I dream of the day when human race realises all the stupid beliefs they arbitrarily ordain unto themselves, from "i'm catholic because my parents are" to "thats how we do things round these parts", and the many other retarded reasons for belief; are complete and utter tosh. Further they just divide us, creating these dumb arse squabbles that inevitably cause some people to go insane and mass murder, which then create an abundance of brain cancer inducing crap like this thread, and everything else in between; that at the end of the day, means fuck all.
On July 24 2011 23:18 Maenander wrote: Spiegel Online just published an article stating that large parts of his manifesto are copied from blogs of the right-wing scene, so don't think too much of him!
I don't buy for a minute that he regrets the killing and did it because he felt it was necessary. Reading a bit in his manifesto and sifting through the witness reports convinced me that he enjoyed every second of the killings. On that island he had absolute power and this was the glorious moment he waited for so long. He is really not that different from the typical school shooters, only his rationalizations were more sophisticated.
Well, he himself has said that about half of them were copied and half were his. It's not like it's a huge revealation that some of the text isn't his
And the text isn't the huge revelation people make it out to be. He spent 3 years on it, of course it's not badly written.
On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote: Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem.
You are a despicable person.
The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do.
Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is.
"let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences".
There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way.
Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught.
No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong.
No negative ones. There are consequences to globally expanding capitalism, but that is of a different kind.
Societies like Norway have been subject to influence of countless cultures throughout the years, and not just passively influenced. Also through influx of people from other civilizations. The vikings, for example, would take thralls from Eastern Europe and other parts of the world, making up a large percentage of the population. The thralls made up a larger percentage of the population than free people.
During the crusades, which the perpetrator seems so fond of, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and most medical techniques were taught.
Well that's fine in the history books but looking at the past decades or so it has caused massive problems in Europe, especially economical. Off the top of my head:
-Massive influx of immigrant workers in direct competition with the most vulnerable people, the poor. Freezing low wages.
-Formation of "ghetto cultures" in particular within France, the UK and Germany, with very little desire to integrate and therefore I suppose, opposing the ideal principle of multicultarism.
-Increase in crime.
In essence I think the massive problem with multiculturism is that Europe doesnt have "quality assured" immigration policies. We cant afford to let anyone cross the border.
I'm not completely against multicultarism, but I am a strong believer of Aristotles' "pan metron ariston" or "everything in moderation". I would love to see New Zealand's immigration tactics be employed in the EU. It would assure a quality influx of people, while at the same time not hurting Europe's vulnerable economy. And I dont see anyone accusing New Zealanders of racism and all that bull, so it must work.
Multiculturalism is a fact in most of Europe, not some kind of theoretical concept. Even if we ever had a 'choice' on multiculturalism, that time is long gone. The only option 'left' is to deal with it in the best possible manner, without forsaking all that we stand for as democratic, tolerant, open, free societies.
Enforcing a 'single culture' is ridiculous, simply because it goes against everything our societies stand for. It's about finding a way of peaceful coexistance, and the good news is that the vast majority manages this just fine. It's the extremists on both sides that ruin this process: one does it by clinging to a national identity that never excisted in the first place, the other by claiming rights they never had.
You end up with the bizarre situation where the extremists on both sides claim to be opposing eachother, but are actually targetting the moderate majority. Norway is the latest very sad example of this.
Agreed. But I never said that Europe should force monoculturism. I said that we must redesign our immigration policies to allow people that we actually need. Like I mentioned, New Zealand has a great model and they are themselves a blend of different cultures but they protect what they created fiercely, as we should.
On July 24 2011 23:18 Maenander wrote: Spiegel Online just published an article stating that large parts of his manifesto are copied from blogs of the right-wing scene, so don't think too much of him!
I don't buy for a minute that he regrets the killing and did it because he felt it was necessary. Reading a bit in his manifesto and sifting through the witness reports convinced me that he enjoyed every second of the killings. On that island he had absolute power and this was the glorious moment he waited for so long. He is really not that different from the typical school shooters, only his rationalizations were more sophisticated.
Well, he himself has said that about half of them were copied and half were his. It's not like it's a huge revealation that some of the text isn't his
And the text isn't the huge revelation people make it out to be. He spent 3 years on it, of course it's not badly written.
Most of it is copypasted (lots of work by Fjordman and other bloggers)
Now Danish newspapers write that most of the manifesto is copied too.. Actually they say that it seems like he has used the UNA-bombers manifesto and just changed some words to multicultural marxist. Dunno though..
