It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Anders Behring Breivik and the hidden hate of ATS.

page: 5
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 10:50 PM
Norweigian shooter was NOT a psychopath. He knew what he was doing, had everything planned out and didn't "SNAP" as you have quoted. Just because the death toll was high does not label him a mad man in my books, but a calculated individual that planned and executed his own personal mission.

Nobody has the balls either in the media or politics these days to bring to light the social time bomb waiting to explode (or has it already started) that Left Leaning Western Governments and the failed immigration policies are to blame for the rising angst/anger in the community.

Mark my words, this is but the start of it. Many more will follow his lead unless western governments wake up and admit that certain forms of immigration DO NOT and HAVE NOT WORKED and do something about it.

The article below, even thou going back to 2009 hits the nail on the head and not just for Europe but for all Western Societies like it or not.

Muslim Europe: The demographic time bomb transforming our continent

Britain and the rest of the European Union are ignoring a demographic time bomb: a recent rush into the EU by migrants, including millions of Muslims, will change the continent beyond recognition over the next two decades, and almost no policy-makers are talking about it. one is talking about it in government....the average citizen see's what is going on, the increased crime rates amongst islamic immigrants, high unemployment rates, not assimilating but congregating within their own ghettoes, trying to change local laws and way of life to suit theirs and the ways of their homeland.

The study for the US Air Force by Leon Perkowski in 2006 found that there were at least 15 million Muslims in the EU, and possibly as many as 23 million. They are not uniformly distributed, of course. According to the US's Migration Policy Institute, residents of Muslim faith will account for more than 20 per cent of the EU population by 2050 but already do so in a number of cities. Whites will be in a minority in Birmingham by 2026, says Christopher Caldwell, an American journalist, and even sooner in Leicester. Another forecast holds that Muslims could outnumber non-Muslims in France and perhaps in all of western Europe by mid-century. Austria was 90 per cent Catholic in the 20th century but Islam could be the majority religion among Austrians aged under 15 by 2050, says Mr Caldwell.

Tell me now, if your seeing this going on around you and nothing is being done with your/the citizens complaints about the influx of Muslim refugees by your government, how pi$$ed off do you have to get before anybody starts to take notice?

Look at those figures? I mean seriosuly, just take a moment and let them soak in.....

I'm not advocating the methods used by the Norweigian Shooter to get his point across are correct but FFS, if this isn't some form of muslim invasion of Europe then I dont know what is!

Once "they" get enough numbers to have muslim representatives in government and making laws to suit their own people, do you seriously think it would get better for the traditional residents of those countries?

Like it or not people are going to revolt and if governments dont do anything they will be taken down along with the race riots that will ensue.

It seriously looks like the left leaning western governments of the world are forcing a future situation where the traditional residents/peoples of a country will be caught up in civil strife in an effort to rid their countries of the scourge that is muslim immigration.

Criticize me, harass me, belittle me, I dont really care. This is what I see going on everywhere from speaking to many people around the world. The media is silent in this aspect as they are left leaning and supporting the Left Leaning governments and their agenda;s. Any ctiticism of western government immigration policies and your labelled a racist.

Im fed up with it all. It needs to change or the peoples hand will be forced!

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 11:10 PM
reply to post by Melbourne_Militia

I'm going to break ranks with most of my left leaning friends and agree with you on one point, and one point only - Immigration is a MAJOR problem. And yes it has to be addressed because the point at which a nation is forced to address it usually signals that it is too late to do anything about it - except from that time on.

It has been ignored by the left for decades - though some of that I honestly believe relates to a 'guilt complex' particularly in Australia and the USA. Neither the USA or Australia is Governed by its indigenous people and arguments about 'excluding others' are always going to be weakened by that fact. Britain of course is more complex in that none of the component parts are governed by its indigenous people (though you could argue that is changing with devolution - except for England).

To address immigration is to address your origins - and most parties will simply not go there.

