Thus passes the great hero Anders Breivik into martyrdom

[istaros]

those "long-stand cultural traditions" don't jive with a system whose aim is to replace all evidence of customs, tradition and nationalistic pride with business ventures.  capitalism is a system that will function best in an environment where notions like identity don't figure into the mix because the goal is a homogenized mass. the multiculturalism that many of the members of this forum deem egregious is the most successful social component reared by capitalism; as capitalism becomes more expansive, the need for a faceless labor force populated by undereducated foreigners will continued to expand geometrically.  in order to realize the need for lower cost variable capital, your best means of getting there is widening the talent pool in the name of multiculturalism.

This is all conjecture. Replace each instance of the word "capitalism" in the above text with its opposite, "communism," and it retains the same level of veracity overall. Some parts of it become even more accurate (homogenized mass, multi-culturalist social component, faceless labor force) and the only point at which it becomes a bit inaccurate is at the concept of using foreigners for cheap labor. "Business ventures" can be exchanged for "state projects."

Thus, globalist and multi-culturalist tendencies can and should be addressed discretely, not as being components of any particular economic construct. While it is true to say that capitalism in its purest form would necessarily adopt a multi-cultural stance, once again, this is just as true for its opposite. These tendencies can be adopted by either system, which means they can also *not* be adopted by either one. Furthermore, the USA itself doesn't practice capitalism in its purest form - I'm not aware of any nation that does. A move towards capitalism does not by default mean the adoption of capitalism at its highest function. A nation full of money-grubbing opportunists would probably do that, but a nation that is built around shared cultural concepts would probably not. So the question regarding this individual's proposals is not why he wants to homogenize his home culture -which he obviously and vocally does not- but what benefits does he see from a move towards a capitalist economy?

Hookers & blow, probably.

[hoodwink]

This is all conjecture. Replace each instance of the word "capitalism" in the above text with its opposite, "communism," and it retains the same level of veracity overall. Some parts of it become even more accurate (homogenized mass, multi-culturalist social component, faceless labor force) and the only point at which it becomes a bit inaccurate is at the concept of using foreigners for cheap labor. "Business ventures" can be exchanged for "state projects."

Thus, globalist and multi-culturalist tendencies can and should be addressed discretely, not as being components of any particular economic construct. While it is true to say that capitalism in its purest form would necessarily adopt a multi-cultural stance, once again, this is just as true for its opposite. These tendencies can be adopted by either system, which means they can also *not* be adopted by either one. Furthermore, the USA itself doesn't practice capitalism in its purest form - I'm not aware of any nation that does. A move towards capitalism does not by default mean the adoption of capitalism at its highest function. A nation full of money-grubbing opportunists would probably do that, but a nation that is built around shared cultural concepts would probably not. So the question regarding this individual's proposals is not why he wants to homogenize his home culture -which he obviously and vocally does not- but what benefits does he see from a move towards a capitalist economy?

Hookers & blow, probably.

While I will agree that there are a fair number of assumptions in the post you quoted, I feel that your response is a more severe reduction.  There's a common misconception about communism that was spawned (largely) as a product of American political spin.  If we are to regard communism in its purest form, it fosters a strong sense of nationalism.  In an absurd simplification, communism is about a society allocating resources together for common advancement and good.  Trouble arises when viewing the various corrupted communist systems witnessed in history . Communism in the Stalinist sense could apply if we are to regard the state in the role of the faceless capitalist.  The difference is that in capitalism there still is an inherent element of competition between corporate entities which, in theory, may provide a balance. Central planning, however, eliminates competition - in Stalinist centralized economics the fundamental premise is the state does not compete with itself.  For Stalinist communism to succeed all workers must agree on the common principles of working for the common good or common society ideals; multiculturalism weakens that (witness the response of the Baltics to Soviet Rule).  Perhaps a great historical point for state-controlled economy fostering a sense of nationalism is the economy of Nazi Germany...while it's assuredly not communist, it's definitely a tightly controlled state run economy with the goal of fostering self-reliance and nationalistic tendencies.  In terms of Stalinist state economic planning it could be argued it's close...but as was mentioned earlier, it's debatable whether the Soviet Union's policies were themselves really communist in practice.  

