View Single Post


August 25th, 2012, 19:21
Originally Posted by Zaleukos View Post
That post didnt make much sense at all in the context of Breivik and Europe. Do not try to apply US labels and issues to events on this side of the pond.

Read his ramblings or a summary of those. He claims that Europe is about to be taken over by the muslim hordes, that this takeover is facilitated by conspiracy and/or omission by cultural marxists, certain types of liberals (a word with a different meaning in the US, your "liberals" correspond to social democrats), and feminists. He self identifies himself as a "national conservative".

He is not against welfare but against "islamisation" of Europe, which is a widespread theme among anti-immigration political parties who as far as they can be cathegorised are lumped together under a "far right" label (they tend to have their roots either in extreme libertarianism, reactionary catholicism, or neo-nazism depending on the country). These parties do tend to attract working class voters and thus take voters from the left, but that doesnt make the parties leftist (their policies tend to mix various "tough on-" stances with lower taxes AND welfare statism).

Of course Breivik takes this much further by wanting to wipe out the future leaders of the social democrats, but his underlying world view is sadly not THAT uncommon and mostly shared by PARTIES that usually are labelled far right.

EDIT: I am a rightwinger myself in some sense (maybe a "moderate libertarian" in US terms), but I dont have a problem with using the far right label to describe nutters like Breivik. One can argue that the left-right axis is inadequate for actually representing multi-dimensional political matters, but it's what we have and it is a Quixotic endeavour to challenge established terminology.
My statements had less to do with the mass-murder who, in my opinion, should be tortured for 21 years and then tortured more in five year increments after that, than the illusion of a senseless dichotomy imposed by small minded people. Myself, Iím a staunch libertarian. I believe in freedom in all its evil glory, to the detriment of everyone for the benefit of everyone. The only freedoms that matter are the ones in which most people disagree with and try hard to make it illegal for others. I think most people who try to limit the freedoms of others are usually fanatics and surface-thinkers. Political parties are usually more unto crime families than anything, and once people pick a side they become blind to its faults. There is a republican I work with who refuses to believe Romney and the RNC are trying to strong arm Paulís delegates and not allow Paul the 15 minutes speaking time he earned at the convention. He also fails to see Obama, in every significant way, is just a continuation of Bush, and Romney has the same exact track record as Obama. People seem to dislike pesky things like facts impeding their cult worship.

You seem to be more of a thinker than a regurgitater so you are okay in my book. If Iím to disagree with someone, Iíd rather it be someone with comprehension and the capacity for original thought.
Impregnator is offline




Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 41