I agree though - it's putting off a ticking time bomb and the sooner we act the more time we have to defuse it.


posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 11:41 PM

Originally posted by nunya13
In my opinion, and at the risk of sparking ire, there is no doubt the ideologies that fueled his actions are associated with the right-wing.

He hates Muslims
He hates Marxism/Cultural Marxism
He hates multiculturalism
He hates the left-wing
He desises that his country's media is controlled by liberals (according to himself)

I don't mean this to sound like a flakey 70's new ager (sleeping under a plastic pyramid frame and hanging rocks of quartz around the house to cure my balding scalp, but I have come to believe reality is not a constant rather it is an personal experience unique to the individual.

No two life experiences are the same so in many ways the basics of the world, black and white, what is and is not can never really be the same for any two people.

The life lessons and experience that have formed the framework of my morals and ideologies are different than yours and both of ours are different than Blaine91555's so it shouldn't be any surprise that we can all look at the same image but all see a different picture, if that makes sense to anyone reading besides myself.

For example, in your post above you read the text and when asked what you see as the primary commonality it looks clear as day. You see a right wing ideology, right wing affiliation, right wing predisposition and it is obvious from your post you aren't taking your best guess or trying to get a reaction out of the next person posting.

From your frame of reference this is a fact, just as it is a fact that the sun will rise in the morning or it is a fact that the color of the clear midday sky is blue or it is a fact that the mississippi flows south to the gulf of mexico.

Interestingly, I see something completely different that is so simply obvious and plain as day from my viewpoint that it is the only possible answer and the obvious truth to the question we are all asking...why?.

I downloaded and perused his manifesto as well, I haven't read every one of the 1500 pages but I thought it was obvious that the guy was trying to say something and I made sure to spend enough time to feel comfortable that I understood what that was.

Interestingly, we both seem to agree on the bulk and highlights of the content but what I see as his defining quality that connects all the dots is hate.

He hates..

and he hates...

and he hates them

and he hates me...

and he hates you...

and when he gets done he starts again from the top because that's what he does.

Extremism of any kind is guaranteed to foster bad things in the best of situations whether it be a muslim guy in Pakistan named Usama who prides himself on his pious devotion to his faith...

...or a guy named Anders who was borne and lives near Oslo that likes to dress up and take pictures of his bad assed self and considers himself so hardcore that the belief he chooses to honor has been dead and gone for a thousand years ...

... or a guy halfway around the world in Oklahoma city named Timothy who worships the catholic god and believes he loves his country so much he is willing to make the ultimate expression and kill it.

What do the three of those men, separated by thousands of miles and oceans of water have in common?

They are all motivated by and find their ultimate inspiration through motivations and beliefs fed by intense hatred.

Before you settle too firmly on the right wing I would like to ask you a question and see what you might gleam?

What do Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong and Adolph Hitler have in common?

First off, you could say they are the top three mass murderers of modern times. It depends on whom is answering but most would safely bet that between the three of them they were easily responsible for the deaths of over 100,000,000 people over the shared time of at most 30 short years.

Think about it, that's roughly 10,000 people a day, a fair sized small town, 10,000 people a day, every day for 30 years!

Anders Breivik murdered less than a hundred in a once in his lifetime chance and we are having this conversation.

To maintain the status quo Stalin, Mao and Hitler murdered the mathematical square of Breivik for a length of time multiplied from Breivik by an exponent of 4!

Anders Breivik may as well have been nursing sick kittens or volunteering at the senior center his crimes are so infinitely minute in comparison Stalin, Mao and Hitler.

If Breivik is bad, these three are evil incarnate.

The reason I am pointing this out is simple, Stalin, Mao and Hitler were also... all.... Hardcore Left -Wingers!!

Joseph Stalin-Premier of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

Mao Zedong-1st Chairman of the Communist Party of China

Adolf Hitler-National Socialist German Workers' Party leader.

