104 replies to this topic

[Helen of Annoy]

Mr Right Wing, on 14 November 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

1. You think there is something wrong with Conservative ideology? If so I hate to point it out to you but millions of people in this country are Conservative supporters.
2. I can list left-wing nutters too like Stalin and Pol-Pot. Shall we now call those who vote for the Labour Party creepy?
3. The problem is the cogs dont go around in Breviks head the same way as a normal person. Its called Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
4. Do we actually have any factual evidence that Brevik had surgery or is it just media fiction? There is nothing in historical record to suggest Hitler had any issues with being Alpine in appearance instead of Nordic so you're speculating.
5. Bearing in mind Germany successfully invaded 11 nations nearly toppling both Britain and Russia I wouldnt call Hilter incompetant. Again you're speculating on Hitlers motives. Read Mein Kampf and you'll dicover he was totally Jingoistic and hated the mess Germany was in.
6. So because I'm a Conservative I'm secretly plotting to open Concentration Camps and come eliminate lots of people Nazi style? How fantastically delusional and paranoid.
7. I thought you'd already figured that one out. Afterall if I believe in right-wing politics I must surely have a skinhead haircut, nazi tatoos all over my body and wander about with my arm in the air lol.
8. I'm Eurosceptic and I'm against immigration. I always have been and I always will be. If you equate those things with Nazism then its you with the problem.

Thank you, sunshine, I so needed an excuse to settle this:


Jesus dyslexic Christ, there’s “not” missing in my sentence about cultural Marxism and multiculturalism being not the same. Yes, I have to read my own post to see where I was going
I believe the sentence still can be reconstructed in its meaning, but to prevent amateur lawyers from objecting... there, fixed.

OK, now the less important stuff. Here you go:
1. I hate to point out to you but you have missed the train, train station and the railway. Re-read all your and my posts and see how hilariously fallacious this piece of your weak troll was.
2. See point no.1.
3. No ****.
4. See photos before and after. Obvious as Cher. For Hitler, see his portraits with blue eyes. If he was proud Alpine, with no damn Nordic envy, then why hiding those beautiful brown eyes? Hess took that much better, have you ever seen a portrait of Hess with reduced eyebrows? No, he was proudly hairy, almost like a Mediterranean. God knows whose picture his grandma kept at the bottom of her underwear drawer. But I digressed.
5. I’ve read it. It’s crap. Booooooring crap. If I was born back then, my long tongue would so get me killed. Imagine that, you comment on a book and get killed. How sane is that? Apart from Saudi Arabia, western ally, whose citizens are immigrating with style, you can hardly get killed anywhere else for ill speaking of a book.
6. That’s your construction, or to be more precise, your fallacy. Apparently, you will never understand what fallacy is (a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid, not the other way round) and that not only it can’t prove any sane point, but it also destroys your reputation. See the poor guy, he’s trying the good old straw man. What, again? Again.
7. Be careful when you ride elevators. Use a lot of moisturiser. Take your boots off at least when you are taking the shower. Don’t forget to check under the bed for immigrants each and every night. Write when you get there, but I assure you it sounds like you are close.
8. See point no.7

Also, in the spirit of this thread, where we speak our minds but do not necessarily discuss or address each other’s points, I’d like to add the following and then shut up if no one ticks me off again. Praise the Lord, she’s about to shut up.

So, actually, you need democracy to protect you from seemingly acceptable ideas. Not Breivik. He’s self-extinguishable.
Unlike him, there are people who can camouflage their agenda any way they see fit at the moment and by the time you realize you made a mistake of your life, they’ve moved on and you stay stuck with whatever they dragged you into.
As long as there’re more of them, you stay safe from totalitarianism. Slow and corrupted democratic bureaucracy keeps them divided by giving each of them their own source of bribe and limited power. Now, if they were a little bit more organized... that would be political monopole, official or unofficial, but real. You have lost any choice the moment that happens. Even the illusion of it. Start learning from ****en history, I’m tired of repeating it.  

Breivik lived in his own fantasy, which happens to a lot of people and is better than living in constant depression. The catastrophe happened when he tried to live his fantasy.
See the difference?
It’s also much harder to make a dream than a nightmare come true. It’s no wonder weak but egocentric people will choose to have their nightmare real rather than dreams of many others. Just like they choose to destroy something rather than to create. It's easier and guarantees the attention.
We, humans, are so simple. And so disgusting.

Edited by Helen of Annoy, 14 November 2012 - 10:04 PM.

[Mr Right Wing]

Helen of Annoy, on 14 November 2012 - 09:58 PM, said:

Thank you, sunshine, I so needed an excuse to settle this:


Jesus dyslexic Christ, there’s “not” missing in my sentence about cultural Marxism and multiculturalism being not the same. Yes, I have to read my own post to see where I was going
I believe the sentence still can be reconstructed in its meaning, but to prevent amateur lawyers from objecting... there, fixed.

