which version of Norwegian to use, Bokmal or Nynorsk. The tension tore him apart, with the tragic results we all see.
Cennbeorc
I bet Breivik’s “anti-racism” and “pro-Israel” lines were just cover as they are for many on the European right. Read the latter part of his manifesto where he discusses in detail race differences, the disadvantages of race mixing, genotypes, Nordic genetic preservation, and other topic
I don't see the supposed contradiction there. The problems with "race mixing" apply as much to Israel as to Norway, and as much to Asians as to "Nordics". There's nothing logically wrong with wanting the "genetic preservation" of all the different peoples on Earth.
Now, if ABB wanted to preserve the "Nordics" while demanding that all the other ethnic groups on Earth merge into one mass, we could say that he is ..... as bad as the majority of Jews are.
In addition to the bombings you mention there have been two serial killers in Sweden who targeted mainly immigrants: The Laser Man and the Malmö shooter. (The Laser Man isn´t technically a serial killer since only one of the eleven people he shot died).
Don't forget Baruch Goldman, "an American-born Jewish Israeli physician who perpetrated the 1994 Cave of the Patriarchs massacre in the city of Hebron, killing 29 Muslims at prayer there and wounding another 125".
"I think you are really overthinking this Steve. Whiskey is right, what we have here is a sexually frustrated loser killing other peoples children in revenge for the genetic legacy he will never have."
Seems unlikely, the pictures show a handsome and fit man who apparently had some money as well. If a wife and children were what he wanted, he could have had that.
Now why is it that he didn't want that life? Perhaps he found himself drawn to other appearance obsessed, body building men.
Couldn't work Hitler in there, Steve? Don't worry, I've just finished talking to my contacts in the liberal establishment and they assure me that they still respect you. Really, Really, Respect you.
I appreciate the article but why do you have to constantly remind us that you don't approve of this guy? We know you don't support terrorist of any kind.
I just the article, it's definitely one of your more laborious and tedious pieces. You were all over the place and I wasn't sure what you were getting at. Calling him evil does not add to our understanding.
I disagree. Breivik is motivated by ideology, and a product of his time.
He is an evil and twisted product of the modern anti-immigrant movement in Scandinavia. Obviously that doesn’t mean there is any collective guilt for the peaceful ones.
He is a guy who listened to the anti-immigrant right, and took what appeared to be the logical conclusion, that the pro-immigration left has to be stopped for white Norway and Europe to survive, and that this was a task important enough he was willing to devout his life to.
He has fairly typically political views of this groups + evil/derangement. This is a sizable group, particularly strong among young men. They have a long tradition of violence.
"Even though the country's IQ is only ~90"
They still defeated you.
"Breivik is a Marxist heretic..."
Again, the explorations of Eysenck and his colleagues help us to realize that beneath such identiications of , say, Marxist heretic, fascist, etc., is an element of "toughmindedness" that Eysenck usefully illuminated, if rather more heuristically than in a consummated scientific attainment. Eysenck has pride of place among distinguished psychologists in trying with scientific rigor to illuminate the very issues at the core of this topic here. His scientific writings in fact deal with "toughmindedness" with the precise formulation of it as "Psychoticism as a dimension of
NORMAL personality" When persons high in this "P-factor" start deteriorating psychologically, they often spin directly into modes of psychoses. Persons high in measured "P" are found in high incidence among urban detectives, Green Berets and other special forces, bikers, many modes of genuine artists in literature, platic arts and even in music (Wagner, e.g.,). The clarity and meassurement rigor of Eysenck's work contrasts so very favorably to the mounds and mounds of mushy, semi-literary commentary in American psychology re this topic.
It is of basic importance to be able to distinguish fairly clearly and in some detail (A) what normal P-dimension strengths Breivik had that caused him with some merit to feel he grasped what the vast majority of his countrymen and even his intellectual peers did not --this FROM (B) whatever disorders put his mental wheels off the rails so that he saw killing dozens of youths as some useful action. This facilitates regard to the real mental issue as being the media-fed general consensual delusion that envelops most citizens re immigration, cultural sabotage, dysgenics, etc.
"The problems with "race mixing" apply as much to Israel as to Norway, and as much to Asians as to "Nordics"."