On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote: Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem.
You are a despicable person.
The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do.
Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is.
"let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences".
There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way.
Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught.
No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong.
No negative ones. There are consequences to globally expanding capitalism, but that is of a different kind.
Societies like Norway have been subject to influence of countless cultures throughout the years, and not just passively influenced. Also through influx of people from other civilizations. The vikings, for example, would take thralls from Eastern Europe and other parts of the world, making up a large percentage of the population. The thralls made up a larger percentage of the population than free people.
During the crusades, which the perpetrator seems so fond of, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and most medical techniques were taught.
Well that's fine in the history books but looking at the past decades or so it has caused massive problems in Europe, especially economical. Off the top of my head:
-Massive influx of immigrant workers in direct competition with the most vulnerable people, the poor. Freezing low wages.
-Formation of "ghetto cultures" in particular within France, the UK and Germany, with very little desire to integrate and therefore I suppose, opposing the ideal principle of multicultarism.
-Increase in crime.
In essence I think the massive problem with multiculturism is that Europe doesnt have "quality assured" immigration policies. We cant afford to let anyone cross the border.
I'm not completely against multicultarism, but I am a strong believer of Aristotles' "pan metron ariston" or "everything in moderation". I would love to see New Zealand's immigration tactics be employed in the EU. It would assure a quality influx of people, while at the same time not hurting Europe's vulnerable economy. And I dont see anyone accusing New Zealanders of racism and all that bull, so it must work.
This isn't a problem stemming from multiculturalism, it's a problem from the socio-economic background of immigrants, who could be from any cultural background.
Look at Singapore. Multicultural. Problems? Very few.
Exactly, because Singapore was smart and didnt let anyone cross their border. The country works like a clock and they only allow in people that they actually need. Another fine example of immigration policies that actually work. Europe needs to change that.
On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote: Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem.
You are a despicable person.
The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do.
Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is.
"let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences".
There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way.
Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught.
No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong.
Can you tell us any bad consequences as a result of multiculturalism, and not the intolerance of people?
Yeah, it kinda erode national identities in favor of cultural or ethnical identities. We should first clarify what is multiculturalism : it's not the fact that people from different cultural origin live together (like how the crazy guy who killed 90 poor people seems to think it is) it's more like in Canada, where the state promote specific ethnicity / culture, helping them economically and it also permit some specific communities to deviate from the law for cultural reasons (for exemple, you can't have a hat when you work in public but you can have a turban if you're a sikh). I'm against multiculturalism and I'm a cosmopolitan (which mean I think that all human, despite their cultural difference, belong - or should belong - to one community sharing the same morality).
On July 24 2011 23:24 Maenander wrote: And the text isn't the huge revelation people make it out to be. He spent 3 years on it, of course it's not badly written.
The only source stating that he used 3 years on this is the "manifesto" itself. Even if it is not badly written, it is not very good put together and some parts are really doubtable. It is kind of showing, that even the part about his "templar"-shit is divided into several fractions split up in small parts over what feels like maybe 600 pages. The whole of it kind of puzzles me, since the person itself is said to be rather intelectual. He should be able to do this more thoroughly if he really spent 3 years on this.
On July 24 2011 23:18 Maenander wrote: Spiegel Online just published an article stating that large parts of his manifesto are copied from blogs of the right-wing scene, so don't think too much of him!
I don't buy for a minute that he regrets the killing and did it because he felt it was necessary. Reading a bit in his manifesto and sifting through the witness reports convinced me that he enjoyed every second of the killings. On that island he had absolute power and this was the glorious moment he waited for so long. He is really not that different from the typical school shooters, only his rationalizations were more sophisticated.
Well, he himself has said that about half of them were copied and half were his. It's not like it's a huge revealation that some of the text isn't his
And the text isn't the huge revelation people make it out to be. He spent 3 years on it, of course it's not badly written.
Most of it is copypasted (lots of work by Fjordman and other bloggers)
Now Danish newspapers write that most of the manifesto is copied too.. Actually they say that it seems like he has used the UNA-bombers manifesto and just changed some words to multicultural marxist. Dunno though..
The parts about his "operation" written by himself are actually really dangerous, only a few people care for the ideology, but copycats can learn a lot from his detailed descriptions.