OK, now the less important stuff. Here you go:
1. I hate to point out to you but you have missed the train, train station and the railway. Re-read all your and my posts and see how hilariously fallacious this piece of your weak troll was.
2. See point no.1.
3. No ****.
4. See photos before and after. Obvious as Cher. For Hitler, see his portraits with blue eyes. If he was proud Alpine, with no damn Nordic envy, then why hiding those beautiful brown eyes? Hess took that much better, have you ever seen a portrait of Hess with reduced eyebrows? No, he was proudly hairy, almost like a Mediterranean. God knows whose picture his grandma kept at the bottom of her underwear drawer. But I digressed.
5. I’ve read it. It’s crap. Booooooring crap. If I was born back then, my long tongue would so get me killed. Imagine that, you comment on a book and get killed. How sane is that? Apart from Saudi Arabia, western ally, whose citizens are immigrating with style, you can hardly get killed anywhere else for ill speaking of a book.
6. That’s your construction, or to be more precise, your fallacy. Apparently, you will never understand what fallacy is (a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid, not the other way round) and that not only it can’t prove any sane point, but it also destroys your reputation. See the poor guy, he’s trying the good old straw man. What, again? Again.
7. Be careful when you ride elevators. Use a lot of moisturiser. Take your boots off at least when you are taking the shower. Don’t forget to check under the bed for immigrants each and every night. Write when you get there, but I assure you it sounds like you are close.
8. See point no.7

Also, in the spirit of this thread, where we speak our minds but do not necessarily discuss or address each other’s points, I’d like to add the following and then shut up if no one ticks me off again. Praise the Lord, she’s about to shut up.

So, actually, you need democracy to protect you from seemingly acceptable ideas. Not Breivik. He’s self-extinguishable.
Unlike him, there are people who can camouflage their agenda any way they see fit at the moment and by the time you realize you made a mistake of your life, they’ve moved on and you stay stuck with whatever they dragged you into.
As long as there’re more of them, you stay safe from totalitarianism. Slow and corrupted democratic bureaucracy keeps them divided by giving each of them their own source of bribe and limited power. Now, if they were a little bit more organized... that would be political monopole, official or unofficial, but real. You have lost any choice the moment that happens. Even the illusion of it. Start learning from ****en history, I’m tired of repeating it.  

Breivik lived in his own fantasy, which happens to a lot of people and is better than living in constant depression. The catastrophe happened when he tried to live his fantasy.
See the difference?
It’s also much harder to make a dream than a nightmare come true. It’s no wonder weak but egocentric people will choose to have their nightmare real rather than dreams of many others. Just like they choose to destroy something rather than to create. It's easier and guarantees the attention.
We, humans, are so simple. And so disgusting.

You do know the difference between Conservatism and National Socialism dont you?

I dont think I need to spell out to you that Hitler was about genocide, carving out an empire, slavery and establishing the Germans as a super race. After all you are Croatian and your people were on his side!

Maybe thats the problem. Maybe you are so hysterical after WW2 you see the worst possible scenario when it comes to people calling for anti--immigration policies. You also see the odd looney like brevik do something and your brain practically implodes.

Lets make this clear for you. The odd nutter like Brevik is a rare type of person. Only 0.0001% of Conservative thinking people are like him. So calm down and stop thinking everyone who is right-wing has a SS uniform in their attic.

[Gravitorbox]

Helen of Annoy, on 14 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

Exactly, they are. That’s why I don’t approve of totalitarian ideologies, because I don’t approve of their methods. You may insist the iron fist was clad in velvet, but once it hits you over the head you’ll notice it felt more irony than velvety. (Great for role-playing once a week, horrible for real life forever.)

Anders Breivik was fundamentally a nationalist. He wasn't "Totalitarian".

Helen of Annoy, on 14 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

Do not pull that crap on me, you might have noticed I do not agree to play “no one will notice fallacy” game.
Claiming the manifesto of some guy was correct and overseeing the fact that he killed 77 unarmed children, refusing the possibility there could be some link between the ideas he proposes and said massacre is – mildly put – not a sign of intelligence. Do you wish to leave impression of not so bright person?

I agreed with most of the cultural and societal critiques.

I don't agree with some things. He was a global warming denier (if I recall), I'm mostly secular on religion, however to be fair he wasn't religious really, it was more of a cultural thing. I don't believe in "Eurabia", it makes about as much sense to me as the ZOG conspiracies out there.

Helen of Annoy, on 14 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

Now, the cultural Marxism is something people discuss on Berkley when the pot stash is low, I guess, and it’s not relevant to anything in Europe. Because Marxism and multiculturalism are and never were the same. Do not use a wrong term just because it sounds scary.

Old Marxism wasn't the same thing. It is true oldschool marxists were against immigration and such. May wanna check out some Neo-Marxist Frankfurt school texts, however.

Helen of Annoy, on 14 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

Multikulti. Why is it bad? Or why it’s not bad? Depends how much is your government addictive of petro dollars. I kid you not. Immigrants themselves are not the problem, government blessed financing of extremism is. Cut finances, you’ve cut the extremism. Immigrants will work and shut up, just how you like it, because criticism scares the **** out of you (see insecurity issues I mentioned in my post above).

I'm not making a shallow "they took our jobs" argument. Going more into cultural genocide and such. I am not a racial separatist, more interested in culture and identity. That may just be me speaking as an American.

I am not denying that capitalism does go hand in hand in this, something the left doesn't want to admit.

