Reading Anders Breivik's manifesto

I thought we could have a general political discussion while reading the Olso bomber/shooters 1500 manifesto in this thread.

The 2share manifesto download link was removed, so it was a bit hard to track it down. Hopefully we won't run out of mirrors.

I haven't read more than a few pages right now, but as I'm a LEFTIST anarchist/racist, I find myself disagreeing with the most basic rightwing concept:
What's so fucking special and holy about tradition and european identity? Defending things on the grounds that "it's the way it's always been" is just defending tradition against progress. It's not defending foreign immoralities, because then it would be just about those concrete things - it's defending stupidity in its purest sense. It would be like defending the NES for being "a traditional part of our country" against the Wii, to the point of wanting to ban the Wii.

What I think is important to point out, is that while Anders Breivik was a rightwing extremist, his motives were CHRISTIAN. He didn't see himself as a nazi or a racist. He was fighting the religion of ISLAM, not foreigners.

Quote:
"I am one of many destroyers of cultural Marxism and as such; a hero of Europe, a savior of our people and of European Christendom – by default. A perfect example which should be copied, applauded and celebrated. The Perfect Knight I have always strived to be. A Justiciar Knight is a destroyer of multiculturalism, and as such; a destroyer of evil and a bringer of light. I will know that I did everything I could to stop and reverse the European cultural and demographical genocide and end and reverse the Islamisation of Europe."

I haven't read his manifesto but OP how can you be leftist, anarchist, and racist?

At least one would have to contradict the other no?

Left economically would contradict with economic anarchy
Left socially would contradict with racism

I'm against the inherent oppression of the state, so I'm an anarchist.
I'm against the inherent oppression of the upper class, so I'm leftist.
I'm against the inherent rapes and thefts of the africans, so I'm a racist.
Why do so many people think one has to be rightwing to be against africans? I live in a fucking ghetto. I have more reason to be pissed off about blacks stealing my bikes and raping people, than some guy who's never had to endure them.

>>1
I've not read it either, but the right-wing thinking usually goes something like this:

"Once upon a time" things were so incredibly good it's almost perverse. Then something changed, and it all went to shit.

This is not so much a political view, as a religious one. The "Restoration Of Things As They Were" is mostly the "return of jeebus" rephrased; $OUR_MAN will rise/return and take control, and all will be fine again, as they once were.

When asked when this mythical "good time" was, however, they don't usually have a clear answer, beyond "before $THEY came and ruined everything".


One example: Germany.
Before there was Germany, there was the "Holy Roman Empire", consisting of several German-speaking states. With, among other things, different versions of Christianity.

This Catholic/Protestant divide was what the 30 Year War (1618-1638) was all about. It ravaged much of the HRE, and killed and drove off some 1/4 of its population. And allowed the surrounding grand-powers to use them for their proxy wars, which did nothing good for the German death toll.

(Which is why it is politically impossible for a (unified) German nation to be anything other than secular. Even the 3rd Reich had to be secular. The "Gott Mit Uns" ("God With Us") belt buckles seems to be as far as they could go.)

This, and the disrespect that these German-speaking states had to endure for "not being a proper nation" (along with such cosy little details like the War of 1870, not to mention the Versailles Treaty), have played right into the hands of people like one Mr. Schickelgruber Jr. (better known by the name his father changed it to: Adolf Hitler). Those people felt like they had a lot to avenge, and they were not (all that) wrong, either. (Not that anyone outside (or even in) Germany, ever get to hear most of that...)

But then the NSDAP (with Hitler in charge) got into power. And demonstrated their frail grasp on what exactly had been the "Germany of those good days", or what being German meant in the first place. Not to mention committing all those crimes against humanity, and giving Germany such a bad name.

...fuelling those anti-Germanic Identity sentiments all over the place. Which in turn, fuels the Neo-Nazis. Which, in turn, gives Germanic Identity such a bad name that only Neo-Nazis will ever touch it, giving the Neo-Nazis an effective carte blanche to pervert it further.

(they may have other names for it than "Germanic Identity", though...)



And so, taking pride in something Germanic, now means risking the stain of Nazism. This makes (or at least allows) people to mistake "liking other cultures" with "hating European culture", to the point where one cannot take foreign cultures and ideas (or even religions, like Islam) properly to task for the things they do wrong (like misogyny, homophobia, racism, etc), without being (mis)labelled Neo-Nazi or somesuch.

And do the (crypto)Nazis ever have a field day with that!

"Mr. Schickelgruber Jr. (better known by the name his father changed it to: Adolf Hitler)."
Was this a joke?
Wikipedia: "He was the fourth of six children to Alois Hitler and Klara Pölzl. All of Adolf's older siblings  – Gustav, Ida, and Otto – died before reaching three years of age."

Anders Breivik is pretty much a one man al Qaeda fighting a Jihad: He feels that a foreign religion is taking over his country and that a foreign country (Russia) is taking over his culture, and that nobody is listening to him, so he takes to arms to defend it in the name of God.

>>5
Why do so many people think one has to be right-wing to be against Africans?
You're right, being stupid goes a long way.

The blacks I've met, are most definitely among the human race. Whether or not you can say the same, does not change this fact.

I live in a fucking ghetto. (...)  blacks stealing my bikes and raping people (...)
Doesn't "living in a ghetto" mean, like, "everyone is dirt poor"?

You sound like you're from the US, btw. Ever had the whole goddamd country shit on you, 24-fucking-7, for being born into a certain group? Or have everybody and his dog shit on you even further if you even try to take a somewhat constructive route out? Like, getting a proper education?

Do that long enough, and some of that group will say "Fuck this!" and start doing their own thing (usually crime, cos they're stupid and have no real education). The rest of them now get "now we have a real reason to shit on you", and the Fuck This Crowd grows further. After a while, it reaches critical mass, and the nation can stop shitting on them and the crowd still grows. Now some random hater can go "See? We stop shitting on them and they still do this".
And the fact that the criminals are the minority among blacks, gets to be ignored. The racist now have their "evidence".

This has gone on so long that Yankeeland is now largely beyond rescue.

>>9
When you say that blacks are among the human race, how do you define "human"?