Some people oppose race mixing because they just don't like it. Others oppose it because they feel demographically threatened. Suppose there are 1000 purple people and 10 green people.
Purple people have little to worry from race-mixing since there will always be lots of purples. But if green people embrace race-mixing, they'll vanish--like blacks in Mexico.
If Europeans had high birthrates and were emigrating to other countries, there would be little to fear from some whites mixing with others. There will always be plenty of whites. But due to low birthrates and high rate of immigration into Europe, there is legitimate fear of massive race mixing. It could to loss of European genotype.
We tolerate Jewish emphasis on 'keeping it Jewish' because there aren't that many Jews in the world. Well, there aren't that many Nordic people left either.
I bet Breivik’s “anti-racism” and “pro-Israel” lines were just cover as they are for many on the European right. Read the latter part of his manifesto where he discusses in detail race differences, the disadvantages of race mixing, genotypes, Nordic genetic preservation, and other topic
Nah. His "anti-immigration" and "anti-Muslim" lines were just cover for his anti-racism; he targeted and killed Norwegian Whites, after all.
"Marxist futurism is triumphant. Marx told his adherents, 'Do not worry; history is on our side; contradictions within capitalism will lead to its demise; a time will arrive when it will be ripe for us to take power.' If anyone feels this way today, it is Mexicans in the US and Muslims in Europe(and maybe Jewish elites who look forward to a future when the West is 'diverse' and easy picking in the game of 'divide and rule')."
You mean Tim Wise's 'tick tock tick tock' remark? And Frank Rich with his 'you can't take your country back anymore' chuckle?
I don't think he's worth that much study. Loons with idiosyncratic ideologies pop up every once in awhile and nothing can be done about it.
The real story here is the failure of the Norwegian police. Breivik would probably have had a body count of about a dozen--fairly standard for rampaging freaks-- if it had not been for the ridiculous failure of Norwegian police to respond for 90 minutes. There's nowhere in the U.S. where you would get 90 minutes to do whatever you wanted to up and coming national leaders. ABB found the one place in the Western world where a rampage killer could have all the time in the world to work his evil.
BTW, I don't buy false flag theories because I think he would've killed himself or been killed afterwards.
We tolerate Jewish emphasis on 'keeping it Jewish' because there aren't that many Jews in the world.
"we" tolerate? Ask Rick Sanchez about that.
Well, there aren't that many Nordic people left either.
to the 'we's who tolerate Jewish emphasis on keeping it Jewish, one nordic is too many, and any nordic identity movement is a deadly threat.
I was three blocks away from where the bomb went off, and the only reason I did not get glass in one or both eyes was that I was buying an anniversary gift for friends in Seattle I would be visiting, rather than on route to the gym, which is only "spitting distance" from the government complex, which I would otherwise have been passing at 3:22 pm. I flew to San Francisco the following day, and have been able to follow the news from home through webcasts and Internet newspapers.
It is very true that Norway's current immigration and assimilation policies are unsustainable, and there will be a national debate once a decent period of mourning has passed. I don't think that Somalis are being deliberately imported, though. Indeed, "new Norwegians" of Pakistani origin would like very much to restrict the immigration of Poles (never gonna happen, since Poles are entitled to seek employment in Norway under the EEA Agreement). Besides, the majority of Poles are skilled in building trades, unlike illiterate nephews from the Punjab. Taxis are one thing, but there are still lots of kitchens to be remodeled.
What I find ludicrous is the idea that somehow Norway will be overrun by darked-skinned Muslim Somalis and Pakistanis (or Hindu Tamils, for that matter). By and large, non-Western immigrants in Norway occupy very vulnerable occupational niches. They are also adapting very poorly to life at 60 degrees north and higher (which thanks to their skin pigmentation they can do absolutely nothing about). All the sequelae of vitamin D deficiency are endemic in these populations, as one would expect: diabetes, obesity, weak bones and skin problems. And I am referring to those who immigrated as adults. Their Norwegian-born children will suffer the same debilities, only at an earlier age. Where we see the "March of the Penguins" on city streets in immigrant neighborhoods in Oslo, in 20 years, Norwegian-born "niqabi girls" will be hobbling about town with canes. The will have a very hard time carrying babies to term.