On July 24 2011 23:18 Maenander wrote: Spiegel Online just published an article stating that large parts of his manifesto are copied from blogs of the right-wing scene, so don't think too much of him!
I don't buy for a minute that he regrets the killing and did it because he felt it was necessary. Reading a bit in his manifesto and sifting through the witness reports convinced me that he enjoyed every second of the killings. On that island he had absolute power and this was the glorious moment he waited for so long. He is really not that different from the typical school shooters, only his rationalizations were more sophisticated.
Well, he himself has said that about half of them were copied and half were his. It's not like it's a huge revealation that some of the text isn't his
And the text isn't the huge revelation people make it out to be. He spent 3 years on it, of course it's not badly written.
Most of it is copypasted (lots of work by Fjordman and other bloggers)
Now Danish newspapers write that most of the manifesto is copied too.. Actually they say that it seems like he has used the UNA-bombers manifesto and just changed some words to multicultural marxist. Dunno though..
The parts about his "operation" written by himself are actually really dangerous, only a few people care for the ideology, but copycats can learn a lot from his detailed descriptions.
True, but I assume they could learn that other places. (Edit: I mean, the Oklahoma bomber did it the same way. No doubt it is dangerous though) I just wanted to chime in.. Seems like most newspapers agree that most of the manifesto is copypaste.
On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote: Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem.
You are a despicable person.
The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do.
Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is.
"let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences".
There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way.
Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught.
No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong.
No negative ones. There are consequences to globally expanding capitalism, but that is of a different kind.
Societies like Norway have been subject to influence of countless cultures throughout the years, and not just passively influenced. Also through influx of people from other civilizations. The vikings, for example, would take thralls from Eastern Europe and other parts of the world, making up a large percentage of the population. The thralls made up a larger percentage of the population than free people.
During the crusades, which the perpetrator seems so fond of, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and most medical techniques were taught.
Well that's fine in the history books but looking at the past decades or so it has caused massive problems in Europe, especially economical. Off the top of my head:
-Massive influx of immigrant workers in direct competition with the most vulnerable people, the poor. Freezing low wages.
-Formation of "ghetto cultures" in particular within France, the UK and Germany, with very little desire to integrate and therefore I suppose, opposing the ideal principle of multicultarism.
-Increase in crime.
In essence I think the massive problem with multiculturism is that Europe doesnt have "quality assured" immigration policies. We cant afford to let anyone cross the border.
I'm not completely against multicultarism, but I am a strong believer of Aristotles' "pan metron ariston" or "everything in moderation". I would love to see New Zealand's immigration tactics be employed in the EU. It would assure a quality influx of people, while at the same time not hurting Europe's vulnerable economy. And I dont see anyone accusing New Zealanders of racism and all that bull, so it must work.
This isn't a problem stemming from multiculturalism, it's a problem from the socio-economic background of immigrants, who could be from any cultural background.
Look at Singapore. Multicultural. Problems? Very few.
Exactly, because Singapore was smart and didnt let anyone cross their border. The country works like a clock and they only allow in people that they actually need. Another fine example of immigration policies that actually work. Europe needs to change that.
On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote: Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem.
You are a despicable person.
The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do.
Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is.
"let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences".
There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way.
Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught.
No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong.
Can you tell us any bad consequences as a result of multiculturalism, and not the intolerance of people?
Yeah, it kinda erode national identities in favor of cultural or ethnical identities. We should first clarify what is multiculturalism : it's not the fact that people from different cultural origin live together (like how the crazy guy who killed 90 poor people seems to think it is) it's more like in Canada, where the state promote specific ethnicity / culture, helping them economically and it also permit some specific communities to deviate from the law for cultural reasons (for exemple, you can't have a hat when you work in public but you can have a turban if you're a sikh). I'm against multiculturalism and I'm a cosmopolitan (which mean I think that all human, despite their cultural difference, belong - or should belong - to one community sharing the same morality).
Those things are not mutually exclusive. Cosmopolitanism is to do with morality, not culture.
There are problems on many levels. But in my opinion a robbust immigration system would prevent many of them.
To put it simply, one single educated technician from another country is far more likely to integrate and prosper and be part of the country in his own way (and in turn give back to the host country with his experiences and culture) than 2-3 villagers that cant read and are there just so they can get a roof over their head.