"A ghetto is a section of a city occupied by a group who live there especially because of social, economic, or legal pressure."
This is where foreigners and black people are located to when they ask for apartments. Those who can't afford it typically move out of there when the black people arrive, but we're not THAT poor here.

Yes, people are shitting on black people, but this doesn't explain the inability for black people to respect even eachother (beyond on the most primitive level). If racism would be the cause of black people, then why do black people fuck with EVERYbody? Why do black people steal the bikes of even their closest friends? Why do black people rape every girl who is foolish enough to trust them?

>>7
Follow the Wiki further and you will find his father to have been named Alois Schicklgruber at birth. As an adult, he decided to have it changed to Hiedler. For unknown reasons, this was spelled "Hitler" instead.

>>10
can't afford it = can afford it

>>10
Loud minority is loud.
Loud enough for racist idiots to use them as "evidence" for whatever.

Just cos some blacks are idiots, doesn't mean they all are. Just the ones you bother to notice once you've already made up your mind.

>>11
This doesn't mean that Adolfs father called his son by his own mothers surname, especially if he had taken the name Hitler previous to this.

>>13
If you meet two alligators in your life, you're staying clear of them.

>>15
Everyone who's ever hurt me, have been white. Everyone who's fucked shit up for me, have been white. The bastards that fucked up my childhood cos they could, were also all white.

Not to mention, the maggots that are fucking up my country, are also white.

What should I conclude from this, then?

>>15
face-motherfucking-palm.jpg

"(as he would have been named had his father not FIRST, BEFORE HE WAS EVEN FUCKING BORN, changed it to Hitler"

There you go. Happy now?

>>17
linkfail
s/>>15/>>14/

>>16
All races can be dicks to eachother, but it takes a non-african to possess human intelligence needed to respect other people. Other races KNOW when they hurt people. Africans don't. Africans know that if they say it wasn't them who their grilfriend saw with that other chick, they're getting pussy. That's all they know.
They can talk, but what words they say is chosen the same way that parrots choose words: They know what will get a reaction from the listener. They don't understand the difference between truth and lie. They'll go "No it wasn't me who stole your bike, honest!" even if they're carrying said bike, because they don't understand what they're saying.

Anyway, back to the manifesto. Here's a (verified) quote that I picked up from /b/, concerning what Breivik thinks of nazism:

"Q: Considering the fact that you may be willing to fight alongside so called neo-Nazis against cultural Marxists under extreme circumstances, doesn’t that make you a neo-Nazi or a neo-Nazi sympathiser?

A: First of all, I don’t consider 70-80% of so called neo-Nazis to be actual Nazis, but rather misguided individuals. I believe many of these youngsters have made an unfortunate mistake by being drawn to the Nazi symbols due to lack of alternatives and because it is the strongest and most well known anti-Marxist banner. But I don’t believe the majority of so called neo-Nazis really support the slaughtering and genocide of all Jews, a one party state and an imperialistic policy of conquest. I believe they are just bewildered nationalists in search for uniting factors. In their frustration they have chosen the most despicable banner available as a way of saying a big “fuck you” to the current establishment. But I am well aware that 20-30% of them really hates Jews and support most aspects of national-socialism. This shouldn’t be tolerated and we shouldn’t sympathise with them whatsoever. Driven by their Jew hate, these Nazis are willing to take side with Muslims in order to accomplish their goals. They are absolutely blinded by this hate."

According to news sources, parts of Breiviks manifesto is copied from the Unabombers manifesto, but changed from leftwing to rightwing. I don't know to what extent. Breivik acknowledges that he has copied parts of the manifesto from other sources.

>>19
Also, none of the blacks I've ever met, are American. Maybe that's why they're all smarter than you (as if that's saying something). If yours really are as dumb as you describe, it'll be cos they're Yankees.

And just for the record: I don't actually hate Americans (except when I have to listen to ppl like you), it's just that 9+ out of 10 facepalms are cos of you guys.

And that's all I have to say to you.

Having read to page 14 (out of 1500) I've reached the point where he talks about the evils of "marxist" political correctness. It's funny, because while I agree that political correctness appoint victim groups like it was a religion, tradition (that he has appointed as the opposite) is even more blind: Its aim is to just stop thinking, because any new thought would be changing the old traditional thought patterns.

One of the points he brings up is homosexuality being politically correct now. This I very much understand why he as a christian hates, because no matter how you try to rewrite the meaning of biblical passages, the Bible says that God hates, and even wants people to kill, homosexuals. I don't agree with him, but God is very clear on this matter. Still, it is not "traditional" to believe in the whole Bible as a christian. It is merely sane. Changing the passages in the Bible is, at least to a true believing christian, not about revisioning things or reinventing it, but blasphemy in the purest sense. It is going against God, not tradition.

>>2
"As for the Church and science, it is essential that science takes an undisputed precedence over biblical teachings. Europe has always been the cradle of science and it must always continue to be that way.

"Regarding my personal relationship with God, I guess I’m not an excessively religious man. I am first and foremost a man of logic. However, I am a supporter of a monocultural Christian Europe."

>>22
I'm not an american. I hate Bush too. If we would be playing Battleships right now, that would be a complete and utter miss.

>>24
Science and christianity has gone together well during history, the church standing behind much research, so the two are certainly not incompatible, if that's what you're aiming at.

Quote:
"Above all, those who would defy Political Correctness must behave according to the old rules of our culture, not the new rules the cultural Marxists lay down. Ladies should be wives and homemakers, not cops or soldiers, and men should still hold doors open for ladies. Children should not be born out of wedlock. Glorification of homosexuality should be shunned. Jurors should not accept Islam as an excuse for murder."

>>26
No, my point was that his motives were not Christian as >>2 suggested. There were cultural.

>>25
Not American, eh? So, you don't even have that excuse?

>>28
That doesn't make sense. You can't have purely cultural motives, because that culture must have a theme. In Breiviks case, while he probably put science and logic first, he wanted a traditionally christian culture. He fought for christian values against Islam and the marxist political correctness that allowed it.

>>29
You look stupid, you... ...stupid you.
Whatcha gonna say, huh?
Come at me, bro!
I bet I made you mad, huh?
Well, well, your MOMMA.
Yeah, that's right, I said "Your MOMMA.".
Now whatcha gonna do about it, huh?
I bet we're gonna see some real shit now, aren't we?
We'll come at me, bro.
I ain't scared of you.
You on MY turf now.

