Blast in Oslo

[MrJonno]

The sad fact is that when the political situation in any nation reaches the point where ideologies are so polarized that people are willing to use violence to forward their agenda, be it McVeigh, or this guy, or SEIU or neo-nazis, it's time for both sides to step back and move to the center and away from the political extremes.

Just because one 'side' is full of lunatics doesnt mean everyone else is away from the centre. These people should not be considered to even be part of the political process and should just be considered to be criminals

[Eriku]

I disagree, normal. The most significant event in Norway outside of war time, with youths from all over the country and the local communities to which they belong affected.

And if we may speculate in a foreigner doing the same, I assume we retain the other elements, like his manifesto and the method of going about his business, which was as chilling as anything some spectacularly sinister script writer might come up with.

It's a national tragedy, irrespective of where the perpetrator came from. And it's definitely terror, to which we have replied that we will keep exerting our own values, the ones which the source of the terrorism obviously so fundamentally disagrees with.

It's all the more terrifying because there is no outside ethnic or political group that Norwegians can point at and say "be afraid of those people." Now they have to worry about their own, and be suspicious of every neighbor they don't know intimately.

The sad fact is that when the political situation in any nation reaches the point where ideologies are so polarized that people are willing to use violence to forward their agenda, be it McVeigh, or this guy, or SEIU or neo-nazis, it's time for both sides to step back and move to the center and away from the political extremes.

Unfortunately this rarely happens, and such events merely polarize people more, making violence in defense of extreme ideologies all the more likely.

Again, I'd have to disagree... Would it be any less terrifying if we could externalise the blame? It shows what we know, that there are freaks in and of nature.

The political climate isn't such that ideologies are so polarised... This was a man who read a plethora of anti-Islam and anti-multicultural blogs, books, columns and who actively engaged in chatting with others who feel that their countries are flushing them down the drain. It's clearly not the case here... We have the highest employment rate for immigrants in all of the OECD countries, and we're struggling with a few nuts who we've tried to give a chance, coming from severely dysfunctional societies, not to mention traumatic and unsafe surroundings. I work with Afghan refugees myself, and they have as much potential for goodness as anybody, but are severely illiterate in a number of fields and have a hard time getting used to acting in accordance with Norwegian procedures and protocols because they're used to a shambolic country and when they see aid coming they gather their nuts for a rainy day and thus come off as greedy... Some of it is probably also an attempt at filling a hole in their lives with commercial means, which inevitably fails on its own. But I see progress with several of them. And I think the countries who, through being lucky and being on top of oil and being sovereign with regards to their means, and which don't have a generally impoverished and politically weak and corrupt society, have a responsibility to help those less fortunate.

We've just seen our first terrorist attack in Norway... I've followed the news from Afghanistan the last half year... Bombings and shootings galore, hospitals blown up, stray bullets from NATO troops killing children... They've lived with this and still hear about this all the time, and we're just now crying our eyes out over the first one on our soil. Now, as much as ever, should we reach out our hand to those who've come from desperate straits, and show them that we viscerally know what a day of terror means.

And hopefully the few anti-immigration politicans and people we have in this country will take a look at the bigger picture, appreciating the fact that it's a small per centage of the immigrants that stands for most of the negative news we hear about. There are plenty of figures to suggest that their views have previously been askew.

[Seth]

The sad fact is that when the political situation in any nation reaches the point where ideologies are so polarized that people are willing to use violence to forward their agenda, be it McVeigh, or this guy, or SEIU or neo-nazis, it's time for both sides to step back and move to the center and away from the political extremes.

Just because one 'side' is full of lunatics doesnt mean everyone else is away from the centre. These people should not be considered to even be part of the political process and should just be considered to be criminals

The left is as far away from the center as the right is, that's why the labels exist. Radical Marxists like our very own Bill Ayers are every bit as dangerous as some right-wing nationalist and Islamophobe. Bill Ayers, a self-admitted Marxist revolutionary, was blowing up buildings and people way back in the 60s, long before this nutjob was a gleam in his father's eye, so don't get up on your high horse. Stalin killed 40 million people as a result of his leftist ideals, Mao killed 60 million. The death toll from the left is much, much higher than anything you can concoct from the right, so look to your own wrongdoing before you criticize others.

"Cultural Marxism" is just Marxism without all the bullshit economic theory of capital claptrap. It's a simple ideology for simple minds, and it's essential component is mindless class-based hatred of the "rich" by the "not rich." The propaganda message of cultural Marxism is incredibly simple and attractive: "Those rich bastards have more than you do, so let's take it from them because they don't deserve to have it and we do." Most of "social democracy," otherwise known as "cultural Marxism" is based on this fundamental ideal.

The cloak in which cultural Marxism veils itself is "egalitarianism" and "democracy," but the real goal is to take from those who are productive and have wealth because they have been productive, and redistribute that wealth to people who are not productive and have no wealth because they don't care to be productive. That's the goal of socialism, which is in fact "cultural Marxism," or Marxism without reference to theories of economic justification for redistribution. It's all about greed.

