[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by Bonged.)
LOL! well at least now we know why he liked sweden so much. man i feel bad for scandinavians atm. They didn't even have empires, what have they done to deserve this?

I doubt Scandinavians care. He merely enjoyed his time there as a young man, here he is:

[whyumadtho]

(Original post by Bonged.)
In your world view. Plenty of people operate as part of a community based on culture.

In Britain, what is the nationwide axis of operation? Isn't it the law? Even then, there are organised criminals who operate outside of the law.

I'm not theorising it in that context.

Then in what context are you theorising it?

You seem to have a problem with the word group. There are no groups of people that all have a specific trait. Individuals are all different. However, as part of a cultural group likelihoods of certain traits are more or less likely to manifest in the individual respective to that culture.

What is this cultural group? I have already identified multiple sociocultural disparities between native Britons, and you have suggested there is an overarching culture that still connects these people but have refused to identify it. If they are within a group, what factor(s) puts them within this group, and what factor(s) obviate migrants from also being in this group?

How, when you admit to the multidimensional polygonal nature of people's psychological traits, do you still feel it is possible to delineate between the overlapping, fissiparous and often clashing qualities immanent in any democratic, consumerist/capitalist, liberal, etc. society? How do these qualities connect and preclude any connection with migrant individuals?

[Brutal Honesty]

(Original post by Miss_Scarlett)
No.

There will be some tensions, but his response was completely abnormal and unnecessarily violent.

Also as a complete random aside, I swear to God this is the truth...Anders Breivik tried to add me on facebook about 3 years ago. It really freaks me out. Was in the gym today watching him on sky news, he literally has no remorse for his behaviour stating he would "do the same again...". :/

Maybe if you accepted him he wouldn't have killed so many people.

[Formerly Helpful_C]

(Original post by Mehmoodd)
He'll use whatever reason he can to justify himself.

He's a nutjob.

He was against the islamification of Europe and multiculturalism but killed more nationals...

Are you missing the vital link? The Labour Party (of Norway) allowed mass immigration, which sparked and fuelled his hatred of Muslims and immigrants. The camp that he attacked was organised by the Workers' Youth League, which is the youth division of the ruling Labour Party.

Makes sense now, doesn't it?

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Spaz Man)
While it is a serious issue that needs to be discussed, the guy is clearly seems so demented, especially from what I've seen so far of the trial that there can't possibly have been any excuses/possible justification for his behaviour.

"Is clearly seems to be demented"

You do realise that in most of my comments I've been describing the "he's crazy, no justification" view is wrong IMO.

He clearly layed out hi motives for the attack, wrote a manifesto, planned it, precision.

He was extreme, but calculating.

[prog2djent]

(Original post by Brutal Honesty)
i.e. Muslim immigrants are ruining the culture of Christian Europe via 'liberal elites' and 'cultural Marxism' etc. .

I think he was stressing that it was the other way round.

Hence why he attacked the people he did.

[Darth Stewie]

Think logical outcome isn't really the right phrase but I think he was an inevitable outcome.

He isn't insane or deluded, that's why he is more dangerous now than he was with a loaded gun because the second he gets on that stand and airs his views we could have thousands more inspired to do something similar. Tbh i would bet any amount of money the Norwegians are considering putting a bullet through his skull before he makes it to trial and just taking the international outcry on the chin or framing it as some type of revenge attack, he knows killing some left wing kids and blowing up some buildings isn't going to change anything in the long run and I'd bet this trial and his inevitably inspiring and inflammatory speech was the plan all along.

[germanicscot]

It is nice to see that outside of the mainstream and corrupt press, there is a real debate going on about what Breivik did. I dont agree with killing others but I am starting to beleive that the left wing/globalist capitalist project to allow unhindered access to millions of foreigners into european countries would eventually hit a tipping point for the local people. every people on earth have a right to their own land. Again I will say though that murdering minors is NOT the best way to the deal with the situation!

[Miss_Scarlett]

(Original post by Brutal Honesty)
Maybe if you accepted him he wouldn't have killed so many people.

: - |

No....just no. lol.

[I Kant Spall]

(Original post by Darth Stewie)
Think logical outcome isn't really the right phrase but I think he was an inevitable outcome.

He isn't insane or deluded, that's why he is more dangerous now than he was with a loaded gun because the second he gets on that stand and airs his views we could have thousands more inspired to do something similar. Tbh i would bet any amount of money the Norwegians are considering putting a bullet through his skull before he makes it to trial and just taking the international outcry on the chin or framing it as some type of revenge attack, he knows killing some left wing kids and blowing up some buildings isn't going to change anything in the long run and I'd bet this trial and his inevitably inspiring and inflammatory speech was the plan all along.