Although I absolutely agree with you that capitalism and multiculturalism aren't mutually dependent - and I misspoke by implying that capitalism spawned multiculturalism - I maintain that multiculturalism is, currently, the best means available to accelerate and ensure the success of capitalism.  But, I do think we can agree that that certain underlying thought systems are kind of prerequisites for successful function of either economic system in their pure form.  I assumed, perhaps falsely, that the excessively idealistic Mr. Breivik would only be able to comprehend of an economic system in its purest form.  Based on this assumption, I've concluded that his romanticized view of the "super capitalist" economy would be pretty comparable to the 72 virgins allegedly awaiting Muslim suicide bombers.  

[Veritas]

morals aren't objective guyzz

Are you keeping a tally on how many times you've started this debate now? (has it ever gone anywhere?)

Ignoring whether it is or not, what are the implications of morality not being objective? Should such a realisation alter our behaviour or thoughts in any significant way?

[Cargést]

morals aren't objective guyzz

Are you keeping a tally on how many times you've started this debate now? (has it ever gone anywhere?)

Ignoring whether it is or not, what are the implications of morality not being objective? Should such a realisation alter our behaviour or thoughts in any significant way?

It's not a debate, since nobody's ever (successfully) disagreed (or even wanted to?  Not sure).  I think I've had to remind people about three times, now, though.

From a good source (corrupt.org):

b) Active Nihilism: Nihilism seen as a continuous process, meaning one strips the outlook on life of all values, and then create new values out of the void, thus turning nihilism into a form of mental weapon, that one can use to examine different interpretations of reality.

No moral system is true; some moral systems are more valid than others.

[Nimbostratus]

New straw man for Norway. Now they have their own Hitler-devil, new victims to shelter (liberal teens) and better reasons to repudiate "racist bigots".

Amazing strategy. Breivik was a rational genius, no sentimental anti-consequentialist bullshit.


       

[▓]

Interesting interview with the shooter's lawyer on the BBC news channel today.

Turns out the lawyer is himself a card-carrying member of the Labour party that the shooter targeted, and they had even crossed paths when they both owned offices in the same tower block a few years ago.

[hoodwink]

You'd think an avowed end to "naivety" would recognize a statement like, "we will retaliate with more democracy" for the colossal oxymoron that it is.  

I'm reminded of an old comedy called Teahouse of the August Moon wherein a feckless demagogue base commander in Okinawa during World War II describes his mission as, "My job is to teach these natives the meaning of democracy, and they're going to learn democracy if I have to shoot every one of them." 

[Nimbostratus]

In the wake of such irresponsible rhetoric, I think one point needs to be expressed loudly and strongly: there is no greater poverty of spirit than one which adopts a partisan mindset towards human atrocities. The killing of a hundred innocent civilians must be viewed with horror, even if we happen to like the political mindset of their murderer and despise the general outlook of those murdered. And yes, mass murder of likely “cultural Marxists” and “multicultural elitists” is still mass murder. To see things otherwise is to forfeit our humanity. They Live may be an inspired little B-movie, but in real life, our opponents aren’t sinister, bloodsucking aliens posing as humans; they don’t merit indiscriminate slaughter. [...]

Finally, AltRightists really need to stop moaning and groaning about how things are really going to get bad for us now. In the first place, such reflexive alarmism is annoyingly whiny. In the second place, it is thoroughly misguided. The attempt of the Left to smear all Rightists as genocidal Breiviks-in-training will fail. It’s rhetorically quite weak. Breivik is, after all, just one man, and his actions are too extreme to be viewed as representative of anyone but himself.

http://www.alternativeright.com/main/blogs/untimely-observations/the-politics-of-nihilism/

This guy made the sensible approach that other new right blogs didn't. However, being an "alarmist", or pointing how detrimental his actions were to his cause, sadly became a necessity after all the idiotic appraisal he received from some conservatives, and actually, without underestimating the impact, things will get harder for the right.

Finally, I agree that conservatives need to go ahead from this, succeeding and rejecting this lone piece of crap Breivik

[hoodwink]

Looks like Varg's got something to say about this:

War in Europe: Part I - Cui bono?