Helen of Annoy, on 14 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

Political correctness and white guilt. Both may kiss my ass, whiter than yours. We, true Europeans, don’t trust any American to be fully white. How that felt? Get used to it, if Breivik-likes come to power, this will be the official stance. Distrust towards anyone possibly tainted. That includes West Europe, known for its fornications throughout the centuries... I could go on like this until there’s whole manifesto here, you know. It’s a no-brainer.

Well we are materialistic shallow trash now. Understandable.

Helen of Annoy, on 14 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

Anti-European bias, see multikulti paragraph. It’s something your politicians do, and they didn’t fall down from Mars. They are your representatives. Which means average citizen is corrupted, not so bright *insert euphemism of your own choice* that will sell his heritage for more reality TV and new car.

True! All our politicians (including most of yours) are a detached intellectual class.

Helen of Annoy, on 14 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

You don’t need a lunatic with hots for Hitler in power.

Breivik was an Israel lover and was anti-Nazi.

Helen of Annoy, on 14 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

You agree to all the crap that has went wrong and you are satisfied with excuses (immigrants shat my place up) instead of solutions: change your own stance and life and it will spread. Not overnight, but it will.

It is a combination of factors.

Helen of Annoy, on 14 November 2012 - 07:52 PM, said:

I owe that much to you, people who can’t tell the difference between recreational role-playing ideas from actual totalitarian hell.

Right, I'm a roleplayer. Okay! Thanks for the assumptions! We can end this here then.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Mr Right Wing, on 14 November 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

1. You think there is something wrong with Conservative ideology? If so I hate to point it out to you but millions of people in this country are Conservative supporters.

yes, but millions also aren't. I think many books could be written on what's wrong with conservative ideology, but that's neither here nor there, since I'm sure any rational Conservative would be very quick to distance themselves from Breivik's ravings .....

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Gravitorbox, on 15 November 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

Anders Breivik was fundamentally a nationalist. He wasn't "Totalitarian".


I agreed with most of the cultural and societal critiques.

I don't agree with some things.

The basic problem with any argument which starts on the basis that "Well, i think breivik was right on this, that or the other count" was that the simple unarguable fact is that he murdered 77 people, a large proportion of them children. This, in itself, pretty comprehensively disqualifies any validity there may be in his arguments to me. It's like saying (yes, him again) that there's something to be said for hitler's arguments in Mein Kampf. It comprehensively disqualifies his theories and dogmas from any further consideration.

[Antilles]

Is the thing still alive?

Why?

[Mr Right Wing]

747400, on 15 November 2012 - 07:37 AM, said:

yes, but millions also aren't. I think many books could be written on what's wrong with conservative ideology, but that's neither here nor there, since I'm sure any rational Conservative would be very quick to distance themselves from Breivik's ravings .....

Conservatism is not going around killing people and you know it isnt.

I am pro-family, pro-community, pro-religion, anti-immigration, anti-eu and think we should have the death penalty for crims. Where as I like my trips to the Indian and Chinese restaurant I think mass immigration is going way to far. I'm also mystified at the willful blindness shown by many politicians when it comes to letting people in who have issues with Democracy, Freedom and non-Islamic religions.

I think those politicians saying oooooh noooo thats racism need prosecuting for murder every time an immigrant commits and act of terrorism. Its willful negligance. If I was pm -
1. Immigration would stop.
2. Any immigrant so much as hinting they agree with, support or wish to commit acts of terror would be deported with immediate effect. The EU courts of justice can go jump as far as their human rights policies are concerned.
3. All economic migrants would be deported only those whose lives are really under threat would get to keep their British citizenship.
4. I would make exceptions for gifted immigrants such as doctors, lawyers, accountants, sceintists and engineers as they benefit our country.

Edited by Mr Right Wing, 15 November 2012 - 08:02 AM.

[Gravitorbox]

747400, on 15 November 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

The basic problem with any argument which starts on the basis that "Well, i think breivik was right on this, that or the other count" was that the simple unarguable fact is that he murdered 77 people, a large proportion of them children. This, in itself, pretty comprehensively disqualifies any validity there may be in his arguments to me. It's like saying (yes, him again) that there's something to be said for hitler's arguments in Mein Kampf. It comprehensively disqualifies his theories and dogmas from any further consideration.

Unfortunately that's not the way the world works. It is like saying if Hitler said the sky was blue it would cease to be blue, or something. Their actions don't really have an inherent affect on what they said in some innate sense.

Nevermind the fact Breivik actually bothered to cite a ton of sources, which was shocking even to me. The manifesto was well researched and I would say much was factual.

http://www.ynetnews....4162907,00.html

I said it previously; the Unabomber had an IQ of 160 - he was a genius. Being a murderer and intelligent are, unfortunately, not mutually exclusive.

I don't think people apply your logic universally anyway. A lot of people like Che, he killed 100+ people under Castro.

Edited by Gravitorbox, 15 November 2012 - 02:43 PM.

[Colonel Rhuairidh]

Gravitorbox, on 15 November 2012 - 02:42 PM, said:

Unfortunately that's not the way the world works. It is like saying if Hitler said the sky was blue it would cease to be blue, or something. Their actions don't really have an inherent affect on what they said in some innate sense.