Mother Nature is a hanging judge, and there is no appeal.
It is, I feel, really important we take ABB at his word. He was driven by hatred, but not so much of Muslims as hatred of his own people who let them in and who plan to let even more in "to make a better world".
ABB is the tip of the anger iceberg and to misread and psychiatrise his motivations is only to invite the Left to keep pumping immigrants into Europe, with consequences that are too ghastly to contemplate.
Anon.
Breivik was a member of the Oslo Freemasons. Steve didn't mention that. Nobody's mentioned that here. Someone did in the comments at TAC.
"Couldn't work Hitler in there, Steve? Don't worry, I've just finished talking to my contacts in the liberal establishment and they assure me that they still respect you. Really, Really, Respect you."
LOLOLOL.
Conservative "envelope pushers" who try to play the naughty boy but still listen to their parents on the bigger issues really have become a cliche.
"I'm suprised that nobody yet compared him to Varg Vikernes."
I also thought about the Vikernes event when I heard about this. For those that don't know, he is a heavy metal musician in Norway who is in to paganism, eugenics, racialism, etc. and really hates Christianity on Nietzschean grounds. He murdered a band mate over royalties or something with an axe and is attributed with being the inspiration for several church burnings in Scandinavia. While in prison he is said to have complained that the penitentiary staff weren't treating him brutally enough.
Vikernes actually wrote an article about the terrorist attack, "War in Europe: Part I - Cui bono?" He seems to agree with Breivik on much, but wonders how Breivik can reach his conclusions without mentioning the Jews (and Christians, as a subset of the Jews) as a cause of the problems. He seems to think that Breivik is a willing dupe or that the whole thing is a false flag operation. At the end, almost as an afterthought, he mentions that nationalists shouldn't kill children from their own nation, whom are after all only children and not extremists. He seems to be as baffled by Breivik as everyone else is.
And it is just bizarre that someone who seems so savvy and conscious of 21st century sensibilities, such as Breivik seems to be, would do something so vicious and extreme. That's also a big difference between Breivik and Vikernes, as I see it. Vikernes' thinking and personal style are 19th century. They seem like bizarre curios within the context of current, mainstream thought.
Personally, I also wonder if Vikernes is slightly miffed that a guy who looks like a Christian youth minister or a morning news anchor made Mr. black metal/first disciple of Odin look like such a piker in the brutality department.
Everyone knows of course that the norse were once famous for wanton, cold blooded atrocity and cruelty. There was an event in Anglo-Saxon times where the leader of a viking raiding party was captured after pillaging a monastery. The abbot, who had been away at the time of the assault asked why he had attacked his monastery and butchered his monks. The viking's response was "because I thought you were there."
Has it occurred to anyone that, possibly amongst other factors, Breivik simply has some of that old school, viking DNA.
The first time I saw Breivik's photo, I immediately remembered the old adage to never trust anyone who cultivates strange facial hair. I would agree with Steve at least on the notion that one of Breivik's fundamental personality traits is vanity, and I would be surprised if that played no part in these events.
Normann, I am afraid this is incorrect. The European Scandinavians will run round giving them Vitamin D, dole money, social welfare, free housing, free religious schools, and a lot more, paid for by a diminishing band of middle class sucker-whites.
You will suddenly wake up to find there are large 'no-go' areas in Oslo where even the police are scared to enter, where Sharia Law prevails, and which the Left will parade as 'vibrant testimony to how people of different cultures can really, really live together'.
I think on your way back from the US, you should visit the UK, where major areas have effectively been ethnically cleansed of whites.
You will not read the truth in the media, you must see for yourself.
The situation is serious. As anyone who understands compound interest realizes, the change can happen dramatically quickly. But it is not so obvious even the day before.
The Left rely on this. Don't let them make a sucker of you.
Anon.
An interesting contrast would be Breivik's rampage and Vancouver riot(with the cop car burner and chinese hockey stick thug).
Conlusion. One fascist is worth a thousand anarchists.
"Mother Nature is a hanging judge, and there is no appeal."
And there would have been no Boers in South Africa. It's not the climate that's driving Boers out or killing them. It's Africans.
The guy probably wouldn't have done that if he had a hot girlfriend.