The parts about his "operation" written by himself are actually really dangerous, only a few people care for the ideology, but copycats can learn a lot from his detailed descriptions.
Yeah, this probably is the most disturbing thing about the whole of it. The stuff he writes there is very detailed and very step-by-step. So anyone, if he is following his political views or not, can use this as a manual for how to construct fx. a car-bomb. This really is a huge problem, imho.
On July 24 2011 20:55 Thorakh wrote: Stop insulting me by saying I sympathize with him or saying I am an extremist when I find some truth in his views. The keyword here is some, not all. Stop trying to make it look like I think everything he said is true. The only truth I found was that some cultures are just not meant to be together.
what the fuck is wrong with you
seriously, what the FUCK is wrong with you? more than ninety people are dead and you want to start a discussion like this? you have some fucking problems. get the fuck out.
What's wrong with that discussion? Ofc it's never nice when people die, but tbh I don't really care, probably most people don't, so stop with your hypocrisy. It's pretty obvious that there are some huge problems and flaws with multiculturalism, especially islamic culture and that it won't go good for much longer.
On July 24 2011 23:23 eRoN_ wrote: /sigh humanity....
I dream of the day when human race realises all the stupid beliefs they arbitrarily ordain unto themselves, from "i'm catholic because my parents are" to "thats how we do things round these parts", and the many other retarded reasons for belief; are complete and utter tosh. Further they just divide us, creating these dumb arse squabbles that inevitably cause some people to go insane and mass murder, which then create an abundance of brain cancer inducing crap like this thread, and everything else in between; that at the end of the day, means fuck all.
Maybe this dont fit in here exacly but maybe someone likes this
All my respect to the targets of this tragedy. And hopefullythis guy wont reach anyone in this world...
This whole shit reminds me so much of Adolf hitler 1927 so freaking much .... Blame one group on everything and kill a lot of people to promote youre view. Hope this wont work again
On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote: Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem.
You are a despicable person.
The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do.
Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is.
"let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences".
There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way.
Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught.
No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong.
Can you tell us any bad consequences as a result of multiculturalism, and not the intolerance of people?
Yeah, it kinda erode national identities in favor of cultural or ethnical identities. We should first clarify what is multiculturalism : it's not the fact that people from different cultural origin live together (like how the crazy guy who killed 90 poor people seems to think it is) it's more like in Canada, where the state promote specific ethnicity / culture, helping them economically and it also permit some specific communities to deviate from the law for cultural reasons (for exemple, you can't have a hat when you work in public but you can have a turban if you're a sikh). I'm against multiculturalism and I'm a cosmopolitan (which mean I think that all human, despite their cultural difference, belong - or should belong - to one community sharing the same morality).
What worries me is that cultural assimilation is often seen in a bad light, when this is the effect that helped people live together peacefully throughout history. Multiculturalism is not helpful when it effectively promotes the segregation of immigrants.
On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote: Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem.
You are a despicable person.
The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do.
Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is.
"let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences".
There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way.
Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught.
No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong.
No negative ones. There are consequences to globally expanding capitalism, but that is of a different kind.
Societies like Norway have been subject to influence of countless cultures throughout the years, and not just passively influenced. Also through influx of people from other civilizations. The vikings, for example, would take thralls from Eastern Europe and other parts of the world, making up a large percentage of the population. The thralls made up a larger percentage of the population than free people.
During the crusades, which the perpetrator seems so fond of, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and most medical techniques were taught.
Well that's fine in the history books but looking at the past decades or so it has caused massive problems in Europe, especially economical. Off the top of my head:
-Massive influx of immigrant workers in direct competition with the most vulnerable people, the poor. Freezing low wages.
-Formation of "ghetto cultures" in particular within France, the UK and Germany, with very little desire to integrate and therefore I suppose, opposing the ideal principle of multicultarism.
-Increase in crime.
In essence I think the massive problem with multiculturism is that Europe doesnt have "quality assured" immigration policies. We cant afford to let anyone cross the border.
I'm not completely against multicultarism, but I am a strong believer of Aristotles' "pan metron ariston" or "everything in moderation". I would love to see New Zealand's immigration tactics be employed in the EU. It would assure a quality influx of people, while at the same time not hurting Europe's vulnerable economy. And I dont see anyone accusing New Zealanders of racism and all that bull, so it must work.
This isn't a problem stemming from multiculturalism, it's a problem from the socio-economic background of immigrants, who could be from any cultural background.