Nevermind the fact Breivik actually bothered to cite a ton of sources, which was shocking even to me. The manifesto was well researched and I would say much was factual.

http://www.ynetnews....4162907,00.html

I said it previously; the Unabomber had an IQ of 160 - he was a genius. Being a murderer and intelligent are, unfortunately, not mutually exclusive.

I don't think people apply your logic universally anyway. A lot of people like Che, he killed 100+ people under Castro.

the sky being blue wasn't an idea of Hitler's, and it's nothing to do with his deranged theories about the "Purity of the race" and the "Jewish Menace" and all the rest of it. Any theory of Hitler's, or Breivik's, on these subjects is automatically discredited by coming from hitler, or Breivik, whose "manifesto" is no different from Hitler's save that "Islamic" is substituted for "Jewish". Hitler too had a ton of sources to draw from; there was whole libraries full of drivel going back centuries about how "Racial purity" was threatened by the Jews.

[Gravitorbox]

747400, on 15 November 2012 - 02:52 PM, said:

the sky being blue wasn't an idea of Hitler's, and it's nothing to do with his deranged theories about the "Purity of the race" and the "Jewish Menace" and all the rest of it. Any theory of Hitler's, or Breivik's, on these subjects is automatically discredited by coming from hitler, or Breivik, whose "manifesto" is no different from Hitler's save that "Islamic" is substituted for "Jewish". Hitler too had a ton of sources to draw from; there was whole libraries full of drivel going back centuries about how "Racial purity" was threatened by the Jews.

I also don't think you can draw a clear comparison between Mein Kampf and 2083. They really aren't even the same type of book, and this still doesn't matter. My point stands. Breivik didn't source outdated mysticism, he sourced evidence of Cultural Marxist influence and actually things pushed by the Frankfurt school, among many other modern policies of certain governments and parties that are pretty much confirmed, like how this cultural marxist Swedish political party is literally trying to eliminate gender and push the most insane left wing policies...despite the fact they suck up to conservative, fundamentalist muslims.

In either case I doubt you've read Mein Kampf or Breivik's manifesto. It is not generally considered responsible to judge things you have not read, no matter what their authors did. I would partially agree with you that Mein Kampf has a ton of pseudo-science in it, though it's mostly anger and propaganda. On the other hand 2083 is hard to compare, half of it is mostly a citation of rather reliable sources - in that sense you could say Breivik is only responsible for compiling said sources, so maybe he doesn't deserve direct credit? I don't know.

[Helen of Annoy]

Mr Right Wing, on 14 November 2012 - 10:48 PM, said:

You do know the difference between Conservatism and National Socialism dont you?

Yes, but it’s irrelevant here. The topic is Breivik, undisputed mass murderer and I’m claiming here that his ideology and his deeds are in obvious, direct relation while you claim what he did was not directly or not at all related to his political beliefs. Which is more realistic notion?

Quote

I dont think I need to spell out to you that Hitler was about genocide, carving out an empire, slavery and establishing the Germans as a super race. After all you are Croatian and your people were on his side!

Maybe thats the problem. Maybe you are so hysterical after WW2 you see the worst possible scenario when it comes to people calling for anti--immigration policies. You also see the odd looney like brevik do something and your brain practically implodes.

Anyone who claims “Croats were on Hitler’s side” is not only a bigot, but also a revisionist, because the well documented truth about WWII is very much different than your local habit of demonising nations that your politics see as obstacles in arranging the world according to your dreams of lost empire rising again.

Quote

Lets make this clear for you. The odd nutter like Brevik is a rare type of person. Only 0.0001% of Conservative thinking people are like him. So calm down and stop thinking everyone who is right-wing has a SS uniform in their attic.

Psychopaths are more common than that, but I do believe you don’t sport SS uniforms, it would contradict your Euro-scepticism.

Gravitorbox, on 15 November 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

Anders Breivik was fundamentally a nationalist. He wasn't "Totalitarian".

Have you ever met a nationalist who had no totalitarian tendencies? I haven’t. I also believe democracy can’t survive in true nationalist environment. I’ve seen first-hand how it works, so bear with me. At first you have few political parties, all nationalist and democratic, some more right than others. Soon the most “pure” in appearance (but the most corrupt in the reality) pushes the competition out. Democracy becomes mere decorum, if you say anything even mildly critic about the ruling party, you are not a patriot. You are against your nation. A traitor. I don’t think you can fully imagine how it feels until you try it out. Handfull of corrupt actual traitors accuses the actual patriots of treason. Nation follows the leaders, because no-oh, they don't want the traitor label. No, no, no. It's not good for business or health.
It's social avalanche, you can't stop it. Just wait for it to go downhill, try to step aside and look for survivors when it's over. It's bound to happen because of what I call "the taliban spiral": people have constant need to prove they are better at something, more in tune, more in line. It starts benign, but soon becomes grotesque, because you have to keep finding more insanely radical ways to exalt yourself. Watching it happen, knowing how childish in its nature that process is, makes my mind bleed.

Quote

I agreed with most of the cultural and societal critiques.

I don't agree with some things. He was a global warming denier (if I recall), I'm mostly secular on religion, however to be fair he wasn't religious really, it was more of a cultural thing. I don't believe in "Eurabia", it makes about as much sense to me as the ZOG conspiracies out there.