Are there any major differences between different Muslim ethnic groups in Oslo?
Breivik mentioned that used verbal threats to keep a group of Pakistanis from bashing him, but that Morrocan immigrants were a lot less easily cowed and more likely to fight.
I was looking at a disaggregation of rape rates by Muslim ethnic group. It seems that Iraqi immigrants and Somalians/Africans are highly overrepresented, other Muslim groups less so, and Pakistanis are about equal to the ethnic Norweigans.
I remember reading somewhere else that in Oslo schools, Somalian youth were considered the most defensive of their women and most likely to fight to defend their honor. Pakistanis were considered the most pious.
It's entirely unnecessary to create such existential angst through policies of ethnic cleansing of the indigenous peoples of Europe and by censoring and demonizing dissent against such colonization. That the governments of Western Europe are creating the conditions for a third major war on the continent within a century is the real crime against humanity, especially since something as seemingly mundane as TV really does have the power to make having 2.1 kids seem "cool" and "hip".
Boers in South Africa. Irishmen and Welshmen in Queensland. I don't see the problem. Light-skinned people under the tropical sun can dress to get less sun, but dark-skinned people cannot conjure up more UVB when it is not forthcoming. And is it certain that free vitamin D shots will be enough to make up for this deficit? We know what the average person's vitamin D needs are, but the only way for someone to be certain to get enough vitamin D is to make it naturally. Perhaps it will be recognized that wearing a tent at 60 degrees north is as much a public health problem - and an imposition of costs on society - as smoking or engaging in unprotected sex. In Norway, public opprobrium has driven smokers to huddle in doorways.
Cape Town is at the same latitude south as Orange County, California, is north, 33 odd degrees. Chicago is at 42 degrees north, the same as Corsica. Detroit is not that much farther north than that. Latitude, not winter temperatures, determines full-year UVB exposure. Oslo is at roughly the same latitude as the northern boundaries of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, the 60th parallel.
Besides, there is a difference between surviving and thriving, as those of us who believe our lying eyes are finding out now. If you are a Tamil who moves to Oslo in your 30s, you are practically guaranteed to be an injecting type-2 diabetic by your 50s, no matter what you do. Even I, with my Czech-French-Anglo-Irish mixed complexion, need as much sun as I can get. On sunny weekends I have taken to going for strolls though Oslo's immigrant neighborhoods in shorts and shirtless. I get my vitamin D and have the added bonus of letting the tent people know who decides what is proper attire on a sunny summer's day in Norway.
I'll stand corrected when the children of warrior-caste taxi and bus drivers (for example) ditch their modesty and start following my sartorial example or deign to go to ag school to learn how to farm in a subarctic climate. I don't know about you, but I'm not holding my breath.
Well, here's a very obvious point to which people should perhaps give some consideration...
One very mainstream but very true explanation of the factors motivating the Oslo guy's rampage was the exceptionally shrill and wild rhetoric found on lots of HDB, anti-Islamic, and quasi-WN websites. Both the management and the commenters are always accusing their political opponents of being "traitors" aiming at the "extermination" of their racial group via a deliberate policy of "genocide." Traitors...extermination...genocide...traitors...extermination...genocide...
So maybe after many years of reading all those websites, the Oslo guy started to actually take all that crazy rhetoric seriously. And if "traitors" really are attempting to "exterminate" your people via a deliberate policy of "genocide", well, shooting as many of them as you can isn't really so unreasonable, is it? As near as I can tell, since the attacks half the chatter on those websites has been "we really, really didn't mean it!!" while the other half has been "great job, Oslo guy!"
Now Norway's on the other side of the world, and there was also an extremely strong Israel/Zionist angle, so the story doesn't seem have legs in the American MSM. But perhaps people should consider that vast numbers of American "activists" read those same "excitable" websites. And if some crazy American guy did the same thing, and massacred a whole campful of Young Democrats because of the all the crazy "traitor---extermination---genocide" rhetoric he'd been reading, well, I suspect that *extremely* bad things would immediately happen to an awful lot of loudmouth bloggers, some of whom probably deserve it and some of whom probably don't. And the MSM barrage would probably ensure that 95% of the public supported doing all those extremely bad things, just like the mass roundups of Muslims after 9/11.
