BREIVIK’S MANIFESTO & A RESPONSE TO A CONSERVATIVE WHO CANNOT COME TO GRIPS WITH HOW SIMILAR HER WORLDVIEW AND THAT OF BREIVIK ARE
Great link on the reaction from the Right.
Read the Brevik Manifesto below in full.
2083+-+A+European+Declaration+of+Independence
Now a response to Amazona a regular conservative commenter at Mark Edward Noonan’s Blogs4victory. She made some general comments in an attempt to spin the similarity between her ideology [and that of many of the conservative commenters at B4V] and the ideology of Anders Breivik.
Her comments are in bold and my replies are below.
“Sorry, but your list ranges from irrelevant to downright silly.”
1. is opposed to Islam and multi-cult¬uralism For a long time or just in the week since he set up his official identity online? And are you saying that the Left is by definition pro-Islam and in favor of multi-culturalism?
He has been working on his manifesto for 6 years, minimum and has spent over 300,000 Euro to finance his right wing ideological terror attacks.
2. is a self-described nationalist since when, and since when is nationalism a “right-wing” trait? Are you finally ready to discuss actual political ideology?
Breivik is a conservative nationalist based upon his words and actions. Like many of the conservatives here he has a fear of Islamic domination of “Western” culture and nations. His Norway for Norwegians is no different from your fear of Latinos or Muslims “taking over the USA.” Neocon, tiredoflibbs, cluster all are just like Breivik in ideology you just aren’t willing to act violently upon your political beliefs. There isn’t a sliver of light’s difference between any of you and Breivik regarding your feelings toward multiculturalism.
3. went to a summer leadership camp for youth associated to the LABOR party which is pro-Palestinian and killed 80 people
…..and in every country the LABOR party is Leftist
He [Breivik] went there to kill the children he felt had been brainwashed with liberalism. It is a pro-Palestine party a pro 2 state solution party but most Israelis feel this way as well. The Norwegian Labour Party is leftist in ideology and as such believes in freedom and civil rights for all people. This is something that Breivik and you cannot stand because it takes your ability to feel a smug control over the lives of others away.
4. owns guns very feeble
Gun ownership, better yet, gun hoarding, is a very fundamental aspect of the Right wing ideology. You and neocon and cluster and most of the other conservative/reactionaries feel the need to have this ability to possess the power over life and death of your “enemies.” Without guns you would be trampled by the march of Progress. In due time your right to bear arms still firmly in tact won’t matter because you will be bred out of power. What a great day that will be for the USA?
5. calls himself a conservative Again, according to what definition, and for what length of time? Just since he established an identity online?
He [Breivik] has held the same views about multiculturalism, politics and nationalism that many of the conservatives here have had for at least a decade. You use of the “No true Scotsman” defense shows your lack of intellect in Technicolor.
6. actively follows the stock market utterly silly
But isn’t the stock market the one true deity of conservatives? Didn’t a former president of the USA want to shift Social Security to individual accounts tied to that holiest of holies? When the market collapsed in November 2008 wasn’t that debacle blamed on the election of America’s first black President by many of you here? Not that the DJIA is over 12000 does he get the credit? Of course not because as long as Barack Obama is black none of you good white people can ever give him legitimate credit for doing anything positive.
Play at your own risk.
Qu’ul cuda praedex nihil
Diane Valencen, D.S.V.J., O.Q.H [Journ.], ArF J., M.F.
Editorial Page Editor
The Dis Brimstone Daily Pitchfork
136 4 Leviathan 2 AS
Editorials from Hell's Leading Daily Newspaper 
31/07/2011 at 11:03
Your responses here are ignorant and irresponsible. You are picking and choosing similarities to draw parallels and inferences, making sweeping generalizations and making the logical error that some similar beliefs mean similar motivations or methods. I am sure I can take most any liberal, collect enough statements from them and demonstrate how similar they are to the beliefs and statements Or Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler or any other mass murderer and conclude that liberals are scary and just like these mass murderers. Oh, right, that’s been done, and I am sure you reject it out of hand, as you should.
Oh, and your comments on point #6 are so risible I don;t even know where to start. Talk about a complete mis-characterization of conservative views on the market, causality and President Obama.
If you want to really understand conservatives, you need to start by unlearning your kneejerk liberal prejudices.
31/07/2011 at 11:59
The flood of Islamophobic websites that fed this man’s insanity bears me out. Look, if the Right hate Islam, that’s their business but when that insitutionalized hate spills over into violence the truth, as I see it will be told.
31/07/2011 at 12:02
I have been called worse. I do wish to understand conservatives but I do have strong opinions about violent actions that are based upon political ideology no matter the ideology of the perpetrator.
31/07/2011 at 14:23
They just do not understand.
We are giving them Paradise and they spit on it.
31/07/2011 at 13:14
Diane,
I appreciate your candor and willingness to debate, but you are still confusing the issue. The fact that a person latches on to a particular series of propaganda that reinforces his paranoia does not mean those who are against multi-culturalism or think radical Islam is harmful are the same as that person. You make the logical fallacy of sweeping generalization. A violent person will be violent regardless of the sources for his hate. He needs to hate and he needs to lash out. There have been many who have killed and used other writings as justification, or inspiration or whatever.
You oppose conservatives and so it is easy to want to smear them with the nut case, but unless these conservatives are actually telling people to kill, and are systematically committing atrocities, you are wrong to imply they are in-fact at all like this Norwegian.
I do not disagree with the condemnation of sites that specifically call for the killing of others, but I do think you need to understand the difference between opposing political ideas and ideologies and inciting violence. There are plenty of liberal sites that take some extreme positions of issues but we don’t blame them when some nut job with liberal views goes on a shooting spree. (Well, I don’t and you probably don’t, anyway.)
31/07/2011 at 14:17
When you have strong views be they liberal or conservative, eventually they will inspire the unhinged. As a liberal entity, We would not run away from one of Our own but try to seek answers on why one would turn to violence and away from dialogue.
31/07/2011 at 16:25
I am not certain I accept your premise that strong views inspire the unhinged. History is full of unhinged that obtain their inspiration regardless of the political talk. Laughner was supposedly inspired by Palin’s map until it was discovered that he was not. Von Brunn was inspired by conservative hate until it was found that he was not. Do we blame Jodie Foster for Hinkley’s unhinged attack? It is easy, but sloppy to look to place blame on the actions of an individual. If that individual were trained by, specifically encouraged by, had any leaders in any association he was involved in specifically calling for violence, then you can draw a reasonable connection between them and the actions of an individual. If you have groups that support politically or through other means the groups that do call for violence, they too can be held accountable for their participation. If groups defend the actions or cheer the results, that too is reprehensible. But to smear all groups whose ideals are in and of themselves non-violent but rather political in nature just because someone else held similar political views but eschewed violence as a means is irresponsible.
It also stifles debate and generates greater animosity. You say you would try to understand the irrational actions of a rogue who might hold similar political philosophies, but you seem totally unwilling to engage and understand the much more rational actions of those whose philosophies don’t align with yours. Heated rhetoric has existed in this country since Thomas Paine (if not earlier.)