Probably the most sensible post in the thread so far. The intense media coverage so far has given Breivik a platform to essentially recite and explain his beliefs that were previously confined to his manifesto. And there's simply no way around this. If one respects judicial integrity and the rule of law, then Breivik needs to be allowed to elucidate his reasoning in a courtroom setting. This goes back to the ol' adage "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it." He is an intelligent man and everyone appears to be eating from the palm of his hand.

This guy on AJ English also speaks some sense, which is odd considering his views have changed since he wrote this editorial for the Guardian last year. What he dismissed earlier as "tunnel vision resulting from selective perusal of the internet" is now a more popular ideology that needs to be addressed, whether one agrees with it or not. He openly admits that it is not an isolated case. Not even a Norwegian professor of anthropology would suggest that every critic of multiculturalism has "allowed himself to be brainwashed by Islamophobic and extreme rightwing websites."

No reasonable person would agree with Breivik's actions, but his criticism of multiculturalism and immigration is nonetheless valid. No amount of condescending media or judicial obfuscation will change that.

[effofex]

(Original post by germanicscot)
It is nice to see that outside of the mainstream and corrupt press, there is a real debate going on about what Breivik did. I dont agree with killing others but I am starting to beleive that the left wing/globalist capitalist project to allow unhindered access to millions of foreigners into european countries would eventually hit a tipping point for the local people. every people on earth have a right to their own land. Again I will say though that murdering minors is NOT the best way to the deal with the situation!

right-wing, surely?

[effofex]

(Original post by Bonged.)
Different socio-economic groups can have the same over arching culture. A spanish peasant and a spanish king are more culturally similar to each other than to the respective lower and upper class people in your pic.

Really? So the Spanish monarch shares less with the British monarch in terms of behaviour, dress, culinary customs, dress, standard of living, mobility, responsibility, outlook, economic situation, etc. than he does with a Spanish peasant?

[cambio wechsel]

He looks entirely white to me. I'm not an expert, mind.

[Notethis]

White is subjective. It's a state of mind.

Spoiler:

Show

[madders94]

Nope, Breivik is the outcome of xenophobia, extremist views and him being an evil killer.

[madders94]

(Original post by effofex)
right-wing, surely?

I thought being against multiculturalism was more of a right-wing thing, allowing it freely is quite leftist? Apologies if I'm wrong.

[RightSaidJames]

(Original post by Formerly Helpful_C)
Tony, is that you?

According to this poll, you're wrong: http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpu...mmigrants.aspx

I know, immediately, someone will argue that there is some vague difference between 'multiculturalism' and 'multi-racialism', but that's only because their political stance obligates them to. Multiculturalism is okay in small doses - Notting Hill Carnival, for example - but over time it erodes and distorts the existing 'order'.

Immigrants ---> demand for niche stores ---> niche stores dominating local neighbourhood.

However, we're faced with a dilemma. Do we try to artificially preserve a culture that has always changed or do we accept artificial change? The only problem is that this a huge 'non-invasive' force - something no nation has had to deal with before.

I see no problem with distorting the existing order or the domination of certain neighbourhoods by certain cultures. Immigration is not something that governments can meaningfully control in this age of globalisation, so they may as well live and let live.

[RightSaidJames]

(Original post by KimKallstrom)
And you'd know that being from Cowbridge?

Live in Luton for a year and let's see what's up.

Are you accusing me of being a Champagne Socialist? For the record I've also lived in Brussels, Michigan and, for the past 4 years, Cardiff.

Yeah, I know that culture clashes often cause tension, violence and other problems, but from a wider perspective immigration is an overwhelmingly positive force. Even if it wasn't, in an age of globalisation there's nothing anyone (be they terrorist or politician) can do about it.

[effofex]

(Original post by madders94)
I thought being against multiculturalism was more of a right-wing thing, allowing it freely is quite leftist? Apologies if I'm wrong.

Right and Left refer specifically to the economic policy pursued by the state.

Left-wing policy - protectionism, state ownership of industry, price-setting, restricted movement of labour to capital (e.g. North Korea, China - outside the metropolises).

Right-wing policy - free markets, privatized economy, free movement of labour to capital, high migration rates, business friendly economic policy.

[madders94]

(Original post by effofex)
Right and Left refer specifically to the economic policy pursued by the state.

Left-wing policy - protectionism, state ownership of industry, price-setting, restricted movement of labour to capital (e.g. North Korea, China - outside the metropolises).

Right-wing policy - free markets, privatized economy, free movement of labour to capital, high migration rates, business friendly economic policy.

Ah ok, thanks for the explanation