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.

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.