Breaking news: Blast hit Norwegian government building in Oslo

Breivik has copied many parts from the Una-bomber manifest:

From the Una-bomber manifest:
One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is leftism, so a discussion of the psychology of leftism can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of modern society in general.

7. But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology

From Anders Behring Breiviks manifest:

One of the most widespread manifestations of the craziness of our world is multiculturalism, so a discussion of the psychology of multiculturalists can serve as an introduction to the discussion of the problems of Western Europe in general.

But what is multiculturalism or Cultural Communism? The movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a cultural Marxist. When we speak of cultural Marxists in this article we have in mind mainly individuals who support multiculturalism; socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists, environmentalists etc.

But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements support multiculturalism. What we are trying to get at in discussing cultural Marxists is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types
 
Correct, and if we give a sign that mass murder is effective way to make ideological thoughts to be heard publicly, we are triggering this to happen again.

maybe you are correct, many doubt the same. I choose to talk, read and try to understand.
 
we are going to the church downtown and help out the Red Cross in any way possible, we know someone who has been working there since yesterday so we will be contributing in any way we can. I won't be on the forums until later. Take care, and thanks for all your support
 
There will be debate about whether this manifesto should be out there, or whether sources should remove it (websites).

I think everyone should be able to read it - reading the words of someone clearly maladjusted (no matter how cogent and intelligently he presents himself) will harden people against extremism as they begin to realize how off the rails that train of thought is. It's the same problem that will keep scientology down - they need people to know about it to keep people coming in and paying, but the more people are aware of it the more people are critical of how crazy it is, the less popular it gets. Extremism is the same. The only people who would be inspired by the manifesto are already maladjusted nutters.

Worse, attempting to remove the manifesto and supressing it from public consumption will give the extremists ammunition as they'll be able to simply claim they are being politically suppressed in the name of multi-culturalism.
 
You have got to be fucking kidding me.. Conservapedia tries to smear the Lamestream Media with this.

"Did a liberal insert the terms "Christian" and "conservative" on a Facebook page about the perpetrator of the Norway massacre, causing the lamestream media to smear conservatism in headlines around the world? The evidence suggests the labels were not genuine: [5]"

I'm tempted to say a ddos would be in order. But I don't believe in that sort of thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: haz
RIP to the victims



I hope Norway will get back to its marvellous normal state soon. This attack should only change the country for the better, if at all: even more diverse people getting along with each other even better than before. That would be the last thing the perpetrator wants.
 
thanks for caring, but it's important for me to know what has happend and how he was thinking, it gives me a broader perspective. I am grown up, have military training and have served NATO also. I am up for taking a mental beating, but thanks again.

You seek for understanding.

But you must learn to accept, that you will not be able to grasp his motives (it will only make you even angrier) and that sometimes trying to understand is wrong. For example when something is so clearly evil, as what Breivik has done.

There mustn't be any kind of understanding to what he did. Nor should his views and opinions become widely spread.

Analyzing his motives publicly does not necessary mean giving a sign that mass murder is an effective way to be heard. We (more exactly, you) can't just forbid to talk, read, print or even think about these things.

Yes but the media has a tendency to over-analyze things and to draw attention to themselves (and the culprit) in order to get more readers or viewers (don't think for a moment, that it is all about "information for the people" anymore).

Anybody remember the Gladbeck hostage-taking, where the media became accomplices to the criminals? Too much attention creates support for the culprit and indirectly helps him justify his deed. And it might convince others to follow in his footsteps.

I have become very sceptical each time journalists are having a field day.
 
Last edited:
They are as insane as the perpetrator, probably/hopefully a bit less violent.

(intentional double post this one time)
I did see some twitter post, that some large US news networks started scaling down the coverage when it appeared that the guilty guy were closer to the Tea Party than Al Quida.

I think it's an improper thing to say. But as a piece of black humor, I did giggle.
 
"Did a liberal insert the terms "Christian" and "conservative" on a Facebook page about the perpetrator of the Norway massacre, causing the lamestream media to smear conservatism in headlines around the world? The evidence suggests the labels were not genuine: [5]"

Funnily enough, they are not that far off about the terms not being genuine. A slaughterman on a killing spree can hardly be defined "christian". Problem is many people claiming to be "christians" do fall in the same category because they are not actually following what Christ was saying (according to a most famous book).

More funnily still, ultra-conservatives trying to veer off attacks against their extremists methods by addressing this problem are willingly ignoring the fact that this guy did indeed consider himself a righteous servant of the christian god, and one with the right to impose this will on other people (as we have all seen, unfortunately), so much that he covered his page in crosses and idiotic references to templars and other "christian" historical events or leaders. They also forget the fact that this guy showed most of the usual ultra-conservative indicators.
 
Last edited:
Why? It's human nature to want to understand, if we stop seeking that we are no longer human.

Of course but like with everything else, understanding can also be overdone. And when it comes to "understanding the motives of a mass murderer", an inner voice starts shouting very loudly "LALALALALAALA" in my head and I simply don't wanna hear or know.

That kind of understanding might be interesting for a psychiatrist but I don't think it should be discussed in public. At least not so shortly after the massacre.

I did see some twitter post, that some large US news networks started scaling down the coverage when it appeared that the guilty guy were closer to the Tea Party than Al Quida.