Endlessly shouting "traitor!"---"extermination!"---"genocide!" at your political opponents has always struck me as being pretty ridiculous, and perhaps now pretty clearly unwise as well.
Sweeter the honey, deadlier the sting. Breivik sees Europe as a golden honeycomb; he sees himself as a hornet who will sting anything to defend it.
Breivik isn't entirely honest but people sometimes reveal more truth about themselves through distortions than through earnestness.
After all, reading between the lines in NY Times articles reveal more truth about liberals than they are ever likely to admit.
K. MacDonald did a pretty adept job at decoding Brevik's views.
The sexual free market is going to continue to create monsters like this who will adopt whatever political ideology is expedient to disguise their own self loathing. If you want to understand Breivik read Houellebecq´s first two novels. It´s all there.
You could also read Faulkner's The Sound and The Fury, Celine's Journey to the End of the Night or Philip Roth's Portnoy's Complaint (My personal favorite Philip Roth novel is My Life as a Man, in which the narrator beats the crap out of his wife, literally.) Or you could watch Taxi Driver, in particular the scene where Martin Scorsese, looking a lot like Satan, plays an angry husband who wants to kill his wife for sleeping with a black man. All the above mentioned artists used their burning hatred for the modern woman as fuel to create great art. I think they may understand Breivik's motivation in a way that you don't, Steve. Your view of women is a bit Victorian. Times have changed. There is a war raging between the men and women of the West.
"Endlessly shouting "traitor!"---"extermination!"---"genocide!" at your political opponents has always struck me as being pretty ridiculous, and perhaps now pretty clearly unwise as well."
Any set of views or ideas can lead to atrocities. Liberals say 'conservatives are racists', which means conservatives are all a bunch of closet-Nazis. Using this logic, some people might think it'd be morally justifiable to drop bombs on conservatives like US dropped bombs on Dresden.
And if liberals are right, conservatives are 'xenophobes' and suffering from a mental disorder, an irrational fear of wonderful illegal immigrants. Using this logic, conservatives should be locked up in mental wards.
Any idea can be used for radical action.
One very mainstream but very true explanation of the factors motivating the Oslo guy's rampage was the exceptionally shrill and wild rhetoric found on lots of HDB, anti-Islamic, and quasi-WN websites. Both the management and the commenters are always accusing their political opponents of being "traitors" aiming at the "extermination" of their racial group via a deliberate policy of "genocide." Traitors...extermination...genocide...traitors...exterminat
Hard to argue with that. (Especially for me, since I make the same point myself.)
On the other hand, lying to people with slick statistical bullshit and urging them to ignore what their senses are screaming at them and calling them evil racists if they persist, I'm sure that has a little something to do with sending people around the bend, too.
I mean, come off it, RKU, listen to yourself some time. "Oh, sure, there's virtually no 'real' Americans -- you know what I mean -- left in El Paso (for reasons a five-year-old could understand) but just look how low the homicide rate is! Endless immigration is obviously a fantastic idea!" (We know it's endless immigration you're in favor of otherwise at some point in your illustrious career you might have pointed out that, hokey dokey, now that we've got some pretty hefty diversity under our belt we can pull the plug on this program.)
- Silver
"Endlessly shouting "traitor!"---"extermination!"---"genocide!" at your political opponents has always struck me as being pretty ridiculous, and perhaps now pretty clearly unwise as well."
Tell that to the jews.
RKU, it's not ideas, it's what people see in the streets of their own cities and towns every day that so disturbs them, plus the constant hectoring of the MSM/Leftist stooges who accuse them of "evil" for thinking thoughts of self-defense which are deeply normal and programmed in by evolution.
The Left think they can shut people up by this kind of intimidation, but the truth is the worse things get, the more "in your face" stuff happens that no amount of lies can wash away, the more the seething anger and the closer to the edge do people become. This is unavoidable, and any one who has even a minimalist understanding of human nature knows this is true. After all, this is how the Left itself justified anti-colonial and anti-white terrorism in places like Southern and East Africa.
There are those on the Hard Left know exactly what they are risking and the folks who engineered this situation must take responsibility, must backtrack, and must listen to their deeply worried native white populations, in an honest discussion. Otherwise no-one will be able to stop what is coming, which I deeply fear will be more of the same.