All the pretty-pretty and idealistic propaganda of socialism (cultural Marxism) is just a smoke-screen for the fundamental purpose of socialism: taking from the productive class in accordance with their ability (not necessarily willingness) to produce, and giving to the dependent class according to the central planner's ideas of egalitarian social justice.

It's the essence of killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and it's not in the least bit surprising that some people who have had what they worked hard to attain taken from them by cultural Marxists rebel violently at the theft. This was not an acceptable manifestation of that anger of course, it was a heinous act of cowardice, but I completely understand why and how someone living in a socialist society could reach the conclusion that violence is the only remaining defense against the creeping cancer of Marxism.

After all, that's precisely what Marx himself said about capitalism. Marx was the original leftist terrorist (and traitor) because he advocated, and fomented, and participated in the violent overthrow of the existing government and called for the murder of the bourgeoisie merchant class and the stealing of their property.

Socialism is based on that corrupt foundation of theft and murder, so you don't get to stick your nose up in the air and look down on the right, because the left is far more smeared with blood than anyone else is.

[Eriku]

The cloak in which cultural Marxism veils itself is "egalitarianism" and "democracy," but the real goal is to take from those who are productive and have wealth because they have been productive, and redistribute that wealth to people who are not productive and have no wealth because they don't care to be productive. That's the goal of socialism, which is in fact "cultural Marxism," or Marxism without reference to theories of economic justification for redistribution. It's all about greed.

It's masquerading as leftism, exactly... To say that socialism is based on a corrupt foundation of theft and murder is ignoring how our country goes about its business, being very socialist. It's about humanist ideals, that's the gist of it, and Stalin was as egomaniacial as they come.

[Seth]

I disagree, normal. The most significant event in Norway outside of war time, with youths from all over the country and the local communities to which they belong affected.

And if we may speculate in a foreigner doing the same, I assume we retain the other elements, like his manifesto and the method of going about his business, which was as chilling as anything some spectacularly sinister script writer might come up with.

It's a national tragedy, irrespective of where the perpetrator came from. And it's definitely terror, to which we have replied that we will keep exerting our own values, the ones which the source of the terrorism obviously so fundamentally disagrees with.

It's all the more terrifying because there is no outside ethnic or political group that Norwegians can point at and say "be afraid of those people." Now they have to worry about their own, and be suspicious of every neighbor they don't know intimately.

The sad fact is that when the political situation in any nation reaches the point where ideologies are so polarized that people are willing to use violence to forward their agenda, be it McVeigh, or this guy, or SEIU or neo-nazis, it's time for both sides to step back and move to the center and away from the political extremes.

Unfortunately this rarely happens, and such events merely polarize people more, making violence in defense of extreme ideologies all the more likely.

Again, I'd have to disagree... Would it be any less terrifying if we could externalise the blame? It shows what we know, that there are freaks in and of nature.

I'm merely saying that from the cultural perspective, it's always easier to externalize the blame because it allows the culture to evade the necessity of examining what about itself drives some people to such acts.

The political climate isn't such that ideologies are so polarised... This was a man who read a plethora of anti-Islam and anti-multicultural blogs, books, columns and who actively engaged in chatting with others who feel that their countries are flushing them down the drain. It's clearly not the case here...

Is it? Socialist societies tend to oppress the productive class and take from them to support the dependent class, so it's actually rather easy to see why those who work hard and don't want to have it take by the government to give to the dependent class might feel they are being "flushed down the drain."

We have the highest employment rate for immigrants in all of the OECD countries, and we're struggling with a few nuts who we've tried to give a chance, coming from severely dysfunctional societies, not to mention traumatic and unsafe surroundings.

Well, that's great and all...for the immigrants. But how does that help native-born Norwegians? Every job taken by an immigrant is a job not available for a native to profit from. Do you understand why people might be less than delighted at the idea of jobs that should be reserved for native citizens being given to immigrants?

I work with Afghan refugees myself, and they have as much potential for goodness as anybody, but are severely illiterate in a number of fields and have a hard time getting used to acting in accordance with Norwegian procedures and protocols because they're used to a shambolic country and when they see aid coming they gather their nuts for a rainy day and thus come off as greedy...

Yes, life in Afghanistan is hard, and life for an Afghan in Norway is much better. That's great for the Afghan, but not so great for the Norwegian who is now competing with the Afghan immigrant for a job and, if he's being economically productive, is having something like half of his work taken from him to support the Afghans who aren't working. Can you understand why someone might resent having his hard-earned money taken from him by force, only to be given not to a needy Norwegian, but to an immigrant from Afghanistan, who perhaps should have stayed in Afghanistan and worked to make that country peaceful and prosperous rather than abandoning their nation for the milk and honey of Norway?

Some of it is probably also an attempt at filling a hole in their lives with commercial means, which inevitably fails on its own. But I see progress with several of them. And I think the countries who, through being lucky and being on top of oil and being sovereign with regards to their means, and which don't have a generally impoverished and politically weak and corrupt society, have a responsibility to help those less fortunate.

