|
Keep your off topic discussions out of this thread and show some damn respect! |
On July 24 2011 23:47 Maenander wrote:Show nested quote +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). I think you are messing the two http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalismhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CosmopolitanismIn my country (France) we are for assimilation and social integration and not multiculturalism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_integrationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_assimilation 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.
Well things are changing. I know some political scientist who work for both france and canada and who are discussing the impact of thoses two view on immigration (multiculturalism and cultural assimilation) and people are starting to agree that both methods have good and bad sides.
Well but it's pretty off topic.
|
The problem with immigrants isn't that they are immigrants it's when they start to demand changes in our culture to benefit their culture instead. Things like demanding meat from animals tortured to death, separate sections in swim houses for men/women, their own laws and holidays, allowance to wear headgear on workplaces where no one else is allowed too. These are the things that is the problem.
Also these people in general refuses to learn the language, refuses to work white, do not care about the laws unless they coincide with the laws in their previous country.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
the 6 suspects arrested were already released by autorities
|
Really starting this discussion right away... nice move very nice move
Humanity is doomed...
I thought there would be at least hope in the TL comunity but this really sux
|
On July 24 2011 23:57 reisada wrote:
the 6 suspects arrested were already released by autorities
I bet it were his friends mentioned in the manuscript, would make most sense at least
|
On July 24 2011 23:51 dangerjoe wrote:My point is that stuff like this is pretty obvious throughout the document apparently: UNA-Bomber manifesto quote: Show nested 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': Show nested quote + 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. It is 99% similar
As I said, he said that half of it was copied(most of part 1 in specific). I don't think people are even doubting that. But the diary, interview, step-by-step guides and such are all his.
|
On July 24 2011 23:40 CCow wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 23:36 Maenander wrote:
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. 
I disagree. What'll happen is that the Norwegian and European police forces will be on the lookout for copycats and will fix how easy it is to acquire ingredients for explosives and/or firearms pretty sharpish. The manual does show that Breivik did find it hard to get those in the first place (he failed to acquire illegal firearms, and had to set up a company in order to get the supplies for the bombs), and it's now going to be even harder.
What's more dangerous is actually the ideological content. There are already a few people in this thread with the beginnings of similar views to this guy, and even just accepting this guys language - the use of 'multiculturalism' and 'cultural marxists' for example - into your discourse makes it easier to accept ideologies similar to his, even if you're disgusted by the fact that this guy is a mass childkiller and you don't buy the whole of his theory. I
See, when you bandy about terms like 'multiculturalist' and 'Cultural Marxist', it becomes easier to treat them as real political ideas that mean something. Anyone using the term 'Cultural Marxism', for instance, is buying into the conspiracy theory that all the thoughts we think originate from some tiny clique of academics in Germany (or at least encouraging his listeners to buy into that theory). I've already been pointed at a blog which accuses much of the left of thinking that they're "cultural marxists", when in reality, the left almost never uses the term at all.
"Multicultural" is something similar. It tends to be a word used by a few public sector corporate types to refer to bland notions of diversity and not being explicitly racist. In the lexicon of Breivik, and his thinkalikes, it's a sinister conspiracy out to sap and impurify the European way of life. It's similarly to how, if the terms 'Elders of Zion' or 'New World Order' appear too much in your daily word count, you're going to be softening your mind up to start accepting the basic ideas of Naziism or more modern antisemitic conspiracies, respectively.
I think the real danger of publicising this document is that it might shift the way people use language and see the world in ways closer to this guy's warped viewpoint, and make people more willing to buy into seeing the world as a war between Islamists and Cultural Marxists versus people who believe in the supposed European way of life.
|
On July 24 2011 23:55 trucane wrote:
The problem with immigrants isn't that they are immigrants it's when they start to demand changes in our culture to benefit their culture instead. Things like demanding meat from animals tortured to death, separate sections in swim houses for men/women, their own laws and holidays, allowance to wear headgear on workplaces where no one else is allowed too. These are the things that is the problem.
Also these people in general refuses to learn the language, refuses to work white, do not care about the laws unless they coincide with the laws in their previous country.