Anon.
Its interesting that the european MSM is having trouble spinning this thing to their advantage. By now they are down to pulling emotional strings. You'd think that by now the thought police would be rounding up the conservative remnant.
Mother Nature is a hanging judge, and there is no appeal."
Using this logic, there would be no blacks in Chicago and Detroit.
look on a map, Quebec city is on the same merdian as Paris - yes, paris, which puts Scandinavia way way way further north than detriot.
In an economic downturn Norrman is right- before Vitaman d millk, scotland had the highest rate of rickets in the world (its much more overcast than scandinavia) and burka wearing muslim women in ireland (WTF is happening in the world!) are experiencing serious vitamin D deficiency.
also if the scientists who are predicting a mini ice age are correct (sunspot activity, underreported by msm) than that could further motivate them to leave. What if we agreed to pay welfare to muslims currently in Europe, but they could choose to live where they wanted, do you think they'd stay??
RKU: just like the mass roundups of Muslims after 9/11.
Intelligent people can say fantastically stupid things, things far more stupid than unintelligent people can ever dream of.
RKU: we meet again.
"As near as I can tell, since the attacks half the chatter on those websites has been 'we really, really didn't mean it!!' while the other half has been 'great job, Oslo guy!'"
I challenge you to link to three or more websites where even a *tenth* of the chatter can be reasonably characterized in either of these ways.
Tick-tock. Tick-tock.
"RKU, it's not ideas, it's what people see in the streets of their own cities and towns every day that so disturbs them, plus the constant hectoring of the MSM/Leftist stooges who accuse them of 'evil' for thinking thoughts of self-defense which are deeply normal and programmed in by evolution."
We should ask if Breivik acted out of radical convictions or acted drastically in the name of normal convictions.
Generally, we associate extreme actions with extreme ideas. Extreme Muslims carried out 9/11. Extreme Zionist shot those Muslims in Israel in the 1994. Extreme racist Nazis carried out mass murder. Extreme socialists(in the form of Stalinists and Maoists)pushed ultra-violent social policies. All those could be said to be the product of radical or extreme ideologies.
But people with normal ideologies can also be led to commit massive violence or resort to extreme violence. They could be un-radical or even anti-radical in thought yet choose a drastic course of action. US and UK did so in WWII, especially in the way they carpet-bombed entire cities. Neither UK nor US was radical; their political systems were democratic, pluralistic, and tolerant(at least relative to communist, nazi, or militarist nations). But they either felt threatened or angry(over attacks on them) and used all means to crush the enemy. Those were extreme or drastic actions in defense of democracy or in outrage over what their enemies had done. If a bunch of hoodlooms tried to invade and do harm to one's family, even a mild-mannered and normal man might be led to do 'anything'--act extreme or drastically--to defend his home and family.
Generally, extreme-drastic actions tend to be defensive whereas extreme-radical actions tend to be aggressive. But the case of the Iraq invasion--and maybe the bombing of Libya--shows non-radical nations can resort to extreme aggressive means to take out regimes deemed as evil. Otoh, some have argued neocons, as former Trotskyites, retain a radical streak in the way they think and see the world, which may explain their aggressive 'radical' foreign policy.
Minus the violence, would Breivik's ideas be radical? Was he led to violence by extreme ideas or by extreme situations? Did he act extreme in the name of normal ideas?
Or, is the answer to be found in psychology? Some people might be psychologically or emotionally extreme regardless of whatever their ideas or values may be. Most atheists don't believe in God and have a live-and-let-live mentality toward the religious. But some, like Dawkins, foam at the mouth over religious people and demean religion as 'child abuse', 'evil', 'insane', etc. It's not radical or extreme to disbelieve in God, but there seems to be something psychologically extreme about Dawkins and his ilk.
This is also true of some mainstream Americans. Many Democrats, who are not communist or radicals, nevertheless get violently impassioned over non-extreme ideas. They call the other side 'terrorists' for not supporting Obama's debt-ceiling deal. And some on the Right, though not radical or Nazi, foam at the mouth about Democrats being a bunch of 'Stalinists' and 'Maoists'. So, people can be psychologically extreme even with normal ideologies or values.