With this (assumingly) newfound revelation do you believe that extremism left wing ideology has a inarguable association with a brand of intolerance that time and again has a clear association with mass murder?

It becomes clear after opening ones perception to a broader frame of a larger view that Left Wing extremists are literally exponentially more dangerous than right wing extremists.

Its a good thing none here seem predisposed to jump to conclusions otherwise everyone with a ticket to the next democratic national convention might want to check above the door before entering to make sure there was not a sign reading "work makes you free".

Of course I jest but I am interested to hear your response?

edit on 27-7-2011 by Drunkenparrot because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 26 2011 @ 11:44 PM

Anders Behring Breivik and the hidden hate of ATS

It's not hidden! There are plenty of members and even mods that aren't afraid to express their hatred; and there are many others that harbor hate in their hearts but are skillful at hiding it.

When the phrases "people like you" or "your kind" are used....that's the indicator I use to identify a hateful person.

Marginalizing and denigrating a group of people because of perceived or real differences is hatred in its most basic, form.

edit on 27-7-2011 by whaaa because: code 22

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 12:19 AM

Originally posted by Ozscot
reply to post by Melbourne_Militia

It has been ignored by the left for decades - though some of that I honestly believe relates to a 'guilt complex' particularly in Australia and the USA. Neither the USA or Australia is Governed by its indigenous people and arguments about 'excluding others' are always going to be weakened by that fact. To address immigration is to address your origins - and most parties will simply not go there.

I agree though - it's putting off a ticking time bomb and the sooner we act the more time we have to defuse it.


I wholeheartedly agree with you mate. But for how long must we suffer due to a "guilt complex"?

The past is the cannot change, but the sooner you change the present the sooner the future will be that much better.

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 12:40 AM
reply to post by Ozscot

I don't know, they said the same thing when all the Italians illegally migrated to Britain and started carrying on like they owned the place and it still worked out alright for everyone.

Then after the Italians it was a veritable invasion of illegal Frenchmen acting like all the Brits owed them something. It got so nasty everyone said it was a war against the illegal French immigrants and that one ended up working out in the end as well.

I think there is hope the U.S. and Australia will work it out with their indigenous peoples and in another 1000 or 1800 years it will be long forgotten for some more current indignity.

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:03 AM
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

Drunken Parrot - you cite three 'socialist' movements responsible for atrocities of the highest order, and you are quite right to bring them to the table - but it's not the name which matters - it's the ideology. Anyone can hijack a name. That same extreme 'left wing' Hitler (who never was left wing - and indeed formed alliances with extreme right wing ideologues and fascists like Mussolini) simply used it as a platform to push his own agenda.

However the point I'm making is this 'branding' of beliefs with labels and tags - some of the worst atrocities of modern times, some of the vilest terrorism took place within the shores of Britain - I've personally survived a bomb exploding in the immediate vicinity of where I was in London - and who was responsible for this? Who was responsible for thousands of deaths of British Servicemen and women? Who was responsible for the deaths of thousands of ordinary citizens of Britain? It was the Irish Republican Army (funded mostly by America) - does that mean we have to address all 'Republicans' as terrorists? Each organisation is a unique and individual case - and in many instances does not have a unifying or common ideology.


posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:12 AM
reply to post by Ozscot

I agree, my post was meant to point that out.

Its late and In all probobility the intended dry sarcasm was probobly lost in translation.

If your interested perhaps another time I will argue the fact of whether National Socialism was a prodigy of the left or far right. I can support the case for a left wing idiology quite well and feel comfortable standing by what I posted.

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 01:39 AM
reply to post by Drunkenparrot

No worries mate - I'm sure we'll meet around here often
Get some sleep - the night's just beginning here.


posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 03:27 AM
If your views on immigration and multicultualism were swayed by this event (whether pro or con), I'm sorry but you are weak-minded and mistaken.

