It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

”2083” by Anders Behring Breivik: An outline of the Norway Shooter’s "Manifesto"

page: 2
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by bozotheclown
 


Because he also believes that marxism and socialists are his enemies. After all, they're the ones letting all kind of people in here..




posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Thepreye
 


Are you really that stupid? Please, tell me you are joking. That was 1000 years ago, we're living in 2011. I speak about modern and developed societies. Wake up!



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 08:22 PM
link   
he intended this information to be spread as part of the "propaganda phase"

why on earth would you help him ?



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:10 PM
link   
Well in that timeline and excerpt from his lengthy tome, I am actually reassured. He has a fatal flaw in his thinking and IF there were others, apparently shared by all. It's a small thing, and perhaps it's covered elsewhere in War and Peace as he wrote it (in more than one way, I suppose) However.....he has very 2 dimensional thinking and a sense of personal invulnerability that wouldn't have kept him free long anyway. I just wish he hadn't killed so many innocents in his first and last move he'll ever make in this world.

The gap of thinking I am seeing is the description, planning and wording of the ongoing campaign running decades out into the future. As if the opposition is so dense or ignorant as to never pick up on the systematic attack of their side. The MUTUAL combat his little brainstorm would trigger would have removed him and anyone who'd so much as passed him on the street and said something supportive of his plans, just for good measure.

Again....The invulnerability he seems to envision himself with is just crazy, but again....it's good to know these monsters have such large weaknesses just like everyone else.

Some seem to think we should see him as sane and clever. Well, I've read mail sent and received by John Wayne Gacy before they honored the world by removing HIM from it. While his actions and whole history prove beyond doubt he was crazy as a loon, his writings were intelligent and lucid. They were good enough to sucker a college researcher into a visit and position of trusting Gacy which came a hair from letting that monster take one last victim from inside Prison. It just proves this guy doesn't have to be sane or even remotely close to it, to appear as sane as any of us..and be downright convincing about it.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
he intended this information to be spread as part of the "propaganda phase"

why on earth would you help him ?


As I stated in my original post I wrestled with this a bit, but in the end I decided that the benefits of understanding the ideolgical mindset that may have infomed the attack (or could inform a future attack) far outweigh the benefits of attmepting to restrict information that has already been spread across the net. People need to know what they are up against, and what Europe potentially faces.

I am not spreading the actual book, I am merely outlining the salient ideas. And my post does not contain any information that would encourage one to do anything illegal, or assist one in so doing. I only discuss broad ideas.

I have always stood against book-burning and the repression of ideas. If we trust in the light of truth and decency, we are confident in ourselves that truth, justice, and compassion will vanquish the darkness. The way forward is to add more information, not less; to encourage more discussion, not less; to deny ignornace, not turn our backs on things we are afraid of. Ideas don't kill people. People kill people. And when people burn books and restrict information it means deep in their own hearts they are not confident in their own ability to tell right from wrong and act accordingly. That's OK, its a scary thing. But the way forward is always through vanquishing ignorance with truth, standing up calmly to pathological views with reason and courage, and not shutting out information through willful immersion in ignornace. Evil grows like a poisonous toadstool in the darkness of ignorance and suppressed discourse, but it always withers when exposed to the light of objective scrutiny.

Deny ignorance.

edit on 7/30/11 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 10:58 PM
link   
This and subsequent attacks correlate directly to the alignment of Elenin and Earth.



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpeachM1litant
Has anyone considered that he commited the shooting to bring to attention his so called "manifesto". I am sure there will be numerous Nazi's and racists hailing his work. The neo-Nazi is on the rise in Eastern Europe especially Russia.


I am very curious to see how this affects the far right. If I understand the situation correctly, the traditional "Nazi"-style far right (National Socialists, so-called "White Nationalists," etc.) seem to be condemning Breivik because he is a self-proclaimed "Christian Zionist" and expresses pro-Israeli sentiment, neither of which sits well with the Nazis for obvious reasons. He also explicitly identifies National Socialim (Nazism) as one of three major "hate ideologies" he hopes to eliminate from Europe (along with Islam and Communism). He also claims his order is open to people of any race, as long as they are Christian -- something I don't think the Nazi types would be down with.