And sometimes, extreme psychology can turn a sane idea into an extreme or radical one. Tolerance for gays was a normal and sane idea(since some people are naturally born gay). But, it turned into radical hysteria, with people opposing 'same sex marriage' demeaned and hounded as 'homophobes'.
"Its interesting that the european MSM is having trouble spinning this thing to their advantage."
One problem is Euro MSM has been telling everyone that privileged white gentiles deserve no sympathy. Sympathy for Jews, blacks, Muslims, gays, etc is all good and necessary. But sympathy for white hetero gentiles? That is so quaint, even 'racist'.
Liberals say 'conservatives are racists', which means conservatives are all a bunch of closet-Nazis. Using this logic, some people might think it'd be morally justifiable to drop bombs on conservatives like US dropped bombs on Dresden.
And if liberals are right, conservatives are 'xenophobes' and suffering from a mental disorder, an irrational fear of wonderful illegal immigrants. Using this logic, conservatives should be locked up in mental wards.
Any idea can be used for radical action.
Yep. check out the comments for Richard Cohen's The Racist Scourge
The first comment is from a Jew who suggests that "racism" should be "cured" with leftoid totalitarianism. A few posts later some broad asserts that racism is illegal. It isn't hard to find rhetoric suggestive of gulags coming from leftoids.
Cohen himself mentions South Africa's speech suppression laws approvingly.
And on a different tack:
The Jews in South Africa tended to view the blacks as a large buffer against their own persecution even as they were more engaged than most in trying to break the system. It’s a grotesque thought, but if you’re busy persecuting tens of millions of blacks you don’t have much time left over for tens of thousands of Jews. This thought did occur to the Jews
I.e., "it's hard to have much time left over for a few million Jews if you're busy dealing with a 150 million immigrants."
It could be a power-trip thing, part of mass-psychosis of self-centered narcissism.
There used to be a time where most people were raised to accept their lot in life. They were small people and raised to be small people.
But new politics and new culture made it possible for everyone to think of himself or herself as special, thereby deserving of power, fame, and influence.
Modern leftism made every young progressive want to be the next Marx, Lenin, Mao, or Che. Your average leftist intellectual wants to be a thinker, leader, or ruler than a simple worker--even though leftism is about helping the common man.
Consumerism has every young guy wishing to be a famous athlete or pop star. It has every young girl wanting to be a famous sexy idol, a popular celebrity, Hollywood queen, etc.
The cult of Obama is the convergence of megalo-intellectualism, narcissistic celebrityism, and power politics.
But 99.99% of people don't become anything special in life. A leftist college student wants to be the new Marx, Chomsky, Che, or Lenin, but he or she has to settle for a teaching position--maybe not even in college but in grammar school. What a bummer. So, how does he or she compensate for such low reality despite the high expectations? Power-mongering, which explains why so many teachers are committed to being ideological with their students and assignments. It's the only way they can feel the power. Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts used to be fun summer camp organizations when I was young. Now, feminists took over Girl Scouts and use it as an ideological training ground. Thus, Girl Scout instructors feel they are part of some great noble struggle for power and justice.
http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=97977
Breivik, though anti-leftist, may share the same kind of over-expectation and its frustratons. He was into violent videogames, hip hop, and intellectual stuff that pumped him up with expectations of big things in life. Both pop culture and modern politics pumped him full of the idea that he's owed greatness in life. Greatness is a right, an entitlement.
But at the age of 32, he found himself to be just another average Norwegian. But he was convinced that he's different, superior, and meant for greater things. So, like Lee Harvey, he turned to violence.
"*extremely* bad things would immediately happen to an awful lot of loudmouth bloggers, some of whom probably deserve it"
So the great, liberty loving RKU shows his true colors.
The number of rightwing bloggers who use "extreme" rhetoric of the sort RKU deplores is dwarfed by the vast horde of leftists who routinely refer to everyone left of center as "Nazis". Who knows? If someone listens to this sort of hysterical rhetorik year after year, he might might conclude that American Jews can only be safe if mass immigration reduces White Americans to minority status, thus pusing the USA "past the tipping point where a Nazi Aryan party can prevail"?