This man's actions were so beyond the pale of normal, acceptable behavior that they bear no relevance on 99% of the wider political discourse among sane, law-abiding citizens.

If he had been wearing a yellow shirt, would you say "oops, I've got to burn all my yellow shirts?" No. Becuase you would recognize that his yellow shirt had nothing to do with the crime.

With ideology it is a little harder, of course, because a certain type of craziness (as in this case) manifests ideolgically. So the dividing line between "cause" and "effect" is a bit fuzzier. But I still hold that whatever ideology this man embraced, he would have found a way to make it evil.

So if you are a normal, rational human being this should have no affect on your opinions, because you simply aren't like him in kind or degree. Just like wearing the same color shirt as him doesn't make you "the same as him."

Thus, I proudly and staunchly reitierate my unchanged views:

-I am strongly against illegal immigration.
-I am strongly against all attempts to ram "multiculturalism," "diversity," "internationalism" or anything similar down our throughts.
-I am a proud Servant of Christ.

...and I am against murder, especially of children. But in the end, one thing has nothing to do with the other.

Trust yourself, trust your beliefs (even if they aren't mine lol), and be strong.

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 03:28 AM
Hate is the easy emotion. The Lazy emotion. It is sooo easy to hate.

Love is difficult. It means lowering your defences, trusting others, opening yourself up and running the risk of rejection.

Once you learn to be happy with yourself the risk of rejection no longer matters... Once you learn to give love without expecting or needing it in return, it becomes easy. And the rewards are massive. The sense of freedom you have, once you let go of hate, is amazing.

Right wing/Left wing... Religious/Atheist... Black/White... We all have kids, enjoy sunsets, listen to music, get married, cry when a loved one dies... We have so much more in common than the tiny differences that separate us. But fear keeps us apart. And some people like to prey on this fear.

I agree with what some have said regarding ATS. I almost quit a few months ago... i stayed off for a while because of the amount of hate. I have been on ATS a lot longer than my account creation date and have seen ATS become more hate filled in that time. I don’t think that this is necessarily all down to ATS though. I think we are seeing more hate in society in general.

The only reason i didn’t quit is because then hate has won. So i will keep fighting the good fight. There is NO shame in saying "I love you" and no weakness in "peace"

Love and Peace to you all


posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 03:33 AM
I dont see the words "left" or "right" helping any situation, why can't one give thier opinions on a topic without being labelled left or right, seems to me these classifications come from the same people that most here despise.

In regards to the bombing/shootings in Norway and the OP, I'd say you'll have to learn to adjust somehow, because there's bound to be plenty more to come from discontent people from all camps(atheist's and religious people) down the track, If you ask me its just a blind individual doing the zionists dirty work, we all know what the real zionists think of the christians(baring in mind the jew founders[Herzl's] view). Whether or not he was under some kind of mind control is another issue.
edit on 27-7-2011 by Haxsaw because: (no reason given)

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 04:18 AM
reply to post by The Revenant

A really interesting post s&f

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 05:06 AM
reply to post by Melbourne_Militia

Much of the problem when trying to have a mature national debate about immigration is similar to the way it is debated on line. It tends to bring out the extreme views from both sides that any rational and productive debate gets lost in the firing line. I would put a lot of the problem down to weak politicians, who are scarred of being labelled racists or alternatively too soft. Like with all debate in the UK, our tabloid newspapers dont really help the situation, many of which fan the flames of xenophobia and anti immigration. So the whole issue gets muddied and nothing gets done.

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Ozscot
Lets' take your 'Marxist EU project' statement for starters - The EU is an American project - funded initially by the Marshall Plan involving the merging of the ECSC (European Coal and Steel Community) and later EUROTOM (The European Atomic Energy Community)...

Thanks for sharing that – some real food for though. Not that I’m doubting you – you’ve clearly researched the subject – but do you have any links to articles or books, official or otherwise which tell this story? I’d like to look into it myself in detail.