Many argue that Mr. Breivik was in fact executing orders from Mossad, to punish the Palestine-loving Marxist-governed Norway, but first and foremost to create a false banner for misinformed right-wing extremists to unite under, and that what he was doing was a "false flag" operation.

His manifest is vast, some 1500 pages, and he is pretty thorough in both what he says and what he did. There are a few facts that doesn't make sense to me. How can he list all the problems caused by different Jews in our history and yet fail to mention even one of them with a single word in his manifest? He attacks the symptoms of the disease Europe is suffering under, but not the cause of the disease.

He is a Freemason too, and that certainly doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Freemasonry is international Jewry at it's worst; they too are working for a de-construction of all nations on Earth, and to build a global Hebrew temple, enslaving us all under the will of the Jews and their servants, the Freemasons. Well, this explains why he doesn't say a word about the creators of all the different religions and ideologies now set up to fight against each other.

He is a Christian too. Now, in a sense that does make sense, but why does it make sense? The Jews created Christianity as a religion for non-Jews to follow, so that they too would become worshippers of their Hebrew false "God", so that the unruly Pagan Europeans would become servants and a powerful tool for the Jews. Whether the Jews created Islam too, or whether they just saw an opportunity coming when it was created is not known, but we do know that the Jews have always promoted conflict between these two religions and indeed they still do. When the Christians grow too strong the Jews support the Muslims to weaken the Christians. When the Muslims grow too strong the Jews support the Christians to weaken the Muslims. They often support both sides too, if both sides are too strong, and they often do in secret. Christians then kill Muslims, and vice versa, whilst the Jews laugh safely in the background, profiting from it all.

Mr. Breivik either went straight into their trap, like so many Christians have done in the past and still do, or he works knowingly for them, again like so many Christians have done in the past and still do. The Christians and the Muslims, ladies and gentlemen, are but soldiers/cannon fodder for the Jews in their mission to enslave us all under their rule.

What Mr. Breivik has said is largely true, in all except in what he doesn't say; he doesn't tell us that the Jews are the origin to all these problems, and that they were created by the Jews to hurt us. All we have to do to make this act of violence favourable to us is to make this clear to everyone; the Jews created Marxism, feminism, Christianity (need I tell you that Jesus and not least Paulus/Saul were both Jews?), so-called psychology, banking ("money lending"), the hippie-movement and all other ideologies and movements which are aimed to destroy and de-construct all nations in Europe. Behind each and every one of them you will find a Jew (or some times a Freemason)!

How could you miss that out, Mr. Breivik?

Working for the Jews, are you Mr. Breivik, to unite all European right-wing extremists under your false banner? To make sure the focus on the Jewish enemy of Europe is moved to something else? Or maybe you don't even know that you have been used by sinister Jews?

So now not only Christians kill Muslims, and vice versa. Right wing extremists are supposed to kill left-wing extremists too and vice versa I assume? Is that the plan? You did this to recruit and make even the right-wing extremists fight for the Jews?

Who benefits from this? Israel does! The Jews do! None of our aggression will be directed at them were it all should be directed. We will be fighting each other instead, whilst they move about in the background, out of the spotlight, and profit from our suffering, and in secret tighten the chains of slavery around our waists and ankles.

Oh, and by the way; true nationalists don't kill children of their own nation, even if someone tries to brainwash them, like AUF did. They were not (yet) Marxist extremists; they were just children.

Varg Vikernes
Bergen the 24th of July 2011


PS. You are free to send this article to everyone you know, and I hope you do. Translate it and publish it if you can. I claim no copyright or reproduction right to the contents of this article!

http://www.burzum.com/eng/library/war_in_europe01.shtml

[scourge]

All I've seen is a bunch of low foreheads who think they can change the world with dreams and talk. It's too late for that. If you're not ready to act give me a break and shut up. - Ben Richards, main character in some movie

[▓]

All I've seen is a bunch of low foreheads who think they can change the world with dreams and talk. It's too late for that. If you're not ready to act give me a break and shut up. - Ben Richards, main character in some movie

So what are you suggesting is the "correct" course of action for these chattering people?