At page 24 now.
It seems the most grave error that Breivik is making, is that he portrays marxism's intolerance as a much bigger monster than the "liberal" conservativism. He fails to see that the traditionalism that he wants to reinstate, is just as much of a monster, that will impose its values on people just as much. Right now he's imploring for liberalism and tolerance because his side is not in power, but he's not a champion of tolerance in itself. His problem with tolerance is that it's not HIS values being tolerated. The marxism's tolerance of ITS values, is something he can't stand. He wrote 1500 pages, and so far he's not presented any thought on why he's not one of a million common ideologists (which is also something he hates, by the way).

>>31
Trolling match, eh?
Oh look, the sun's up.

Guy is fucking delusional and crazy.
I would not put too much tought into his ideologies, especially considering most of his rethoric is copied from the Unabomber.
He is not some insane genius, just insane.

He believes he is part of a secret order of templar knights whos mission is to liberate Europe from a Marxist-Islamic alliance (who is trying to eliminate European culture).
In his text he talks about killing millions (he even mentions biological, chemical and nuclear weapons if he had the resources to aquire them) until the western governments surrender.

If you support homosexual relationships, gender equality, enviromental protection, animal rights, multiculture and a whole range of other things then he would classify you as a Marxist and a traitor and would have no problem killing you in cold blod.

>>34
When you say that most of his rethoric is copied from the Unabomber, which parts do you mean?

I think he's pretty genius if he managed to kill that many people, not to mention fanatically determined. He wrote and copied 1500 pages of this, so he had 9 years to think these things through, and not arrive at anything better than to kill people, so if he's "just" insane, then that's worth reading too.

He WAS part of an actual secret templar knight order, but him appointing himself justicar was most likely all him.

>>33
I guess you turned to stone then.

This guy makes pretty accurate observations, and then loads those observations onto a totally fucked up ideology train and lets it steam away out of control.

I can buy that marxism invented a political system for critique against traditional society, and that that has spawned many horribly insane ideas. However, this doesn't mean that nothing good can come of criticizing society, or that traditional society was all good.

I can buy that todays society is being oppressed by what's essentially moralfags, but what moralfags are preaching is INtolerance, not tolerance. They have no pretense about them persecuting people - these moralfags are really bloodthirsty bastards and they know it.

I'm not quite buying that "cultural relativism" is something bad to learn in schools, or that it's required learning over native history. That's where I typically disagree with the guy: He has no shame what-so-ever when it comes to fanatically worshipping traditional things.

Would he be a more reasonable man, he would have talked about how critical thinking mostly led to bad things, that schools are not as tolerant as they think they are, and are making tolerant subjects so mandatory that it puts native history at a loss.

Not this guy. Basically if a tree bares any bad fruit, the whole tree has to come down. This guy is clearly educated and clever, and still manages to pride himself on his narrowmindedness.

>>35
http://www.document.no/2011/07/behring-breivik-kopierte-una-bomberen/
Here are some specific sections he copied, replacing leftist with cultural marxist and black people with muslim.
Basically any part where his english is good and he sounds highly educated, its the Unabombers words, not his.

Also his templar knight order was just 10 people meeting up in London and while he claims those people where important businessmen and politicians but judging by his delusions of grandeur I bet the people he met up with there are just as big nobodies as he is.

Killing teenagers at a youth camp in one of the most open countries in the world is hardly an achievement (there actually was a policeman present at the event for security, but he was unarmed, he got killed).
The only thing he has going for him is his fanatical devotion and thoroughness.

I'd say he is a crazy meglomaniac that thinks he is a freedom fighter figthing a 60 year old Marxist conspiracy.
His perception of reality is "different" to use his lawyers words.

>>5
>I'm against the inherent oppression of the state, so I'm an anarchist.
An anarchist is one who wants no state
>I'm against the inherent oppression of the upper class, so I'm leftist.
A leftist is against class division. I hope you mean the oppression BY the upper class.
>I'm against the inherent rapes and thefts of the africans, so I'm a racist.
This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on newpol for a while. Race doesn't make someone a thief or a rapist, but this post probably makes me in to a fool for trying to reason with a racist - one who has already forgone reason for an easy solution with an us vs them mindset based on phony and discredited biology.

>>38
>>Here are some specific sections he copied, replacing leftist with cultural marxist and black people with muslim.
>>Basically any part where his english is good and he sounds highly educated, its the Unabombers words, not his.

Thank you. It seems they had quite a few things in common.


>>Also his templar knight order was just 10 people meeting up in London and while he claims those people where important businessmen and politicians but judging by his delusions of grandeur I bet the people he met up with there are just as big nobodies as he is.

You're describing a typical templar knight order, except that I know for a fact that there's at least some upper class members too. Think of the templar knights as a non-violent secret fundamental christian mens club.


>>Killing teenagers at a youth camp in one of the most open countries in the world is hardly an achievement (there actually was a policeman present at the event for security, but he was unarmed, he got killed).
>>The only thing he has going for him is his fanatical devotion and thoroughness.

This devotion earned him a well deserved gold medal in the killing spree league, by killing THREE TIMES as many people as Cho managed to in the Virginia Tech massacre. He managed to assemble explosives within just a few days, with no previous chemistry experience. Appaling or not, in my eyes he's at least a genius.


>I'd say he is a crazy meglomaniac that thinks he is a freedom fighter figthing a 60 year old Marxist conspiracy.

No, he wasn't certainly not a megalomaniac. You're just mad. He certainly knew his limitations, and on occation had low self-esteem.
Yes, he is a freedom fighter, no matter what freedom he had defined, and yes, there really is a heavy moralfag corruption going on in western society, that he is shedding light on. His main enemy was not marxism, though, but islam, that would come and seize Europe once it had been rendered defenseless by marxism corruption.


>His perception of reality is "different" to use his lawyers words.

I agree with about 50% of what he's saying at this point. Especially the part about feminism.

>>39
>>>I'm against the inherent oppression of the state, so I'm an anarchist.
>>An anarchist is one who wants no state

That's what I said. However, I count people who wants "LESS of a state" as anarchists as well.