I’m amazed.
You just calmly stepped around dead kids. Like Breivik’s opinion on global warming matters more than lives he took.
You may disagree with him on global warming or what nickname for Muslim bogeyman you’ll use, but don’t you realise that you agree with him on the most important issue, the need to control the society, and that – for the obvious god’s sake – is why he killed those kids.

Quote

Old Marxism wasn't the same thing. It is true oldschool marxists were against immigration and such. May wanna check out some Neo-Marxist Frankfurt school texts, however.

No, thanks. We don’t want to wake up that particular personality of mine. (One of the reasons why I froth in this thread is because I’m aware of my own psychopathy. Not because I think I’m morally superior, no, quite contrary. There are things I’d die and kill for. Please, let’s make the world a little less likely to give me a chance to do either or both of those.)

Quote

I'm not making a shallow "they took our jobs" argument. Going more into cultural genocide and such. I am not a racial separatist, more interested in culture and identity. That may just be me speaking as an American.

I am not denying that capitalism does go hand in hand in this, something the left doesn't want to admit.

Culture and identity, absolutely, only with dignity and no blame games. No trying to turn the wheel back either, the societies do evolve, that’s something no one ever could stop. But everyone does have their micro-influence in that process. Since I rather create than destroy, I want my share to be positive, even though the outcome is beyond me and it's likely it won't be positive.  

Quote

Well we are materialistic shallow trash now. Understandable.

People of WalMart. I rest my case.

Quote

True! All our politicians (including most of yours) are a detached intellectual class.

Very attached to money, oil and other flows.

Quote

Breivik was an Israel lover and was anti-Nazi.

Of course he was. What not to love about the life behind the wall? So why is he complaining now? He got the kind of accomodation he recommended for everyone else.  
Speaking of which, the term Nazi should be avoided, it stands for something completely else than it is generously used today. Except constructions like Grammar-Nazi, these are hilarious.
I prefer totalitarian, covers it much better, creates less confusion and also helps avoid bringing some of the most abused labels of all times into discussions. (I see your "Nazi!" and raise you an "Anti-Semite!".)

Quote

It is a combination of factors.

Yes, it is. It’s also damn annoying to watch something go all wrong and feel like you can’t do anything about it. I understand that and that’s why I appeal on all of you to try to not go too far in your justified revolt. Pretty please, try to realistically assess your situation. Because this is a small world, and your situation is mine too.

Quote

Right, I'm a roleplayer. Okay! Thanks for the assumptions! We can end this here then.

We can, but you owe me a creative insult back. Seriously. It’s good for venting the frustrations that we share. Come on, I know it would be so damn multikulti thing to do, but I promise my culture is mostly compatible with yours. *fingers crossed behind my back*

Edited by Helen of Annoy, 15 November 2012 - 06:11 PM.

[Gravitorbox]

Helen of Annoy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

Yes, but it’s irrelevant here. The topic is Breivik, undisputed mass murderer and I’m claiming here that his ideology and his deeds are in obvious, direct relation while you claim what he did was not directly or not at all related to his political beliefs. Which is more realistic notion?

Whilst true it is irrelevant. Fundamentally irrelevant, because by that logic all beliefs of any side lead to mass murder. The point is that I don't believe any belief can be illegitimatized by action, or else. Christians have killed for their views, no one except hardcore atheists are arguing by that logic Christianity is always bad. Yes, he committed his crimes in the name of Nationalism, but we can't use that as an intellectual block to discredit discussing the actual issues of cultural marxism and whatnot, because anyone can decide whether to deal with the problem with violence or not - he chose the latter. Maybe violence is the only answer with how Orwellian this society has become, and he felt helpless?

Helen of Annoy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

Anyone who claims “Croats were on Hitler’s side” is not only a bigot, but also a revisionist,

He is probably referring to the Ustaše.

Helen of Annoy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

Psychopaths are more common than that, but I do believe you don’t sport SS uniforms, it would contradict your Euro-scepticism.

As someone who is into psychology as a hobby, I don't think anyone here knows what a real psychopath is. A psychopath is someone who has no empathy or emotions at all - that means they probably are not likely to commit crimes of passion. They're more likely to be calm, collected, and manipulative.

Believe me when I tell you this, when it comes to extremism then selective empathy for your opponents is easily triggered. If you also intellectually convince yourself murder is the only answer, you may be able to gather up the willpower to do so. Hate is powerful, and you can easily justify killing in the name of something you hold dear.

Narcissism is more likely, since psychologically they are similar to Borderlines - extremely emotional, as such can be extremely hateful.

Helen of Annoy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

Have you ever met a nationalist who had no totalitarian tendencies? I haven’t.

I am actually skeptical of universal suffrage, but having no democracy does not equal totalitarian. I was contesting the fact that Breivik was totalitarian. I actually believe a lot of these new nationalist types are afraid of totalitarianism/authoritarianism in principle because they perceive the cultural marxists as orwellian and totalitarian and want to oppose them on all philosophical areas, hence you find a lot of these right-libertarians throwing freedom around...yet because they believe in liberty you start questioning how the hell they intend to make massive social reforms and fix society.

It is neurotic and they're too cowardly to accept that sometimes you need an authoritarian hand. Maybe I could say the same for Breivik.