Look at Singapore. Multicultural. Problems? Very few.
Exactly, because Singapore was smart and didnt let anyone cross their border. The country works like a clock and they only allow in people that they actually need. Another fine example of immigration policies that actually work. Europe needs to change that.
On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote: Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem.
You are a despicable person.
The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do.
Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is.
"let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences".
There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way.
Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught.
No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong.
Can you tell us any bad consequences as a result of multiculturalism, and not the intolerance of people?
Yeah, it kinda erode national identities in favor of cultural or ethnical identities. We should first clarify what is multiculturalism : it's not the fact that people from different cultural origin live together (like how the crazy guy who killed 90 poor people seems to think it is) it's more like in Canada, where the state promote specific ethnicity / culture, helping them economically and it also permit some specific communities to deviate from the law for cultural reasons (for exemple, you can't have a hat when you work in public but you can have a turban if you're a sikh). I'm against multiculturalism and I'm a cosmopolitan (which mean I think that all human, despite their cultural difference, belong - or should belong - to one community sharing the same morality).
Those things are not mutually exclusive. Cosmopolitanism is to do with morality, not culture.
Yeah, they are not mutually exclusive, that's exactly the point. Thinking immigration is not destroying your own identity (basically that's the call made behind cosmopolitanism) doesn't mean you necessarily are for multiculturalism. There other way to assure the integration of immigrants than multiculturalism. And, multiculturalism kinda destroy national indentities.
On July 24 2011 20:55 Thorakh wrote: Stop insulting me by saying I sympathize with him or saying I am an extremist when I find some truth in his views. The keyword here is some, not all. Stop trying to make it look like I think everything he said is true. The only truth I found was that some cultures are just not meant to be together.
what the fuck is wrong with you
seriously, what the FUCK is wrong with you? more than ninety people are dead and you want to start a discussion like this? you have some fucking problems. get the fuck out.
What's wrong with that discussion? Ofc it's never nice when people die, but tbh I don't really care, probably most people don't, so stop with your hypocrisy. It's pretty obvious that multiculturalism isn't working as good as you think.
I don't mind this sort of discussion. But I can sincerely not see why one should have it in a thread like this. I just this it isn't a very good place to show sympathy for the views of this massmurderer. It isn't wrong as such to share views whith whomsoever, sometimes and some places it is just not very tacfull to utter them.
On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote: Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem.
You are a despicable person.
The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do.
Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is.
"let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences".
There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way.
Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught.
No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong.
No negative ones. There are consequences to globally expanding capitalism, but that is of a different kind.
Societies like Norway have been subject to influence of countless cultures throughout the years, and not just passively influenced. Also through influx of people from other civilizations. The vikings, for example, would take thralls from Eastern Europe and other parts of the world, making up a large percentage of the population. The thralls made up a larger percentage of the population than free people.
During the crusades, which the perpetrator seems so fond of, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and most medical techniques were taught.
Well that's fine in the history books but looking at the past decades or so it has caused massive problems in Europe, especially economical. Off the top of my head:
-Massive influx of immigrant workers in direct competition with the most vulnerable people, the poor. Freezing low wages.
-Formation of "ghetto cultures" in particular within France, the UK and Germany, with very little desire to integrate and therefore I suppose, opposing the ideal principle of multicultarism.
-Increase in crime.
In essence I think the massive problem with multiculturism is that Europe doesnt have "quality assured" immigration policies. We cant afford to let anyone cross the border.
I'm not completely against multicultarism, but I am a strong believer of Aristotles' "pan metron ariston" or "everything in moderation". I would love to see New Zealand's immigration tactics be employed in the EU. It would assure a quality influx of people, while at the same time not hurting Europe's vulnerable economy. And I dont see anyone accusing New Zealanders of racism and all that bull, so it must work.
This isn't a problem stemming from multiculturalism, it's a problem from the socio-economic background of immigrants, who could be from any cultural background.
Look at Singapore. Multicultural. Problems? Very few.
Exactly, because Singapore was smart and didnt let anyone cross their border. The country works like a clock and they only allow in people that they actually need. Another fine example of immigration policies that actually work. Europe needs to change that.
So the problem has nothing to do with cultures.