>>>I'm against the inherent oppression of the upper class, so I'm leftist.
>>A leftist is against class division. I hope you mean the oppression BY the upper class.

Again, that's what I said.

>>>I'm against the inherent rapes and thefts of the africans, so I'm a racist.
>>This is the most ridiculous thing I've seen on newpol for a while. Race doesn't make someone a thief or a rapist, but this post probably makes me in to a fool for trying to reason with a racist - one who has already forgone reason for an easy solution with an us vs them mindset based on phony and discredited biology.

...and you say you've never seen this on newpol before???

It says here in his manifesto that Anders Breivik expects to be DEAD within 12 months, as some chemicals he dealt with can be very cancerous. Otherwise he would have been out again after just 21 years or less.

>>36
Hardly. I have this thing called "a life". Ever tried it?

>>43
I see that being a troll here is part of your life.

>>30
There's a distinct difference between fighting for Christianity and fighting for Christian cultural traditions. He was not a fundamentalist Christian fighting out of religious motives - he was fighting to preserve his culture.

>>45
When ones culture stands for banning contraceptives, abortions, children outside wedlock and so on, it's conservative christian culture.

>>45
He even prayed to God to help him while he was making the bombs, to help keep his warrior alive in the fight against islam.

You can find the torrent to 2083: A European Declaration of Independence on PirateBay.

>>44
Very small one, if anything. And you?

>>49
"A very small one" where you waste time bickering with random people over off-topic things. Over 90 people have been murdered for a revolution against islam, but somehow this doesn't concern you in any way. You would rather call me stupid. I think you have nothing better to do than to hang here all day, talking shit.

For those who want to read his thoughts on Islam, he starts bringing it up for the first time on page 39. (I had to read through the whole history of the marxist conspiracy before this.)

In short, he says that historians falsified history by downplaying how (quote) "evil" and bloodthirsty the muslims were, while the christian crusades was merely a "defensive campaign not offensive". You have to be a very dedicated historian to check what's true here, but knowing that Breivik was involved in a templar cult, my guess is that he was essentially brainwashed by it into believing this. It could even be that the templars did like Charles Manson did, and brainwashed him into their tool, while staying clean themselves. It's hard to say, but very much worth looking into. (Yet, I think it was this order that the police recently raided, without charging anyone.)

>>5
>Against upper class
There will always be classes, deal with it.
Even if its just the majority vs minority.

>>53
...and you call yourself an anarchist with that attitude?

I'm on page 44.
I'm reading lists and lists of government programs to build relations between the western nations and islam, but I think his manifesto is very hollow without him describing what actually MAKES islam evil. Do you have to be a devout christian to take his words even remotely seriously?
Yes, there's been holy wars and probably genocides somewhere in history, but looking at christianity, it has changed considerably. What's missing is him bringing up some passages in the Quran and claim that these are very much practiced by the MAJORITY of all MODERN muslims, and he needs to do this in the very beginning of his manifesto.

He's a pro-Israel, homosexual-supporting, free market-supporting faggot. He's everything white nationalism is not.

>>54
Im against the state which is the basic definition of Anarchy, most left anarchists think otherwise but i could care less if they're anti Capitalism.

>>56

White nationalism isn't neo-nazism. White nationalism is supposedly 'racialist,' meaning they want a white only country for self-determination. That's all it is. Nothing about white nationalism implies hatred of homosexuals, jews, or capitalism. If anything, they're retardedly pro-capitalism.

Granted, most white nationalists DO run on hate and fear (especially xenophobia), but white nationalism itself isn't necessarily nazism.

Got a link to the manifesto?
All I get outa google is how evil it is
along with interpretations of what is
said in it. I want to read it for myself,
to judge whether I agree or disagree with
his points of view.

>>56
He's a what now?
Lying troll is obvious.

>>57
Really? You're wasting time trying to prove yourself more of an anarchist than me?

>>59
You could just search on the name "2083 - A European Declaration of Independence". The download at Pirate Bay has already been suggested, but there could be direct downloads as well. You could also use the direct quotes written here to locate if the entire manifesto is written on the net somewhere (but as it also contains detailed instructions on how to make bombs and do terrorism, don't count on that last option).

>>50
Projection much?

>>61
Go fuck yourself, troll. Bye-bye.

Page 46.
I think we're getting to the core of Breivik's beef with islam now:

Quote:
"What is called fundamentalism or Wahhabism is in fact the original Islam, as is proven by the fact that fundamentalists have existed since long before colonialism"

Say what? In what religion did the fundamentalists not come first?
While I don't think islam is a tame religion by any means *in the middle east*, at this point I'm thinking he assumes that the muslims are as fundamentalistic based on him being fundamentalistic about christianity.

I also think he's overlooking how atheism can be a strength. If marxism would somehow manage to destroy christianity and stuff, atheists will still protest if muslims would start weird things over here.

I have the manifest if any wants it

>>60
>More Anarchist
Whats that even supposed to mean? All im saying is that Ananrchy or "Anti-Statism" has many tenets to it and An Caps get flak for supporting free markets when they still follow the basic definition of being against the state.

>>62
So I'm the troll, now?
Interesting, since it's not me that started spouting racist bullshit on the thread. Nor was it me that had only more racism to come up with in the face of actual arguments.

Although I do have trouble resisting the urge to call down racist morons for the idiots they are, especially when all they can think to respond to criticism with, is blind denial and rabid name-calling.

people have been murdered
by a racist fuckface that couldn't even get his priorities straight. Which pisses me off royally for several reasons. So when another racist fuckface rears his ugly head here, I call him down for it.

And now more name-calling. First you make me feel I'm being trolled, then you're calling me a troll. That's textbook chutzpah.


And that is all I have to say to you.
Now fuck off.

>>66

There's no such thing as trolls. Trolling was a myth invented by the Soviet Union in 1983 to trick the Americans into spending tens of millions of dollars investing in troll-proofing their arguments and diplomatic efforts. A troll and an idiot are identical, because no matter how ironic a person thinks they were being, that only affects their own perception of the argument.

In other words, the stated argument is either good or it's retarded. If it's good, and you agree with it, let the poster know. If it's good and you disagree with it, then refute it. If it's retarded, ignore it. The problem isn't trolls, it's those who feed them.