Originally posted by Ozscot
There's nothing 'Marxist' about it - The EU is a means of preventing war in Europe devised by America. Like everything in politics however it has evolved and it's origins and purpose are largely forgotten.

Regardless of whether it began as a Marxist experiment, by Marxists, it certainly has become one (and always was in spirit). As you say, it has mutated beyond its origins, but I maintain that its origins were still Marxist in nature.

There is a problem in our reconciling this argument, and it would take an essay to fully explain why. I’ll do my best to put it concisely:
I believe there is a tyrannical ‘elite’ whose agenda it is, and has been for centuries, to usher in a New World Order. They are not Marxists, and their new world order is not to be a Marxist one. Their motivation, and their goal, is hierarchical – it is ‘domination by the fittest’, with them as lords and the rest of us as slaves – the extremity of which has not been seen before. So when I talk about a Marxist agenda, I’m referring to the exploitation of Marxism by these tyrants – because it is a naïve ideology which currently serves as the best Trojan horse for their enslavement agenda. As for WWII and its consequences, I strongly suspect it was a manufactured, manipulated war used to drastically change society. So when you say that America saved us and then set the EU project in motion, I can’t help but think it was simply playing a role it was helped to play by international tyrants. Evidence suggests that it was a false flag attack which brought America onboard in the first place – who perpetrated that and why? Besides, no matter whether it was America who initiated the EU and for what reason, it is still a tyrannical endeavour, and unconstitutional where England is concerned. Even if the ordinary people of England were to pay a price for being ‘saved’, we should have been openly told what that price was. As it happens, we’ve simply replaced one set of tyrants, the Third Reich, with another, Brussels.

Originally posted by Ozscot
Yes Thatcher and the Conservatives were right wing […] Keith Joseph and Enoch Powell were policy giants (even though I never liked either of them) - Europe was sliding towards Socialism and no right wing policy makers could advance an argument against it - until those two appeared

Then why was Enoch Powell hounded out, by members of his own ‘right-wing’ party among others? Though now deemed extreme, his opinions on immigration were not extreme in the context of human history or most of our political era. I contest that his reputation was destroyed because of a drifting political spectrum. What I mean by that is that whereas prior to WWII his views on immigration would have been deemed politically neutral and entirely mainstream, by the time of his famous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech they were deemed ‘extreme right’. The questions I’m interested in are why did the political spectrum shift and did it shift because something caused it to – Cultural Marxism perhaps?

Originally posted by Ozscot
Even today - it is why the Right Wing are such a powerful force in politics - no one on the left has come up with a solid, coherent and reasoned riposte to the policy concept of 'Freedom'

I’m afraid I don’t see any credibility in your assertion that ‘the Right Wing are such a powerful force in politics’. Although, again, I think this is due to semantics. I’ll try and be quick:
What does ‘right wing’ even mean? What does ‘left wing’ mean for that matter? I know the story of how the two terms came about, and what they originally represented, but are the ideals named ‘right wing’ today comparable with those named ‘right wing’ 100 years ago? I’m genuinely not sure, but I suspect not. Likewise with ‘left wing’. Basically, these terms are useless. Far more useful are words like ‘conservative’ and ‘progressive’, as this is the real ongoing political struggle – to preserve or return to what once was, or to try something new. This encompasses everything, for low taxation is traditional and high taxation ‘progressive’; multiculturalism progressive and homogeny traditional etc. Some things, like war, are specific to neither conservatism or progression – the defense of one’s land being conservational, the attempted acquisition of land being progressive. So despite the term ‘progressive’ having a more positive stigma, and ‘conservative’ a more negative stigma – particularly among young people, both actually have their more moral and less moral traits.