I know it sounds absurd, but isn't there a chance that left-wing rhetorik might possibly influence some weak minded fool to support disatrous mass immigration for specious reasons such as this?
Yep. check out the comments for Richard Cohen's The Racist Scourge
Roger Cohen is an hyperemotional little bitch, fundamentally. That's what it comes down to with these people. "Nothing makes my blood boil like racism" = emotion over reason by a ratio of 10,000:1.
Svigor you should ask Jews like Roger Cohen, by what date should Israel become 15% black, 30% black, 50% etc? We know that racial diversity is an incalculable strength, so obviously it's in Israel's best interests to embark on a program of importing negroids. But let's time-table it, let's show people the schedule so that the people of Israel can better prepare for that glorious day when their country becomes "100% diverse." Again, how many negroids are you going to import and by what date, Mr. Cohen? No more beating around the bush; straight answers only, please.
(You can ask the same thing of anyone, not just Jews (they just tend to be the biggest assholes). Okay, Mr. Rodriguez, diversity is such a great strength etc, so by what date will you make Mexico 20% black? etc.)
- Silver
RKU: As near as I can tell, since the attacks half the chatter on those websites has been "we really, really didn't mean it!!" while the other half has been "great job, Oslo guy!"
Point me to one HBD, anti-Islamic, or "quasi-WN" blog where a poster or non-troll commenter has said "Great job, Oslo guy!".
I won't say there are no examples, but I haven't seen any, even at the likes of Stormfront. (I'm not a regular reader, mind, just checking out the extremists.)
Cennbeorc
Speaking of extremists, Kevin Macdonald's analysis is pretty good, as other commenters have noted. He makes a case for Breivik as a Nordicist and, implicitly, an anti-Semitic (though in denial on the second point). Given Macdonald's own positions, I genuinely admire his intellectual integrity on this.
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/07/anders-breivik-as-a-nordicist/
http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2011/07/breiviks-the-great-satan-his-cult-and-the-jews/
Cennbeorc
Speaking of extremists, Kevin Macdonald's analysis is pretty good, as other commenters have noted. He makes a case for Breivik as a Nordicist and, implicitly, an anti-Semitic
Having read your links, I thought they were pretty lame. MacDonald seems to be engaging in projection.
There's no "implicit" anti-Semitism in being pro-Nordic. Or being pro-Greek, pro-Japanese, or pro-Martian.
K. MacDonald did a pretty adept job at decoding Brevik's views.
It's amusing to see the neo-cons pick this one instance to sing the praises of K-Mac. Of course it's always easy to praise those who tell you what you want to hear, and Jews desperately want to hear that ABB is an anti-Semtite, his comments to the contrary notwithstanding.
Rick, you are right on the money.
And, by the way, it is not rational for Jews to support Muslim immigration into Europe.
Soon, large areas will be no-go zones for Jews. They are already no-go zones for white police.
WTFU.
Anon.
A few things:
People dump on the Jews, but actually, most Orthodox Jews are similar to the native Europeans in their dislike of Muslim immigration. It's the Reform Jews, like European liberals, who support it. The problem is, of course, that Orthodox Jews tend to keep to themselves. (The Lubavitchers are a notable exception... of course, they are precisely the Orthodox Jews that our elites love most.)
Also... I really wonder if Breivik, aside from his mass murdering kids, is really all that unusual for Norwegians. By this I mean, based on personal experience, that I wouldn't be surprised if many Norwegian women are cold-blooded (or at least cool-headed) planners when it comes to getting husbands.
Lastly: I've read an article recently about how support for the Labour Party has indeed shot up to levels last seen over ten years ago. But, I wonder how much of THAT could be attributed to Jens Stoltenberg's urging people NOT to demonize immigration restrictionists as racists and to listen to what they have to say. The increase in support for Labour may simply be Norwegians who would have voted Labour if it were not so pro-immigration coming back into the fold, seeing that Mr. Stoltenberg is acting totally different from the idiots in Sweden who are quick to shout "racist" at everything.
"And, by the way, it is not rational for Jews to support Muslim immigration into Europe.
Soon, large areas will be no-go zones for Jews. They are already no-go zones for white police."
For poor Jews maybe, but how many Jews are poor? Rich people stay in their privileged zone, and that's what most Jews will do.
Post a Comment