Good posts generally get ignored, while the retarded 'trolling,' gets all the attention and replies. If you don't want to get dragged down into it, then don't fucking feed them.

>>59
On his Wiki page, I found this link:
http://unitednations.ispnw.org/archives/breivik-manifesto-2011.pdf

Does anyone have a mirror of his youtube video? It's taken down, which now makes it mandatory viewing for me.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQOfH8Dj1mw)

http://www.twitvid.com/EXJWW

The video. It's nothing special.

At Page 50.
I think I've arrived at the conclusion that Breivik is nuts at this point.

Apart from him going on and on about how there's a marxist-islamistic conspiracy instead of bringing up actual quotes from the Quran and its inplementation on todays society, islam is evil PER DEFINITION for him. If it's doing evil things, then it's showing its natural true self, but when it's doing good things, then this is suddenly a falsification and a deception, and there's a LOT of "deception" he brings up. Just listen to this.

Quote:
"Many nominal Muslims have outgrown Islamic values and developed a commitment to modern values, but their sentimental attachment to the religion imbibed in their childhood prevents them from formally breaking with Islam and makes them paint a rosy picture of it.

Among Muslim spokesmen, is certainly not the fundamentalists who are the most active proponents of negationism. It is liberals like Asghar Ali Engineer who deny that Islam ordains war on the infidels. It is those who are acclaimed by Europeans as being good "secular" Muslims. An Islam that wants to be secular cannot be and is therefore dishonest and untrue to itself. Unfortunately, a tolerant Islam is a contradiction, and the “creation” of a tolerant past for Islam to appease the position of liberal Muslims, is a lie."

I repeat:
"An Islam that wants to be secular cannot be and is therefore dishonest and untrue to itself. Unfortunately, a tolerant Islam is a contradiction, ..."

His own religion christianity has COMPLETELY broken its back while bending over backwards trying to become a peaceful religion, but Breiviks wishful thinking is that religion will always stay traditional. Personally I really wish it could, but that's not the case in the real world. Not for immigrants coming to the western countries.

When I wished for Breivik to detail his views on islam, I expected him to do so without just copying other sources. The final pages of "Book 1" (apparently out of 3) (page 51 to 278) provides numerous articles on why islam would be despicable and evil, but are from various other sources.
This does of course diminish the value of this (at first glace impressive) 1518 page long document, but can give us an idea about what (I'm assuming) he read. Personally I'm skipping it. (It's not written by people possession conviction enough to kill, so I'm not trusting their words.)

Book 2 - "Europe Burning" - begins on page 280. Of course, that it begins with yet another article written by Fjordman (that I think is someone he met at the norwegian site "Document.no", judging by the comments that Breivik posted there) gives the impression that this whole thing is more of a compendium of likeminded views, than a one person manifesto.

Book 3 starts on page 766, with a two page long legal disclaimer stating that the whole book, as well as parts of the previous book 2, is entirely FICTIOUS, and that it's written as a theoretical scenario by a sci-fi enthusiast. There's probably some legal reasons that Breivik wanted to get around when he tried(?) to publish the books, but it looks really insincere as part of a manifesto.

I found that not only does Breivik copy things from other sources, but on page 781 (book 3) he has copied sections from page 40 (book 1) in his own work.

Page 809 contains new rules for all muslims living in Europe (after the christian revolution has come, as led by the Templar Knights (PCCTS or "Pauperes commilitones Christi Templique Solomonici")), in short:

1. Convert to Christianity (Orthodox, Catholic or Protestant).
2. Name change (to a christian/european name)
3. Strictly prohibited to practice your ”mother tongue” or Arabic (The exception is people trying to learn english.)
4. All mosques and Islamic centers will be demolished or converted.
5. All Islamic and/or Arab-style or equivalent buildings/artwork will be demolished or modified (All traces of Islamic culture in Europe will be eradicated, even locations considered historical.)
6. Attempts to celebrate Islamic holidays, exercise or portray Sharia/Islamic codes/markers is strictly prohibited (This includes all cultural related rituals, dress codes, Islamic religious or cultural circumcisions, Islamic preparation of food, the use of any Muslim flag or identification (crescent moon), religious or cultural markings.)
7. Measures taken against attempts of demographic warfare (They can't have more than 2 children.)
8. Correspondence (electronically, telephonic etc.) with other Muslims (including ones family) abroad is strictly prohibited
9. All travel to Muslim countries/territories or to any country where Muslims make out more than 20% of the population is strictly prohibited

What he's essentially claiming here, is that the Templar Knights (which is a real organisation, of which I believe he was a member) is the new christian al Qaeda.

Concerning if Breivik had any moral intentions behind his attack, quote:
"In many ways, morality has lost its meaning in our struggle. The question of good and evil is reduced to one simple choice. For every free patriotic European, only one choice remains: Survive or perish."

As a traditionalist christian, he so fanatic that he thinks he will perish if christianity is marginalized any more, and the only thing he's satisfied with, is traditional christian european dominion, at any cost.

I have never heard a more fanatical preacher in my life. I would call him Bin Laden, but then Bin Laden wasn't the actual leader of al Qaeda, and there's a chance that he trumphs even al Qaeda in fanaticism.

Quote:
"Self-financed and self-indoctrinated single individual attack cells, is the backbone of the Knights Templar Europe. The importance of the ability for single cell commanders to be able to keep their spirits and morale up through self-indoctrination and motivation by using specific motivational techniques has been stressed on multiple occasions."

Unless Breivik is completely imagining the Knights Templar being (or having become) a secret terror organization, europeans may have a big problem on their hands.

Anonimous wrote:  "What's so fucking special and holy about tradition and european identity? Defending things on the grounds that "it's the way it's always been" is just defending tradition against progress."

---------------------

Actually european tradition (secular democracy based on Christian background that Breivik wants to protect) facilitates for progress, while Islam (brought to Europe with massive immigration) will ruin this  European tradition that is facilitating for progress and will  bring 100% reverse to progress and will establish middle ages' traditions  with sharia dictatorship... - thats is essential thought of Breivik's manifesto...Ofcource I condemn his methods and murders, but I consider him 100% correct in his analyses of situation in Europe today and blaiming it on ruling elites.