[AnHero]

Looks like Varg's got something to say about this:

War in Europe: Part I - Cui bono?

Many argue that Mr. Breivik was in fact executing orders from Mossad, to punish the Palestine-loving Marxist-governed Norway, but first and foremost to create a false banner for misinformed right-wing extremists to unite under, and that what he was doing was a "false flag" operation.
....<snip>...
Who benefits from this? Israel does! The Jews do! None of our aggression will be directed at them were it all should be directed. We will be fighting each other instead, whilst they move about in the background, out of the spotlight, and profit from our suffering, and in secret tighten the chains of slavery around our waists and ankles.

Oh, and by the way; true nationalists don't kill children of their own nation, even if someone tries to brainwash them, like AUF did. They were not (yet) Marxist extremists; they were just children.

Varg Vikernes
Bergen the 24th of July 2011

http://www.burzum.com/eng/library/war_in_europe01.shtml

Oh, lovely. "The Jews!!!"

It gets better - In march of this year he wrote a "A Call for Resistance" against, amognst other things, muslim immigration:
http://www.burzum.com/eng/library/the_lords_of_lies09.shtml

(the forum coverts "burzum DOT org" to "burzum DOT com" so you'll have to change back to follow the link)

All I've seen is a bunch of low foreheads who think they can change the world with dreams and talk. It's too late for that. If you're not ready to act give me a break and shut up. - Ben Richards, main character in some movie

So what are you suggesting is the "correct" course of action for these chattering people?

Well, I guess to give him a break and shut up.

[▓]

Well, I guess to give him a break and shut up.

Well that is simply taking inactivity to even greater extremes!

[Conservationist]

All I've seen is a bunch of low foreheads who think they can change the world with dreams and talk. It's too late for that. If you're not ready to act give me a break and shut up. - Ben Richards, main character in some movie

So what are you suggesting is the "correct" course of action for these chattering people?

That's a good talking point.

scourge has given us a number of good suggestions over the years. He's one of the posters on here who should always be read.

I can't speak for others, but my read from scourge is that he's in a similar boat to most of us: gosh, we'd love non-violent solutions. We love the idea of war, if it's a just war, but not as a blanket solution. That's subtarded. We also hate the idea of harming people, including those we would exclude from the political process. We think The Holocaust was stupid and cruel. Need I go on?

However (you knew there'd be one of those) if our society doesn't change course, we're all dead or destroyed, and we'll take this planet down with us.

This my friends is a morally complex issue, not the candy-cane artificially simple shit in Disney movies. "Do I murder Bambi, or just order a cheeseburger?"

[sidereal]

From Complacency:

By controlling what our populations care about, leftism is able to cut truth out of the picture.

Leftism has cornered the market and monopolized the valuable feelings and morals consumer product.

They discovered the population generally responds to sentimental impulses and not to reasoning. Why? Most of the population has inherited this sort of brain structure, or metatypology. Getting the population on your side gets your own leaders in place over them. It was a set of too often replicated genes that has divorced truth from legitimacy. The left has simply adapted to the opportunity of the vulnerable psychology all around them.

Leftists most certainly are not convincing enough to create their falsehoods by way of consistently logical reasoning - they primarily utilize emotional appeal because this is the bait that gets the bites and the snappers in turn all end up in the boat on the left side.

Put truth on your line and compare how many bites you get. Very few from what I have seen.

Scourge, to argue that this is only a leftist problem is, I think, very wrong. Nazi germany was a prime candidate for utilizing emotional appeal and co-opting the vulernable psychology of those around them.

All the old political 'isms' are popularist, in the sense they depend on the primitive instincts of the masses to get going. Don't think that 'anti-democratic' means anti mass mentality. Often it can mean more. The only solution is education, so that politics (left or right) can be based less and less on apelike evolved intuitions which were adaptations to hunter-gatherer environments but which are now non-adaptive.

An interesting side note, the guy's religion is basically driven by group mentality. He is primarily a nationalist, christianity is a cultural thing:

"Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God.

We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform."

Section 3.139 Page 1309