So the question becomes: Are there others like Breivik, who share his views? Will this cause a schism or conflict within the far right (i.e., "Nazis vs.Templars"?)


edit on 7/30/11 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 29 2011 @ 11:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


I agree very much with your assessement of his weakness, and I think that is an astute and valuable observation: The book is steeped in overweening pride and arrogance. This isn't just business for him; its deeply personal, and in this we can see where pathology (I'm assuming some form of extreme personality disorder, probably psychopathy) may come into play, over and beyond politics.

In the sense that it provides valuable glimpses of such weaknesses, the existence of the book may be a stroke of true fortune for the authorities, because it gives them an explicit roadmap about where to look, what kind of behavior to look for, and how to seek out any terrorists/disturbed individuals who might follow Brievik's program.

You see, this is what I was trying to express about why I think there is true value in presenting an outline like this, as I have done in this thread. It allows people (you and me, not just the authorities) to have a toehold so we can begin to look for flaws -- not just factual flaws but patterns of thinking and acting that can then be addressed with various responses. Book-banning and turning our back on things we'd rather not see provides us with exactly nothing.

Despite the superfically dry and ultra-rational tone of his text, Breivik's mask of detached control slips revealingly at several key places in the text. Every now and then he comes out with something so bizzare as to be totally beyond the pale of normal political discourse. These portions are valuable because they provide proof that all is *not* well in Breivik's mind, and that there is something deeper and uglier, more truly pathological at work here.

I provide an example as follows. This is not something "normal" peope are going to want to get behind, no matter what other ideas of Breivik they might happen to agreee with. This passage is included not for shock value but as a revealing glimpse into a twisted mind. It deals with seeking to verify member's sincerity and sniffing out double agents.
WARNING: Graphic/disturbing material below (although still within ATS T&C)

From p. 948:

"...The difference between an agent and a Justiciar Knight is that the latter will be willing to
make a great sacrifice for the purpose of proper validation. Now what kind of sacrifice
would be great enough to remove all doubt that the candidate is not a EU/US agent? A
Justiciar Knight is willing to martyr himself for the cause while a EU/US agent will not be
willing to sacrifice much. The entity should demand that the alleged Justiciar Knight in
question surgically remove his [male reproductive organs] and/or execute a fixed number of
civilian children. While this requirement seems morbid, absurd and unreasonable, it is
perhaps the most effective method of confirming the intentions of an individual. Because
why would one of the sides part with a powerful weapon which worth exceeds perhaps
100 million Euros? The party would need to make 100% sure that the proxy is
trustworthy. A government agent could and would never accept these terms to maintain
his cover, but a true Justiciar Knight would willingly sacrifice everything for the cause,
including committing smaller atrocities as long as it served the greater good of our
cause. He would also be willing to part with these body parts in order to confirm his
intent in this validation process. In any case, the entity would have to provide a surgical
team to safely complete the operation without risk of loss of life for the Justiciar Knight.
End note: a CIA/EU intelligence agent with a lethal/terminal disease/virus/cancer might
be willing to agree to this sacrifice..."


Paranoia and sadism are ultimately weaknesses, not strengths.


edit on 7/30/11 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 12:01 AM
link   
It sounds like he was put together from the beginning.It may explain the smirk he's been assured that he won't be facing any serious consequences.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 12:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by bozotheclown
Does anyone have an answer for this?
'
What I don't understand is why he shot a lot of young white people. He is clearly against muslims. Why didn't he blow up a bunch of mosqes? What was it about those young whites that he did not like? Are they pro-immigration?


He considered them brainwashed children of the liberal elite who had already been indoctrinated with the "cultural Marxist" ideolgy he hated. By killing them, Breivik appears to have thought he was striking at the heart of the elites who he thinks betrayed Norway and Europe.