>>78
This may depend of your country, but the traditions that Breivik complains about being destroyed, are only christian values, and have so far mostly been destroyed to give way for flexible democratic rights.
Also, I'll dismiss your claims about islam as a political threat to democracy as paranoid delusions, until I see any western country starting to actually employ islamistic rules.
I also thought >>75 made it perfectly clear that his intended traditional christian rule would be more horrible and oppressive than even sharia laws.

Anonymous wrote:  "I'll dismiss your claims about islam as a political threat to democracy as paranoid delusions, until I see any western country starting to actually employ islamistic rules.
I also thought >>75 made it perfectly clear that his intended traditional christian rule would be more horrible and oppressive than even sharia laws."

-----------------------

Employing individual muslims in the Government (or even as rulers) may not show as for a while they will  not be that strict (to win time till muslim majority  help them to show their real face) - it is demographic majority of muslims that will show, not individual muslims in the government amid non-muslim majority. As for his personal "traditional christioan rule" as  oppressive one - ofcource it would be opressive, don't you forget that he is a mass-murderer after all - I am not talking about Breivik as a ruler (especially that I condemn his terrorist act) - I am talking about his analysis of nature of Islam and situation in Europe where political elites facilitate for muslim immigration and appeasement (that is surrender of  democratic values to Islam - like some parts of cities that were calm and safe 20 years ago,  are now already controlled by muslim gangs that collect jizya from weak european teens and police can do nothing  about that ...)

This guy is more like one of Osama bin Laden's followers than Osama bin Laden. The only reason you are trying to pass him off as inherently worse than any other crazy motherfucker is because it is fashionable for american teenagers to mock christianity and racism.

>>80
>>Employing individual muslims in the Government (or even as rulers) may not show as for a while they will  not be that strict (to win time till muslim majority  help them to show their real face) - it is demographic majority of muslims that will show, not individual muslims in the government amid non-muslim majority.

This "demographic warfare" scenario has no basis in real life. It is a paranoid delusion. Its possibility is also kept in check with strict immigration laws pretty much only granting asylum for people risking torture or death in their homeland. This is pretty much like saying there's skinriding martians bent of demographic warfare all around us.

I hear muslim criminal gangs are becoming a problem in some parts of cities, though, and the cause is that politicians have created "ghetto cities" with a high concentration of foreigners, not because they want to surrender democratic values to islam, but because of poor and stupid immigration politics. In fact, what Breivik is complaining about, is that his religious values aren't being imposed one anyone anymore. The same goes for values of any religion, but he thinks that we're defenseless against islam without christian values and God to protect us.

>>81
Why I'm not comparing Breivik to Bin Laden or his followers, is because of three things:
1. Bin Laden had personal reasons behind his struggle: America tried to hunt him down and kill him prior to the 9/11 attacks. Him declaring war on America was a desperate move in order to stop personal attacks on him. Unlike the rest of al Qaeda, he wasn't actually fighting for islam or its values.
2. There is no proof that Bin Laden has involved in the 9/11 attacks. All America is actually saying, is that he was one of the most wanted people at the time of those attacks. 9/11 could have been done by disgruntled post-office workers for all we know. Having declared war on America is far from evidence, and if it's something terror groups love to do, is to hint that they've responsible for something they didn't do. This also "happened" in the case of the Oslo bombings. (Someone made some loose threat on a forum similar to an islamistic 4chan - woo.)
3. If Breivik was like Bin Laden, he would have done these terror attacks in islamic countries. The difference between Bin Laden and al Qaeda is that al Qaeda did attacks against their own government - basically they were a fundamentalist religious gang which Bin Laden helped arm.

anonymous wrote:  "traditions that Breivik complains about being destroyed, are only christian values, and have so far mostly been destroyed to give way for flexible democratic rights.

----------------

that is because Christianity permits secularism (and so democracy) - so it permits even its own traditions to be partly destroyed - we do know that Jesus said; "Give to the God what belongs to the God and give to the Caeser (state) what belong to the Caeser(state)"- that is why  in Christian tradition separation of  the Church and State is possible, also Jesus did say "Don't juje and you'll not be jujed"....Totally different in Islam where the Sraria  should rule the state,politics, judiciary, life, marriage, dress code - everything and where it is obligation of  every muslim to juje (and punish) any discent from sharia as according to Quran if a muslim don't punish another person for "sin" against Islam, then this "sin" is on the person who have not punished it (as well as on the "sinner") and BOTH will be kept responsible by the Allah - all that results in  traditionally Christian societies to "produce" democracies with mild religious influence, but  traditional muslim societies to produce dictatorships and even theocracies with harsh religious indoctrination and behaviour control....So it is up to you to make your choice. (but looks like in Europe rulling elites have already made  its choice in favour of islam if they boost muslim influx to Europe, what do you think?). Having said all the  above I insist again that terrorist acts and musder should be CONDEMNED !!!

*  "judge" ofcource, not "juje" (in my  above post) - sorry for grammar - English is not my first language

>>83
It's weird how some christians seem to think that christianity is the very foundation for society, and that democracy is born out of it, but I guess that for some people that is the case. I shouldn't underestimate the number of braindamaged people who can't think critically, and who will seek the closest church for guidance whether or not it promotes sharia laws or not. However, I think these slaveminded people are better locked up in insane asylums. Democracy was never for these morons, so in a way, the biggest threat to christianity is not islam, but democracy itself, presenting people with choice instead of telling them what they must think. Maybe we could erect atheist churches, but we already have the law and police stations for that.

>>83
Christianity permits secularism (and so democracy)
For way too many centuries, it didn't. Check places like Byzantium, or phrases like "by the Grace of God", "divine right" etc.

Basically, the power needed for secular rule, had to be wrestled away from the churches and their allies. This took time and effort (and, in some cases, blood).