I think it's an improper thing to say. But as a piece of black humor, I did giggle.

Funny, I had the same thoughts...
 
Last edited:
There mustn't be any kind of understanding to what he did.
I think there may be some language-barrier problems here. I don't think anyone is suggesting we should have understanding or somehow "respect", if I can use that word, his beliefs. That's not what's meant by wanting to understand him. It's more a curiosity about how someone gets so wrong. What is going on inside his head and how is he justifying it to himself.

If the answer is that he is a mentally disturbed psychopath completely lacking empathy, that's still an answer of sorts. If he's not, maybe we as a society can learn something and prevent others from going down the same path.
 
Mac Guffin, please do not tell me what I can not do. Trying to learn is the only way. He was from the same town as me, same age and he bombed my town and set my fellow citizens in great danger and killed over 90 people.
 
Funnily enough, they are not that far off about the terms not being genuine. A slaughterman on a killing spree can hardly be defined "christian". Problem is many people claiming to be "christians" do fall in the same category because they are not actually following what Christ was saying (according to a most famous book).

More funnily still, ultra-conservatives trying to veer off attacks against their extremists methods by addressing this problem are willingly ignoring the fact that this guy did indeed consider himself a righteous servant of the christian god, and one with the right to impose this will on other people (as we have all seen, unfortunately), so much that he covered his page in crosses and idiotic references to templars and other "christian" historical events or leaders. They also forget the fact that this guy showed most of the usual ultra-conservative indicators.
What I find interesting is that if this guy was a muslim, there would be a lot of talk about what responsibility the average muslim had. And how islam was a danger to the west.
 
I think there may be some language-barrier problems here. I don't think anyone is suggesting we should have understanding or somehow "respect", if I can use that word, his beliefs. That's not what's meant by wanting to understand him. It's more a curiosity about how someone gets so wrong. What is going on inside his head and how is he justifying it to himself.

If the answer is that he is a mentally disturbed psychopath completely lacking empathy, that's still an answer of sorts. If he's not, maybe we as a society can learn something and prevent others from going down the same path.

I believe there is no one else to blame for his crimes, than him. It is my understanding, that there is nothing wrong with the Norwegian population at all but psychopaths can grow up anywhere.

Mac Guffin, please do not tell me what I can not do. Trying to learn is the only way. He was from the same town as me, same age and he bombed my town and set my fellow citizens in great danger and killed over 90 people.

I didn't want to hurt your feelings and surely didn't tell you what to do and I definitely can understand your emotions. I was only trying to give you advice to not hurt yourself more and more by digging into the thoughts of that maniac. I'm sorry, if you got me wrong.

In the end it is of course completely up to you, how you deal with the situation and your emotions. But of one thing I am sure: That there is no way to foresee or prevent such acts by determined and deranged individuals, no matter where you live and how well your society works.
 
Last edited:
There will be debate about whether this manifesto should be out there, or whether sources should remove it (websites).

I think everyone should be able to read it - reading the words of someone clearly maladjusted (no matter how cogent and intelligently he presents himself) will harden people against extremism as they begin to realize how off the rails that train of thought is. It's the same problem that will keep scientology down - they need people to know about it to keep people coming in and paying, but the more people are aware of it the more people are critical of how crazy it is, the less popular it gets. Extremism is the same. The only people who would be inspired by the manifesto are already maladjusted nutters.

Worse, attempting to remove the manifesto and supressing it from public consumption will give the extremists ammunition as they'll be able to simply claim they are being politically suppressed in the name of multi-culturalism.
I very much agree, but sadly there is a dilemma. What the current situation is: That kind of manifesto will never get any political/media attention or are outright suppressed BEFORE anything happens. Now, AFTER the mass murder, there is a great interest towards it. Shouldn't it be vice versa? If some extremists know that their views are suppressed until they go for a killing spree (and after what media will love their radical views), I'm afraid that they won't hesitate to go for that. In other and very cruel words, we are now saying that your extremist views have no value until you go and kill people.

You are absolutely right about scientology, but for scientology public debate is open already before anything truly horrible has happened (AFAIK, please do correct if I'm wrong).
 
You seek for understanding.

But you must learn to accept, that you will not be able to grasp his motives (it will only make you even angrier) and that sometimes trying to understand is wrong. For example when something is so clearly evil, as what Breivik has done.

Putting something down to "just evil" is a defeatist attitude, holding your hands up and refusing to try to have any control on the situation. It's like people praying instead of doing things to improve their situation.


an inner voice starts shouting very loudly "LALALALALAALA" in my head and I simply don't wanna hear or know.

I can add that to my list of reasons I think the Norwegians are handling this better than others would. They aren't going "LALALALA", and it's to their credit and will make them a safer country in the long run.
 
I very much agree, but sadly there is a dilemma. What the current situation is: That kind of manifesto will never get any political/media attention or are outright suppressed BEFORE anything happens. Now, AFTER the mass murder, there is a great interest towards it. Shouldn't it be vice versa? If some extremists know that their views are suppressed until they go for a killing spree (and after what media will love their radical views), I'm afraid that they won't hesitate to go for that. In other and very cruel words, we are now saying that your extremist views have no value until you go and kill people.
I think that's impossible. There's so much proverbial mud on the web, that we can't give attention to all of it. There's probably manifestos like this one all over the net in different forms, and most will never amount to anything.
 
Top