There may be a more tactical reaons behind this choice, too. Consider Norway's small 5 million population compared wiht the US population of 300 million or so. If we extrapolate the numbers accordingly, what he did would be the equivalent of, say, a terrorist in the US taking out almost 5,000 of the most committed, politically active liberal youth in one blow. This will have a measurable impact on the future of Norway's political structure, I believe.

What I can't understand, though, is the following. He seems to have a sophisticated grasp of advertising/propaganda and how to use it; his book has many details that reveal he his hyper-altert to the perceptions of others. Given this, how could he have not known that this act would be almost universially met with revulsion by all sane people, regardless of their politics? How could he not have realized that this would be more likely to turn people against him than to rally the masses? Is this the "mask of sanity" slipping at the most revealing place of all? Or, conversely, was he aware of this, yet chose to do it anyway, for some further reason? If so, what?



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   
reply to post by DrakeBloodaxXe
 


I cant tell if you're being sarcastic. Are you?



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 12:46 AM
link   
The day you all realize that we are all floating on the same rock...



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 10:38 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


Despite what I have said about taking the time to read this whole thing, let alone see any real % of it directly posted, I sure have to agree with what you're saying. There is value in seeing the way these folks think, even if he is a complete lone wolf. There will be others, sadly, and I suppose they'll share some traits this goober had.

I won't read 1500 pages of his drivel...but In the light you put it, thanks for taking the time to break it down so everyone else doesn't have to sacrifice time to this guy to glean whatever benefit his writings may actually hold for perspective.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:21 AM
link   
It screams extreme narcissist to me, personally.

It's unrealistic, IMO, to think that in all those pages of text that there won't be SOMETHING you might agree with. I agree with small portions of the unibomber's manifesto.

What I don't agree with is killing people or bombing things or using violence to spread your arguments. If you arguments are really good, present them in the public forum and let people debate them. Publish or self publish a book - with the money the dude had, he could have self published a book!

Ideas will stand or fall on their own merit and acceptability. Even if it comes down to revolution - revolutions don't happen when ONE person or a small group takes up a gun or hurts someone. That's just crime.

I do think - I want to add - that we are in danger of more of this if we KEEP excluding thoughts like this from the public forum. They will breed in silence and isolation, like this did.

Why is it you never read or hear anyone speak out against a diverse society? I don't personally agree with it, but I can see the problems of too fast immigration when people don't assimilate. We've got a culture that's becoming intolerant of unpopular opinions. Instead of hearing them out, they never get to speak - that's not good. Any idea, IMO, should be open to debate.
edit on 30-7-2011 by hadriana because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
The fatal flaw in his scenario is that he has not incorporated the NWO aspect into it.

The multicultural elites are are course fully brainwashed and sleeping towards the disaster that is creeping towards them - just like the financial elites currently herding the rest of us off the economic cliff edge.

They are all being used as complete dupes by the NWO elites - they do not really intend that Islam takes over Europe - just that we remain asleep long enough for it to cause its collapse via jihadi civil war.

In the natural course of events it might follow along Anders timeline - but the NWO has so obviously planned for Israel to use it's Sampson option on the Arab/Islamic M.E at somepoint - and probably sooner rather than later.

The Obvious consequence of all the Major Arab cities being destroyed will be..............................a mass invasion of 'refugees' across the Med into Europe, plus conformation of their end times beliefs - this will result in a call to jihad to all muslims worldwide that the time to slaughter the infidels has arrived.

The result of all this - will leave Russia sitting on the borders of a collapsed, depopulated and defenceless Europe and Middle East.

As for the USA - when you have been collapsed - you will have the Chinese to deal with.

Wellcome to the NWO!





edit on 30-7-2011 by JohhnyBGood because: addition



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 12:37 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 12:48 PM
link   
**ATTENTION**

The staff ask that all off-topic and rude remarks stop here. Moving forward please discuss the topic, not each other.

Please review the following links:

Mod Note: Terms & Conditions of Use – Please Review This Link.

Mod Note: Courtesy is Mandatory – Please Review Link.

YOU are responsible for your own posts.

