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.