So to claim that the ‘right-wing’ are dominant… I don’t know about that. But I can tell you that proponents of ‘progressive’ policy are most certainly in the driving seat of the Western World. Most major policies are progressive rather than conservative, and where policies appear to be conservative, they are conserving less distant values rather than the original ones on which civilized society was founded. For example – some might say that protecting the Bank of England, or the Federal Reserve, is conservative. In reality, those bodies undermine the original concept of finance by being private and not backed by real assets. A true conservative would oppose central banks.

Originally posted by Ozscot
Edited to add - Conservatives are so called because historically they have a policy approach which is essentially 'If it aint broke - don't fix it' - They conserve the status quo

This leads on perfectly from what I explained above. Conserving the status quo is not always real conservation – not if the status quo is a result of progression prior to dominance by conservatives. In short, to conserve something in politics it is not enough to preserve what is – what is lost must also be fought back. That’s if you support the conservation of old values of course. If you don’t, you would not want those old values clawed back; you would be happier to see what is maintained. In this way, one can see how the main parties of the UK are in collaboration – a progressive party like Labour comes in and alters society (like they admittedly did by letting immigrants in to replace the voter base), then when the people vote Conservative, the conservatives simply maintain what Labour did without furthering it; The conservative public are content and pacified, thinking that because society is not changing anymore it is being preserved. Then Labour gets in and things change again. Then the Tories get in again and conserve what is, but not what was the last the time they were in power.

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 05:55 AM
reply to post by Cythraul

Thanks for sharing that – some real food for though. Not that I’m doubting you – you’ve clearly researched the subject – but do you have any links to articles or books, official or otherwise which tell this story? I’d like to look into it myself in detail.

Lets get this straight, you are here discussing politics in favor of right wing nut jobs but you have no idea of the Marshal plan?


posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:02 AM

Originally posted by nunya13
I'm not trying to force people to accept this. But it serves only to support what I believe could happen if this truth, as I see it, isn't addressed. This will happen again.

And that’s EXACTLY what the Globalists want you to think. It’s what this whole event was designed to make you think – that an ideology is to blame for this tragedy and that the only way to prevent this tragedy happening again is to stamp out that ideology. Know what that’s called? Totalitarianism.

If you’re really worried about the ideology which (supposedly) led to this mass-killing, the only right way to go about it is to listen to the people who hold it and allow them their democratic platform.

Originally posted by nunya13
But what gets my goat is when they turn around try so hard to deny any affiliation with his ideology and then turn around and say, "but he was right about Muslims, liberals, Marxism, multiculturalism." You can't denounce someone and then say that you agree with their ideology behind their actions.

Yes you can! Because the part I denounce is the murder of innocents, not the ideology which led him to it. The ideology is not to blame. If (and that’s a big ‘if’) the official story of events in Norway is true, the only thing to blame is Breivik’s insanity (which is independent of his political leanings) and perhaps the political establishment who did not give him a legitimate, peaceful outlet for his concerns about the future of his country.

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:05 AM
reply to post by Cythraul

Have you read " A History of modern Britain" by Andrew Marr

It's a good starting place to get an understanding of the way the political and social has changed over the last 50 years. He is equally critical of both Labour and Conservative governments.

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:09 AM

Originally posted by Zamini
Lets get this straight, you are here discussing politics in favor of right wing nut jobs but you have no idea of the Marshal plan?


a) I'm not doing ANYTHING in favour of right wing nutjobs. Read the whole of my post.
b) You speak as though this 'Marshal plan' is common knowledge. I've researched conspiracies for a long time - forgive me if there's one area I've not stumbled across, but don't treat me like an imbecile. Notice I humbly asked for more information. Does not yet having that preclude me from debate? Do you know everything related to politics in the last century?

posted on Jul, 27 2011 @ 06:13 AM

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
Have you read " A History of modern Britain" by Andrew Marr

Whilst I'm always open to information, I'm not prepared to read anything by that despicable Globalist agent Andrew Marr. I'll find my info elsewhere. Besides, I've got a pretty good understanding of the pertinent parts.

new topics

top topics

<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in