Moving forward all posts that do not fall within the Terms and Conditions will be subject to removal. Any continued violations after post removals may result in a temporary or permanent loss of posting privileges.

Thank You

ATS Staff



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 05:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by silent thunder
What I can't understand, though, is the following. He seems to have a sophisticated grasp of advertising/propaganda and how to use it; his book has many details that reveal he his hyper-altert to the perceptions of others. Given this, how could he have not known that this act would be almost universially met with revulsion by all sane people, regardless of their politics? How could he not have realized that this would be more likely to turn people against him than to rally the masses? Is this the "mask of sanity" slipping at the most revealing place of all? Or, conversely, was he aware of this, yet chose to do it anyway, for some further reason? If so, what?



There are several ways one could interpret his severe and disgusting lapse of judgment in regards to people's perceptions.

First, that yes it could have just been the crazy coming out. There's a good chance that this guy just wanted to kill people, and that the manifesto or "compendium" or whatever you'd like to call it, the politicophilosophical justifications, etc., are just a way of dehumanizing and rationalizing the deaths of his intended victims.

Another option is that there was no mask of sanity to begin with, that the quasi-sane parts of his ramblings were lifted from saner parties than him. Something that lends credence to that potential is that he seems blithely unaware of the cognitive dissonance between being anti-"hate party" (nazi, communist, etc) and purporting a doctrine based on xenophobia and racial hatred of Mid-Eastern people.

There's also the possibility that he himself was brainwashed by some shadowy organization, and that the public reaction to the massacre serves a greater agenda. It would be easy to use someone as clearly (and apparently prolifically) unhinged as Breivik as a pawn. Whether playing on overt disgust or some kind of internal "yeah I hate the Muslims too"sympathy amongst whoever their target audience is cannot yet be told. But my paranoid little mind can't help but wonder if there's something more behind this tragedy.



posted on Aug, 1 2011 @ 06:21 AM
link   
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.



Originally posted by nithaiah

First, that yes it could have just been the crazy coming out. There's a good chance that this guy just wanted to kill people, and that the manifesto or "compendium" or whatever you'd like to call it, the politicophilosophical justifications, etc., are just a way of dehumanizing and rationalizing the deaths of his intended victims.


I don't think its as simplistic as that. This man had been preparing his document for many years, and I don't think he would have put so much time into it if it didn't mean something more to him than justificiation.



Originally posted by nithaiah
Another option is that there was no mask of sanity to begin with, that the quasi-sane parts of his ramblings were lifted from saner parties than him. Something that lends credence to that potential is that he seems blithely unaware of the cognitive dissonance between being anti-"hate party" (nazi, communist, etc) and purporting a doctrine based on xenophobia and racial hatred of Mid-Eastern people.


Yes, OK, I could see this being a strong possibility, or something close to this. Again I think it is a mistake to use terms like "rambling" because there is nothing rambling about it; as I hope is apparent from the OP on the other page, it is meticulous and thought out in excruciating detail...at times it almost seems self-parodic that a human could be so ruthlessly organized but he was deadly serious about it. My working hypothesis is that he is a very rare form of human being, the result of the convergence of psychological traits that are almost never found together. For example, most true psychopaths are sloppier than that on many levels. I am quite certain he is a true psychopath but I think there is something more to the story as well.


Originally posted by nithaiah
There's also the possibility that he himself was brainwashed by some shadowy organization, and that the public reaction to the massacre serves a greater agenda. It would be easy to use someone as clearly (and apparently prolifically) unhinged as Breivik as a pawn. Whether playing on overt disgust or some kind of internal "yeah I hate the Muslims too"sympathy amongst whoever their target audience is cannot yet be told. But my paranoid little mind can't help but wonder if there's something more behind this tragedy.

Oh certainly, all sorts of theories are possible...false flags within false flags....this is ATS, let a million exquisite flowers of dark paranoia flourish by all means...anything is possible and I don't deny speculations along these lines at all but it's best to proceede cautiously, wielding Occam's razor through the brambles.




top topics



 
25
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join