Helen of Annoy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

I also believe democracy can’t survive in true nationalist environment.

It can if there's no internal threats to deal with. The U.S.A. remained very organic most of it's existence until the 60's, then we fell faster than everyone else to consumerism.

Helen of Annoy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

I’m amazed.
You just calmly stepped around dead kids. Like Breivik’s opinion on global warming matters more than lives he took.

Because I don't consider the actions relevent. I'm analyzing his views, this **** goes without saying. Do you want me to affix an addendum to each post that says "I do NOT believe in murdering kids!" like some pedantic autistic?

Helen of Annoy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

You may disagree with him on global warming or what nickname for Muslim bogeyman you’ll use, but don’t you realise that you agree with him on the most important issue, the need to control the society, and that – for the obvious god’s sake – is why he killed those kids.

So believing that you need to control society means I want to kill kids? You can choose how to act on any belief you wish, he decided to kill kids. This is actually extremely logical for any sane person to understand, which means, as you are not stupid, you are pointless beating me over the head with it to seem like the more "moral" person here. It is intellectually dishonest.

As I said, any ideological views can have multiple ways of being implemented. He decided he wanted to kill a lot of socialists to prevent possible future politicians. Whilst pragmatic in theory, he failed to take into account the horrendous amount of backlash that caused towards people with beliefs like his. That is where he failed, though time will tell if it awakened enough people to matter - I doubt it. Cause - effect.

I am not discussing this emotionally or morally because morals have nothing to do with an objective analysis. Forgive me if I detach myself, it is a habit of mine.

Helen of Annoy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

No, thanks. We don’t want to wake up that particular personality of mine. (One of the reasons why I froth in this thread is because I’m aware of my own psychopathy. Not because I think I’m morally superior, no, quite contrary. There are things I’d die and kill for. Please, let’s make the world a little less likely to give me a chance to do either or both of those.)

Maybe you're a smarter person than me. Reading some of the stuff said by Frankfurt school philosophers made me furious.

Helen of Annoy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

Culture and identity, absolutely, only with dignity and no blame games. No trying to turn the wheel back either, the societies do evolve, that’s something no one ever could stop. But everyone does have their micro-influence in that process. Since I rather create than destroy, I want my share to be positive, even though the outcome is beyond me and it's likely it won't be positive.

How you choose to respond is your own.

Helen of Annoy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

Of course he was. What not to love about the life behind the wall? So why is he complaining now? He got the kind of accomodation he recommended for everyone else.  
Speaking of which, the term Nazi should be avoided, it stands for something completely else than it is generously used today. Except constructions like Grammar-Nazi, these are hilarious.
I prefer totalitarian, covers it much better, creates less confusion and also helps avoid bringing some of the most abused labels of all times into discussions. (I see your "Nazi!" and raise you an "Anti-Semite!".)

I find it amusing how so many people on the far right rejected Breivik as a "Zionist" when you can rationalize with five seconds of thought why he supported what he did.

Helen of Annoy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

Yes, it is. It’s also damn annoying to watch something go all wrong and feel like you can’t do anything about it. I understand that and that’s why I appeal on all of you to try to not go too far in your justified revolt. Pretty please, try to realistically assess your situation. Because this is a small world, and your situation is mine too.

Try reading about what happened to Rhodesia and what's happening to Afrikaners. It's hard to hold in anger. I try to keep my sanity however.

Helen of Annoy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

We can, but you owe me a creative insult back. Seriously. It’s good for venting the frustrations that we share. Come on, I know it would be so damn multikulti thing to do, but I promise my culture is mostly compatible with yours. *fingers crossed behind my back*

I don't like insulting people in civil conversations. No justification.

Edited by Gravitorbox, 15 November 2012 - 09:27 PM.

[Mr Right Wing]

Helen of Annoy, on 15 November 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

1. Yes, but it’s irrelevant here. The topic is Breivik, undisputed mass murderer and I’m claiming here that his ideology and his deeds are in obvious, direct relation while you claim what he did was not directly or not at all related to his political beliefs. Which is more realistic notion?
2. Anyone who claims “Croats were on Hitler’s side” is not only a bigot, but also a revisionist, because the well documented truth about WWII is very much different than your local habit of demonising nations that your politics see as obstacles in arranging the world according to your dreams of lost empire rising again.
3. Psychopaths are more common than that, but I do believe you don’t sport SS uniforms, it would contradict your Euro-scepticism.

1. If his ideology caused him to do the massacre then the same ideology, present in millions of people today, would mean there are millions of massacres being commited. Can I ask where they all are? His ideology didnt cause the massacre his narcissistic personality disorder did and I dont understand why you cant see that.
2. My country had to come save you lot because the Serbs were genociding you in the 90s. They were genociding you in revenge for you genociding them on Hilters orders during WW2. Memories like that dont fade so its best to treat your neighbours nicely.
3. So you acknowledge Brevik is a psychopath? All we need to get you to see now is that Conservatives arent psychopaths just because of their ideology.

[Likely Guy]

Breivik's manifesto. Someone said that he referenced sources for his ideology.

Start a new thread, list those references and if you agree with them, prepare to defend that ideology.