On July 24 2011 23:12 WhiteDog wrote:
On July 24 2011 23:04 Ardhimas wrote:
On July 24 2011 22:20 Psychobabas wrote:
On July 24 2011 22:13 Dystisis wrote:
On July 24 2011 21:37 roflpie wrote: Yes, he had some valid points, but not the best way to get his message through. It's true muslims are a problem in Europe. Multiculturalism is just asking for trouble, it's a matter of time something worse breaks out. Social democracy and liberalism will be the death of Europe, unless people harden up a bit.
I am not supporting Breivik's actions, killing dumb children is a very wrong approach to bringing light to this problem.
You are a despicable person.
The people killed at the camp were not children, they were mostly teenagers from the age of 16-22. And they knew a lot more about politics and humanity than you do.
Muslims are not a problem in Europe, people killing each other when they should stand together is.
"let's all live peacefully together and not think of the consequences".
There are no consequences to multiculturalism, unless maniacs like you and the perpetrator of this terrorist attack (and others) actually gets their way.
Societies like Norway have been multicultural for thousands of years. During the crusades, Muslims traveled alongside Christians back to Europe, which is from whom many of our old military, building, and medical techniques were taught.
No consequences? What a bold statement. And in my opinion, wrong.
Can you tell us any bad consequences as a result of multiculturalism, and not the intolerance of people?
Yeah, it kinda erode national identities in favor of cultural or ethnical identities. We should first clarify what is multiculturalism : it's not the fact that people from different cultural origin live together (like how the crazy guy who killed 90 poor people seems to think it is) it's more like in Canada, where the state promote specific ethnicity / culture, helping them economically and it also permit some specific communities to deviate from the law for cultural reasons (for exemple, you can't have a hat when you work in public but you can have a turban if you're a sikh). I'm against multiculturalism and I'm a cosmopolitan (which mean I think that all human, despite their cultural difference, belong - or should belong - to one community sharing the same morality).
Those things are not mutually exclusive. Cosmopolitanism is to do with morality, not culture.
Yeah, they are not mutually exclusive, that's exactly the point. Thinking immigration is not destroying your own identity (basically that's the call made behind cosmopolitanism) doesn't mean you necessarily are for multiculturalism. There other way to assure the integration of immigrants than multiculturalism. And, multiculturalism kinda destroy national indentities.
It's a guy on a forum that claims that the whole massacre was just a hoax or that it was all staged. Some people! He does seem to go on about Illuminati and such, so I guess he's just a bit.. "confused".
My point is that stuff like this is pretty obvious throughout the document apparently:
UNA-Bomber manifesto quote:
But what is leftism? During the first half of the 20th century leftism could have been practically identified with socialism. Today the movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a leftist. When we speak of leftists in this article we have in mind mainly socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists and the like. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements is a leftist. What we are trying to get at in discussing leftism is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types. Thus, what we mean by "leftism" will emerge more clearly in the course of our discussion of leftist psychology (Also, see paragraphs 227-230.)
8. Even so, our conception of leftism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern leftism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about leftist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern leftism only. We leave open the question of the extent to which our discussion could be applied to the leftists of the 19th and early 20th century.
9. The two psychological tendencies that underlie modern leftism we call "feelings of inferiority" and "oversocialization." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of modern leftism as a whole, while oversocialization is characteristic only of a certain segment of modern leftism; but this segment is highly influential.
From the Anders B. 'book':
But what is multiculturalism or Cultural Communism? The movement is fragmented and it is not clear who can properly be called a cultural Marxist. When we speak of cultural Marxists in this article we have in mind mainly individuals who support multiculturalism; socialists, collectivists, "politically correct" types, feminists, gay and disability activists, animal rights activists, environmentalists etc. But not everyone who is associated with one of these movements support multiculturalism. What we are trying to get at in discussing cultural Marxists is not so much a movement or an ideology as a psychological type, or rather a collection of related types.
Our conception of cultural Marxists will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn't seem to be any remedy for this. All we are trying to do is indicate in a rough and approximate way the two psychological tendencies that we believe are the main driving force of modern multiculturalism. We by no means claim to be telling the WHOLE truth about cultural Marxist psychology. Also, our discussion is meant to apply to modern cultural Marxists only.
The two psychological tendencies that underlie cultural Marxists we call "feelings of inferiority" and "over-socialisation." Feelings of inferiority are characteristic of cultural Marxism as a whole, while over-socialisation is characteristic only of a certain segment of cultural Marxism; but this segment is highly influential.
EPT