Also, Germanic (pre-Christian) tribes had long, well-established traditions for being democratic. To this day, the Scandinavian government assemblies have names with þing/ting/thing, in remembrance of this.

you do know yourself  that in  countries with christian traditions (with christian traditions not supressed by commies) - there have always been much more democratic choice as even all Latin American dictatorships finally embraced democracy.In countries with muslim traditions even formal democracy (like in Iran or Indinesia or Turkey) voting and elections doesn't bring liberties in everyday life, no rights to minorities or women etc...(and I have explained with examples from doctrines of both Islam and Christianity the reason for that) - Breivik is hardly a christian fundamentalist - he claim that even atheists who support christian culture are OK for him...You simply don't understand that such things as a choice wether to believe in God or not or to change your religion is also Christiann tradition as Jesus never forced religion on people and said "you don't judge" - in muslim tradition you have to be executed if you renegate from Islam and if you have never been a muslim and refuse to accept Islam, then your political and economic rights are significally limited in comparison to muslims in muslim country as you are "kafir" by their definition and treated like second grade person (special taxes, prohibition for some job position, no right to bear arms, obligation to give way to a muslim in any situation when there is no opportunity to pass each other - be that  a narrow road and you are in a car or one seat in a bus for which both you and a muslim want to occupy etc.etc.etc.)

Also, Germanic (pre-Christian) tribes had long, well-established traditions for being democratic.

---------------

they (pre Christian tribes) could democratically decide to chop your head if suspect you in politically  disloyalty - hehe! - I am not impressed with such democracy, sorry...Christianity was at times perverted (like Inquisition for example or despothy not opposed by Christian love and forgiveness), but those were perversions as it contradicted to New Testament's covenant of Love and freedom (remember - "don't judje")...in contrast to that in Islam ther doctrine of Quran demands shariat to be installed as norm of life, politics, judiciary and government (with all the stoning and beheadings and death for apostasy from Islam etc.etc.), not the last role is played in Islam by muslim doctrine that makes it a religious obligation for every muslim to judje and punish "sinners"....Again - make your choice...even if you want to be an atheist - think in which culture it will be more safe for you to be one.

>>88
could democratically decide to chop your head if suspect you in politically disloyalty
Being Norwegian, I'm most familiar with how Vikings practised this;
They had no death penalty as such, but they could withdraw legal protection from anyone who wanted to kill you. Technically this was seen as expulsion/deportation (you had to leave the jurisdiction for a set time; from a year to forever), not really very different from the (pre-Christian) Greek practice of ostracism.

But to get this done, they'd have to find you guilty of an actual crime. Like murder.

Not to mention how everyone (well, every land-owning man) was equal in power (one man one vote, etc), so there wasn't much to be "disloyal" to.

thank you, Anonymous, for this historical information. It was nice to talk to you - I hope that my opinions expressed here will also contribute to the "picture of the world" looking at which you shape your own views...

In short, this is Europe today:
Atheism 100 awesomeness points.
Christianity 30 awesomeness points.
Islam 20 awesomeness points.
Yet christian fanatics think they're going to save Europe by tearing down atheistic rule.
You're not fantastic just because you're not as bloodthirsty as the worst depiction of islam that you can come up with. You're shit, and you're ACTUALLY upset for the same reasons al Qaeda is upset: That you don't get to rule anyone else. That the world has moved on and left you no role in society anymore.

There is a chance that Breiviks manifesto is actually a deception itself, simply aimed at creating tension between christians and muslims.
The actual manifesto part of his manifesto, is partly copied from the UNA bomber, and the UNA bomber had this to say about how to change the world:
"In a general way, I think what has to be done is not to try and convince or persuade the majority of people that we are right, as much as try to increase tensions in society to the point where things start to break down. To create a situation where people get uncomfortable enough that they’re going to rebel. So the question is how do you increase those tensions?"
It doesn't say for how long Breivik has been a freemason on Wikipedia, but this is only one group of many which he has associated himself with while decieving them into believing he shared their ideology, during the nine years he planned this. He could even hate christians and think that the way to destroy them would be to pit them against the muslims. Honesty is severely lacking with this man.

There are some contradictions in the beliefs he portrays, that support that the manifesto is actually a deception.
In the manifesto part, he lists these things as the "horrible" things the "Marxists" did:
"A few examples include collaboration by allowing the marketing and propagating the excessive distribution of contraceptive pills to European women, by allowing 500 000 annual abortions"
It would seem here that he is against birth control and abortion - something that many people against these things sees as serious as murder.
Yet, when he describes the new world order, the church is given a lot of power, with the exception of some things, including "all areas relating to procreation/birth/fertility policies and related issues of scientific importance (reprogenetics)".
It seems Breivik can't keep track of his own convictions, something that he as a proclaimed fanatic surely would, if they were honest.

Seeing how the news coverage has already started portraying Islam-sceptics as if they're all nothing but crypto-fascists every last one of them, I'd say any deception would be in order to kick-start precisely this witch-hunt...

The guys a conservative (border-lining reactionary.), how blind do you have to be not to see that?

>>95
He could just as well be an anarchist PRETENDING to be a conservative. What we know is only this: He wanted to sacrifice his life to kill people for SOME end, he wants to incite a civil war for SOME reason, he's often deceitful and scheming so he's not trustworthy, and his manifesto is made up of contradictions and third party sources. Further both his parents are leftwing.

For a more obvious example of somebody playing a strawman in support of Breivik, Anjem Choudary was a well known pothead who screwed around and sinned in every way possible, until he suddenly "converted" to islam. Now he's putting up stickers everywhere, declaring parts of UK "sharia law zomes":
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019547/Anjem-Choudary-Islamic-extremists-set-Sharia-law-zones-UK-cities.html
Of course neonazis aren't really known for checking their sources, so I bet that these guys will get results.

I'm now beginning to hear claims from the nazi scum that Breivik was jewish. Looking through his manifesto, we find that while he is not jewish himself, he has nothing against jews, which is not at all surprising, as christianity has jewish roots, and Israel is 100% dedicated to invading muslim territory through the Gaza strip, which makes them an ally.
However, for someone who's afraid that other religions will take over Europe, it's weird to find that he will hand the brainwashing school (his version of the Frankfurt school that he so loudly hated in the beginning of the manifest) of his new order over to the jews (and I guess expect them NOT to teach the children judaism over christianity):
"The ideological platform advocates a strict anti-Jihad/Islamic stance which indirectly establishes a default friendly stance and support to Israel as an integral part of its fundament."
Not catholic Rome, but jew-ruled Israel. (I'm not exaggerating when I say jew-ruled. Declaring at least service to the jewish religion is now a mandatory part of israelic citizenship.)