[Helen of Annoy]

Gravitorbox, on 15 November 2012 - 09:23 PM, said:

Whilst true it is irrelevant. Fundamentally irrelevant, because by that logic all beliefs of any side lead to mass murder. The point is that I don't believe any belief can be illegitimatized by action, or else. Christians have killed for their views, no one except hardcore atheists are arguing by that logic Christianity is always bad. Yes, he committed his crimes in the name of Nationalism, but we can't use that as an intellectual block to discredit discussing the actual issues of cultural marxism and whatnot, because anyone can decide whether to deal with the problem with violence or not - he chose the latter. Maybe violence is the only answer with how Orwellian this society has become, and he felt helpless?

While it’s certainly true that every person has its own interpretation of everything, ideologies included, it’s also very obviously true that some ideologies cannot be applied in constructive way simply because their fundamental postulates are destructive.
Once you set society on fire, not only you won’t be able to tell how will that fire spread, what it will destroy, but you also won’t be able to extinguish it anymore. Since you don’t believe me or history, you will probably have to find that out from your own experience.
In short: fighting something you perceive as lefty Orwellian with psychopath methods will land you into right but still Orwellian crap. Personally, I don’t care that much for iconography. Crap is crap, be it more red or black hue.

Quote

He is probably referring to the Ustaše.

And I’m referring to my Croatian partisan grandparents, marshal Josip Broz Tito and both official and oral history of my land and my peoples. When British empire nostalgists falsify history they are offending me personally.
WWII in this part of the world is huge topic that tolerates no simplifications. If you are genuinely interested, start a thread. I won’t desecrate my heritage by smearing it all over – pffft – Breivik thread. Except for MRW, see below   

Quote

As someone who is into psychology as a hobby, I don't think anyone here knows what a real psychopath is. A psychopath is someone who has no empathy or emotions at all - that means they probably are not likely to commit crimes of passion. They're more likely to be calm, collected, and manipulative.

Believe me when I tell you this, when it comes to extremism then selective empathy for your opponents is easily triggered. If you also intellectually convince yourself murder is the only answer, you may be able to gather up the willpower to do so. Hate is powerful, and you can easily justify killing in the name of something you hold dear.

Narcissism is more likely, since psychologically they are similar to Borderlines - extremely emotional, as such can be extremely hateful.

Thank god you made it, we were in danger of not classifying it right.

They say he's not stupid, so I assume he was aware of all the possibilities. Only a psychopath can disregard fear of having his narcissist ass eliminated by the police by procedural mistake of head smashing proportions. On the other hand, guy evidently has severe death-by-person-in-uniform fetish, so getting killed while being roughly handled by the police might have been the best outcome possible. This is family site, so I suggest we drop this particular nitpicking.  

Quote

I am actually skeptical of universal suffrage, but having no democracy does not equal totalitarian. I was contesting the fact that Breivik was totalitarian. I actually believe a lot of these new nationalist types are afraid of totalitarianism/authoritarianism in principle because they perceive the cultural marxists as orwellian and totalitarian and want to oppose them on all philosophical areas, hence you find a lot of these right-libertarians throwing freedom around...yet because they believe in liberty you start questioning how the hell they intend to make massive social reforms and fix society.

It is neurotic and they're too cowardly to accept that sometimes you need an authoritarian hand. Maybe I could say the same for Breivik.

To be brutally honest, I don’t care for theoretical philosophy or ideology much. Religion goes there too to some extent, but I don’t want to digress more than I do. These are sports for privileged kids, who can afford walk on clouds while the rest of us needs all the brain and muscle power applied in reality.
I find Breiviks offensively arrogant. Who the **** are you, kid, to tell me who my enemy is and how the **** dare you suggest I need your cowardly ass to defend me? Me? From children? Really?
I don’t need parasites of any kind, shape or hue to write me manifestos. Just apply the ****en common sense: we can’t have unbalanced society, we can’t go around killing people, we can’t **** in the middle of the room and then be all surprised when it stinks. No authority, just common sense.  
The bottom line is, I don’t care what label will be put on someone’s actions. They speak for themselves. I don’t care what book someone is thumping in attempt to excuse the inexcusable. This is me, these are my actions. I stand clean before god in which I don’t quite believe. (I’m the living proof the religion is not necessary for morality.)
There’s no other way than personal changes. Seems futile. Am I tempted to agree we need a firm hand? Sure. Am I good enough for such task? Hell, no! He who thinks he is – is not sane. Would I like a lunatic in power? What, again?! Nooo-oh.  

Quote

It can if there's no internal threats to deal with. The U.S.A. remained very organic most of it's existence until the 60's, then we fell faster than everyone else to consumerism.

Democracy in USA? You kidding me? You have election shows but the democracy was last seen swimming across Atlantic chased by insatiable sharks. It did, however, survive. In spirit of small communities where people still care about others and remember the art of compromise is what kept them alive.

Quote

Because I don't consider the actions relevent. I'm analyzing his views, this **** goes without saying. Do you want me to affix an addendum to each post that says "I do NOT believe in murdering kids!" like some pedantic autistic?

And I claim the analysis is incomplete if dead kids are dropped out of it. Actually, the analysis is worthless if they, the key part, are dropped out.
Because, you know, I have to be still breathing if you want me to discuss global warming.