1. Kosher food has been accepted in Western society for hundreds of years, why complain now?
2. Gender desegregation is a very modern thing. Why are toilets separate again?
3. If they forfeit other holidays in its place, what's the problem?
4. They're not harming anyone, why so intolerant?
|
On July 25 2011 00:08 Aim Here wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 23:40 CCow wrote:On July 24 2011 23:36 Maenander wrote:
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. I disagree. What'll happen is that the Norwegian and European police forces will be on the lookout for copycats and will fix how easy it is to acquire ingredients for explosives and/or firearms pretty sharpish. The manual does show that Breivik did find it hard to get those in the first place (he failed to acquire illegal firearms, and had to set up a company in order to get the supplies for the bombs), and it's now going to be even harder. What's more dangerous is actually the ideological content. There are already a few people in this thread with the beginnings of similar views to this guy, and even just accepting this guys language - the use of 'multiculturalism' and 'cultural marxists' for example - into your discourse makes it easier to accept ideologies similar to his, even if you're disgusted by the fact that this guy is a mass childkiller and you don't buy the whole of his theory. I See, when you bandy about terms like 'multiculturalist' and 'Cultural Marxist', it becomes easier to treat them as real political ideas that mean something. Anyone using the term 'Cultural Marxism', for instance, is buying into the conspiracy theory that all the thoughts we think originate from some tiny clique of academics in Germany (or at least encouraging his listeners to buy into that theory). I've already been pointed at a blog which accuses much of the left of thinking that they're "cultural marxists", when in reality, the left almost never uses the term at all. "Multicultural" is something similar. It tends to be a word used by a few public sector corporate types to refer to bland notions of diversity and not being explicitly racist. In the lexicon of Breivik, and his thinkalikes, it's a sinister conspiracy out to sap and impurify the European way of life. It's similarly to how, if the terms 'Elders of Zion' or 'New World Order' appear too much in your daily word count, you're going to be softening your mind up to start accepting the basic ideas of Naziism or more modern antisemitic conspiracies, respectively. I think the real danger of publicising this document is that it might shift the way people use language and see the world in ways closer to this guy's warped viewpoint, and make people more willing to buy into seeing the world as a war between Islamists and Cultural Marxists versus people who believe in the supposed European way of life.
Multiculturalism is an old world used by philosophers, politics, sociologue, etc. Like some guy said previously, Breivik used actual fact and changed them just enough to make them fit his own racists views. Saying "multiculralism" doesn't mean we are agreeing with him. But we should always look at the true meanings of words and not their actual twisted usage.
|
Russian Federation1381 Posts
You can't let a bunch of young brainwashed idiots and zog rule cripple and destroy your race and nation. He did what he could, but of course the media and politicians will use it to their own advantage.
User was banned for this post.
|
On July 24 2011 23:04 Ardhimas wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Yes, the eventual consequence of multiculturalism is the death of the culture that allowed multiculturalism in the first place.
1) Multiculturalism is only possible in free, democratic, peaceful societies.
2) In a democratic society, the culture with an absolute majority makes the rules.
3) Cultures exist that do not see multiculturalism as a good.
4) These cultures are generally patriarchal.
5) Patriarchal cultures have higher birthrates
6) Egalitarian/matriarchal cultures have low birthrates.
7) Therefore, the culture in 3 will eventually gain an absolute majority in terms of voter count.
8) The culture in 3 will be able to make the rules, due to 2 and 7
9) One of these rules will be the assimilition of all minority cultures into culture in 3, which includes culture in 1.
10) The dominant culture in 1 will no longer exist.
11) That was the culture which created a free, peaceful, democratic society.
12) There is a chance that the new dominant culture does not allow for a free, peaceful, democratic society.
QED.
|
On July 25 2011 00:13 WhiteDog wrote:
Multiculturalism is an old world used by philosophers, politics, sociologue, etc. Like some guy said previously, Breivik used actual fact and changed them just enough to make them fit his own racists views.
Right, and 'Cultural Marxism' was used by a small group of left-wing academics before the conservative right chose to make it their bogeyman. It's the WAY the words are being used here (Cultural Marxism as a vast overreaching conspiracy, though he never uses that actual word, and 'Multiculturalism' being explicitly defined as sort of hate-ideology designed to attack the European way of life and treated as such) that's the problem, and although this guy wasn't even the first to use the words in these ways, this event is surely going to expose this language to a lot of people.
|
On July 25 2011 00:13 Magic84 wrote:
You can't let a bunch of young brainwashed idiots and zog rule cripple and destroy your race and nation. He did what he could, but of course the media and politicians will use it to their own advantage.
Are you for real? murdering children gets nothing accomplished....could someone ban this idiot
|
Doesn't multiculturalism, by it's very nature, emphasise the differences between cultures and thus breed xenophobia?