Other nazi claims are more ridiculous, though: They claim he's pro-homosexual.
Qoute from the manifesto:
"Glorification of homosexuality should be shunned."

Here's an idea: What if Breivik would have assmbled the bomb, drove it outside the prime ministers office, phoned in and said "There's a bomb.", but when they checked the car, they would find the explosives separate from the detonator, with detailed scematics for how to assemble it.
He would then procede to that island and massacre a lot of kids with paintball guns, shouting "If this were real guns, you'd be DEAD!".
Would as many people read his manifesto?
...because I bet it wouldn't result in as many years of prison.

Moral hysteria is sweeping Norway now. Any game that Breivik has mentioned playing, is being pulled off the shelves as "immoral", and not just Modern Warfare 2. For instance, Breivik mentioned in his manifesto that he had a mage in World of Warcraft, that he played for 12 months, and that he was looking forward to the Cataclysm expansion. World of Warcraft is now being pulled off the shelves because women thinks it may inspire players to terrorism. It should be mentioned that Breivik was over 32 years old, so age restrictions doesn't appear to be enough here.

If CIA or ruthless Europen Intelligence is on this thread be listen we are toasted.
I really think its probably the man got pushed into posing by threats.
He seems mostly reasonable in the actions.

What was his behaviour last few days from people who met him everyday?

My 5c theory, (as I write this I remember all latest and good spy movies out there and the plot gets thicker, and proof might be planted ever more or be actual planing by conspirator)

Someone calls you at home and tells you have to obey everything he tells you or your neighbor dies: you say fuck off and your neighbor dies of heart attack next day.
Person calls you and says you have to write a letter pretending you are a christian conservative and mail to us so we are convince you are good at it or we kill your father.
Your letter is not convincing so we are just giving your father this mild flu virus we collected last season, mortality on that age is about 10 percent, so your father will live 9 out of 10.

>>101
I think you need to learn the difference between what's remotely possible and what's remotely likely. Typically muslim suicide bombers are indoctrinated into fanatism by a small secret group of ingrained fundamentals. In this case Breivik spent time with a small secret group of ingrained fundamentals known as freemasons.

Also 4chans newpol is pretty known among people in general, posts will be around here on the textboards forever, and a few people have been arrested after posting 4chan posts (like direct threats) before, so if they really would be after you, this isn't the best place to post your theories.

Nazi scum is scum.

Overall I was disappointed by Breiviks manifesto, if I can even call it a manifesto.
What isn't copied statements isn't deeper than the usual "Omg, islam is soon as 'popular' as christianity! Society will implode without God!". The only thing that's his, is how to commit terrorist acts, and that's more of a manual.

This doesn't even compare to the UNA bombers manifesto. I'm not saying that the UNA bombers manifesto was that great either (He has himself compared it to scribble.) but the UNA bomber was/is a prodigy child that grew up into a professor with an IQ of over 160, and who later moved out into the woods to live a primitive life. Breivik, on the other hand, was just a nutcase writer/reader/copier. I'm disappointed.

Make restrictions to niggers, and muslims into europe they are doing nothing, im an ukrainian living in France, and i can say that EU should welcome eastern europeans instead of muslims and black shit.

>>105
Indeed.

>>105-106
Lol, ukrainians. What's the religion over at "Ukrainia"? Are you worshipping Ukrain, the god of everything ukraine?

>>81
is because it is fashionable for american teenagers to mock christianity and racism
Not always true. I see this outside the US in other Western countries. There's someone I'm aware of in Belgium that doesn't mind an occasional mocking of Christianity and racism.

>>107
I think the majority religion there is Eastern Orthodox, usually referred to as Ukrainian Orthodox. There's also Catholicism.

If it's true what they say about Breivik phoning the cops to tell him that the mission was accomplished, then he's basically a delusional narcissist, and if Breivik's a delusional narcissist, he wrote the "whole" (most parts of) his manifesto just for people to read it and try to take him seriously. However, somehow I doubt he called them. He may be delusional, but he doesn't appear THAT delusional.

Also: tl;dr

>>40

Why do you mention Cho, he didn't have the record before Anders. Interestingly enough it was another South Korean and even more interesting is the fact that he was a police officer, a real one though unlike Anders. Woo Bum-kon, killed 57 people for no real reason besides having a shitty life.

As a leftist, I generally agree with his sentiment, even if it is misguided and perhaps not always for the right reasons. fuck multiculturalism, fuck cultural relativism, fuck islam. I don't support 'western culture' because I am a nationalist or traditionalist or in any fucking way conservative; I support it because it is far superior to the medieval savagery that is islam.

This stuff rages me for 2 reasons: firstly, because I believe in the progressive values of the enlightenment, and secondly, because I don't see colour. So to see these values trampled on because of the colour of a certain group's skin (and lets face it, this is in large part what multiculturalism and mass immigration is about; white guilt), it kills me.

Seeing my fellow liberals and leftists as the perpetrators, when they should be the ones standing up for these values, is just salt in the wound.

This guy wasn't a leftist. He was a pragmatic traditionalist, which is a conservative train of thought. More or less, a neocon. That said, I live in the US, where left means something different than in Europe.

>>112
OMG! A sane Lefty. If only all liberals were like this, we could actually fix stuff.

>>112
When it's against purely invented bullshit, I'm not "sticking up" for anything. There is no islamisation to begin with. This is like inventing "jewisation" or any other kind of "-isation". It's easy to go "OMG, they're COMING!" and get paranoid fools with you. In Breiviks case, he believed that atheistic society wouldn't stand a chance against islam without God and christian values. It's bullshit.

>There is no islamisation to begin with.

1.4 billion ragheads believe otherwise. Regardless, we have another 100 years of Muslims murdering people in the name of Allah. Nothing new to see here.

>>116
>>There is no islamisation to begin with.
>1.4 billion ragheads believe otherwise.

What a convincing argument you have there.
Never mind that you're sock-puppeting 1.4 billion muslims to spew made-up bullshit: As only a minority of the westerners believe in you, you have to instead claim the muslims you disagree with, actually agree with you, and that these people who you believe are scheming against you, are completely trustworthy in this regard. Breivik seems saner than you.