Quote

So believing that you need to control society means I want to kill kids? You can choose how to act on any belief you wish, he decided to kill kids. This is actually extremely logical for any sane person to understand, which means, as you are not stupid, you are pointless beating me over the head with it to seem like the more "moral" person here. It is intellectually dishonest.

As I said, any ideological views can have multiple ways of being implemented. He decided he wanted to kill a lot of socialists to prevent possible future politicians. Whilst pragmatic in theory, he failed to take into account the horrendous amount of backlash that caused towards people with beliefs like his. That is where he failed, though time will tell if it awakened enough people to matter - I doubt it. Cause - effect.

I am not discussing this emotionally or morally because morals have nothing to do with an objective analysis. Forgive me if I detach myself, it is a habit of mine.

No, I specified I'm aware of my own immoral potential. Just because I'm fair enough to admit my own faults (warn about them if you please) doesn't mean I'm willing or able to fix them.
As for beating you over the head, hey, I thought you advocate firm guidance. It's for your own good, I'm leading you to the better future by giving you Pavlovlev reflex to dead kids. Each time someone mentions killing children, you'll instinctively remember me and cover your head. That should render you useless for speeches, but will help you save your head in case of war. Because where dead kids are, there is soon the revenge too. It's a fact of life.    


Emotions (and true moral, which stems from emotions) have everything to do with objective and complete analysis of society. We are not discussing steam engines, we are discussing people.
I despise those who told you it’s possible to come to any sane or even relevant conclusion through detached process.
A surgeon must not think about patient’s pain while operating, that’s why there’s an anaesthesiologist in the operation room. But the reason why the **** the operation is being done is the patient’s pain, the need to relieve it.
Extremists, both left and right, are so enthusiastic about social surgeries without anaesthesia you simply can’t help but notice their primary interest is afflicting pain, not curing the disease.

Quote

Maybe you're a smarter person than me. Reading some of the stuff said by Frankfurt school philosophers made me furious.

I’m also psychic so I get furious without reading crap that has “Marxism” in its title.

Quote

How you choose to respond is your own.

I agree.
But how feeble minded respond is programmed by popular media today. You are programming simple people who read this thread to embrace the little psycho each of us carry inside their mind, I’m programming them to find a true human inside them, bigger than Breivik.
I’m making kindness and consideration cool again.

Quote

I find it amusing how so many people on the far right rejected Breivik as a "Zionist" when you can rationalize with five seconds of thought why he supported what he did.

In light of ballistic projectiles flying, I will refrain from tossing terms around. May Jews and Arabs have mercy on each other, since their leaderships have none.  

Quote

Try reading about what happened to Rhodesia and what's happening to Afrikaners. It's hard to hold in anger. I try to keep my sanity however.

Another huge topic, deserving its own thread. But to remain morbidly honest, my loyalty is with my family. First. No matter what. It’s hardwired and it’s huge mistake to pretend any social conditioning can override it. (Have you had a mild orgasm after reading this? Kidding!) Meaning that though I don’t think Europeans had any right to settle in Africa in the way they did, I cannot ever approve of violence against my family.
This is why every group of people, be it 200 million huge nation or 3 idiots only village, needs highly moral representatives, immune to bribe or vanity, so various Helens are not put into position to choose between justice and family. I’d choose family and I know it. And that’s how wars restart.
Put greedy, vain b****** in power and there’s no need to restart wars since they wouldn’t be ending at all.

What I don’t know is how humanity could drag itself into state of common sense, with saint representatives. But I’m damn sure Breivik has even less clue about anything real and useful than me, since I spent more time patching real life up than he has spent playing games on line.    

Quote

I don't like insulting people in civil conversations. No justification.

Sourpuss

Mr Right Wing, on 16 November 2012 - 12:02 AM, said:

1. If his ideology caused him to do the massacre then the same ideology, present in millions of people today, would mean there are millions of massacres being commited. Can I ask where they all are? His ideology didnt cause the massacre his narcissistic personality disorder did and I dont understand why you cant see that.
2. My country had to come save you lot because the Serbs were genociding you in the 90s. They were genociding you in revenge for you genociding them on Hilters orders during WW2. Memories like that dont fade so its best to treat your neighbours nicely.
3. So you acknowledge Brevik is a psychopath? All we need to get you to see now is that Conservatives arent psychopaths just because of their ideology.

You are most definitely my favourite troll of all times. *hugs*


1. Have you watched any news lately? Psycho ideologies make it possible for closet psychos to go full psycho.

2. Your country stood on its diplomatic head to help Serbs ethnically cleanse all the territories you promised to Russia. It was US that helped us out. Maybe you don’t know, but my whole nation knows. Serbs know too and are they pissed off for undelivered promises.

Genocides in ex-Yugoslavia in WWII were horrible.
You can start learning about them here:
http://www.mgb.org.r...jicki-logor/375

Let me translate that poster from concentration camp Banjica (near Belgrade, in Serbia) museum:
“All Jews must report on April 19^th of this current year, at 8 o’clock in the morning, to city police (in Fire command building in Tašmajdan).
Jews who do not respond to this announcement will be shot.”

That’s Jews, others were shot or had their throats cut with no formal announcement.


3. Go back to square one. By the way, if I was Conservative, I'd be very worried with the way you champion me here