I've never even heard of these various concepts until this happened and it's quite interesting. It seems to me that this is similar to things like "affirmative action", which in my view also promotes inequality.
I would say though, that religion is still a barrier. Gandhi of course tried to "assimilate" Muslim and Hindu culture, but ultimately failed.
|
On July 25 2011 00:03 Shikyo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 24 2011 23:51 dangerjoe wrote: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. It is 99% similar As I said, he said that half of it was copied(most of part 1 in specific). I don't think people are even doubting that. But the diary, interview, step-by-step guides and such are all his.
Yes I know that.
But if his most important viewpoints are all old, copied from the UNA-bomber and about leftism, they loose any 'power' they might have had. It's just the UNA-bombers words, where leftism is replaced with multiculturalism etc. The UNA-bomber lived in the U.S, while Anders B lives in Norway. The words have no meaning, if you know what I'm saying?
|
On July 25 2011 00:18 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +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? Yes, the eventual consequence of multiculturalism is the death of the culture that allowed multiculturalism in the first place. 1) Multiculturalism is only possible in free, democratic, peaceful societies. 2) In a democratic society, the culture with an absolute majority makes the rules. 3) Cultures exist that do not see multiculturalism as a good. 4) These cultures are generally patriarchal. 5) Patriarchal cultures have higher birthrates 6) Egalitarian/matriarchal cultures have low birthrates. 7) Therefore, the culture in 3 will eventually gain an absolute majority in terms of voter count. 8) The culture in 3 will be able to make the rules, due to 2 and 7 9) One of these rules will be the assimilition of all minority cultures into culture in 3, which includes culture in 1. 10) The dominant culture in 1 will no longer exist. 11) That was the culture which created a free, peaceful, democratic society. 12) There is a chance that the new dominant culture does not allow for a free, peaceful, democratic society. QED.
You have not explained your premises, nor does a single point follow logically from the previous one. I suggest you take a course in basic logical inference.
Your use of 'Quod Erat Demonstrandum' is really misplaced.
|
On July 25 2011 00:13 Magic84 wrote:
You can't let a bunch of young brainwashed idiots and zog rule cripple and destroy your race and nation. He did what he could, but of course the media and politicians will use it to their own advantage.
Jesus. No sooner am I talking about the lexicon of hate ideologies than someone pops right out of the woodwork and shows EXACTLY what I'm talking about.
For the normal folks out there who don't know what this guy just said, 'zog' here, is a shorthand acronym and is part of the vocabulary of anti-semitic Nazi types. It stands for 'Zionist Occupational Government' referring to the conspiracy that a clique of Jewish rulers is controlling the world.
The rest of his post is also utterly disgusting racist shit. Begone!
|
On July 25 2011 00:18 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +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? Yes, the eventual consequence of multiculturalism is the death of the culture that allowed multiculturalism in the first place. 1) Multiculturalism is only possible in free, democratic, peaceful societies. 2) In a democratic society, the culture with an absolute majority makes the rules. 3) Cultures exist that do not see multiculturalism as a good. 4) These cultures are generally patriarchal. 5) Patriarchal cultures have higher birthrates 6) Egalitarian/matriarchal cultures have low birthrates. 7) Therefore, the culture in 3 will eventually gain an absolute majority in terms of voter count. 8) The culture in 3 will be able to make the rules, due to 2 and 7 9) One of these rules will be the assimilition of all minority cultures into culture in 3, which includes culture in 1. 10) The dominant culture in 1 will no longer exist. 11) That was the culture which created a free, peaceful, democratic society. 12) There is a chance that the new dominant culture does not allow for a free, peaceful, democratic society. QED.
Sorry but no. What you said is wrong because some you are assuming that everyone in the immigrant community will refuse to assimilate any value coming from the country they are living in, which is absolutly false.
The main problem of multiculturalism is that it strenghten the communities, and because of that, people tend to assimilate themselves as "french canadian", "indian", "turk" despite all living in the same country (here canada for exemple) and having nothing to do with true "indians" or "turks" who actuallylive in Indiaand turkie.
|
On July 25 2011 00:13 Magic84 wrote:
You can't let a bunch of young brainwashed idiots and zog rule cripple and destroy your race and nation. He did what he could, but of course the media and politicians will use it to their own advantage.
ugh...
I give up. Too many trolls in this thread now.
|
Religion is the abomination that is killing.
It may have helped people in the past, but in today's world it's just an abomination doing the opposite of what it was intended to do; bringing peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