Ah, there it is, the Socialist's Burden. Now, don't get me wrong, I'm all for individual charity, and you're free to give as much of your wealth too poor Afghan's as you like, but can you understand that not everyone may subscribe to this "responsibility" that you claim, and that they might object to having the fruits of their labor taken from them by force to serve the needs of Afghan immigrants who have abandoned their native land in order to suck at the public teat of Norway? How far does this Socialist's Burden go anyway? What's the limit on which population of poor, benighted individuals can come to Norway and take from the rich to meet their needs? Can you take in all of the Afghan population? How about the poor of Bangladesh, India and Pakistan? Will you accept the burden of taking all of them in too? If not, why not? How do you justify helping one immigrant and not all immigrants if you have this "responsibility" that you speak of?

Can you understand that some people might feel that the responsibility of Norway is to provide for Norwegians and not the poor of the rest of the planet?

We've just seen our first terrorist attack in Norway... I've followed the news from Afghanistan the last half year... Bombings and shootings galore, hospitals blown up, stray bullets from NATO troops killing children... They've lived with this and still hear about this all the time, and we're just now crying our eyes out over the first one on our soil. Now, as much as ever, should we reach out our hand to those who've come from desperate straits, and show them that we viscerally know what a day of terror means.

Reach out to whom, exactly? How many of them? A million? Two million? Five million? Once you accept that Socialist Burden, where does it end? How many poor Afghans, Pakistanis, Africans or Chinese does your empathy call upon you to support? Can you understand that some people might feel that your instincts for charity and altruism, when effectuated by taking THEIR property and money from them by force, is morally reprehensible and must be opposed?

Yes, Afghanistan is a violence-ridden shit hole. But it's been a violence-ridden shithole for several thousand years, and every civilization that's tried to help them out of their poverty and tribal violence has failed after throwing massive amounts of money and countless lives into the attempt. When do we get to say to the Afghans "you're a bunch of ignorant barbarians and we wash our hand of you?" When do we get to say, "Hey, Afghans, it's YOUR country, so it's YOUR problem to resolve the poverty and violence that you insist on perpetuating generation after generation in your barbaric ignorance. When you decide to act like peaceful, civilized people, we'll be happy to be your friends, but until then you're on your own. Now go fix your own country and stop fleeing to ours."

How far does any nation's responsibility towards the future of nations full of ignorant barbarians go? Must we forever be trying to export our cultural imperialism to such places, or can we simply stop doing so and let them work it out on their own? How much national treasure and how many lives must a nation expend to salve the conscience of the Socialist's Burden?

For me, all of Afghanistan, and every swinging dick in that shit-hole nation is not worth one dime or one US life, and the only reason I ever supported our presence there was to find and kill Osama. That task has been completed, and now we should leave and let Afghans fight with Afghans over which political or religious ideology will prevail there. It's their freedom, they have to attain it if they are to value it. It cannot be bestowed upon them by others.

And hopefully the few anti-immigration politicans and people we have in this country will take a look at the bigger picture, appreciating the fact that it's a small per centage of the immigrants that stands for most of the negative news we hear about. There are plenty of figures to suggest that their views have previously been askew.

What "bigger picture?" The picture of Norway overrun with poor, ignorant, barbaric, unemployed Islamic refugees with an unknown number of radical Islamic zealots willing to kill to bring the Caliphate to fruition among them?

Do you understand that there may be people, including Norwegians, who don't like that "bigger picture" one little bit, and who object to having that socialist image of the future imposed on them by force, and that they may be willing to defend their nation and their heritage against Islamic radicalism and dilution of the Norwegian culture by rampant and uncontrolled immigration?

I certainly understand this, without condoning the particular methods used by this terrorist. You might want to reflect on the fact that everyone else doesn't necessarily believe as you do.

[Seth]

The cloak in which cultural Marxism veils itself is "egalitarianism" and "democracy," but the real goal is to take from those who are productive and have wealth because they have been productive, and redistribute that wealth to people who are not productive and have no wealth because they don't care to be productive. That's the goal of socialism, which is in fact "cultural Marxism," or Marxism without reference to theories of economic justification for redistribution. It's all about greed.

It's masquerading as leftism, exactly... To say that socialism is based on a corrupt foundation of theft and murder is ignoring how our country goes about its business, being very socialist. It's about humanist ideals, that's the gist of it, and Stalin was as egomaniacial as they come.

What's "humanist" about disrespecting the rights of the individual and taking half the fruits of their labor by force to be redistributed to the dependent class?

Socialism is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. There's nothing sheepish, and everything wolfish about such an arrangement. It's called the "tyranny of the majority," and it's an essential component of socialism, which is not in the least "humanistic" when you get right down to it. Sure, it talks a good game, but it's all propaganda that hides the truth: We, the collective, are going to take from you, the individual, according to our purported need, and we are going to require you to work according to your ability to produce what we want, or else.

Just society is based on respect for the individual and his right to use and enjoy the fruits of his labor first and foremost, and reliance on man's natural capacity for charity and altruism second, as the means of providing for those who cannot provide for themselves. Just society is based on voluntary associations and contract, not on force and coercion by anyone, including the government. Just society allows people to suffer the consequences of their bad actions and judgments, so that they will learn to make good judgments and act wisely. Just society allows people to fail economically so that they will be stimulated to greater effort towards economic success, which inevitably results in economic advancement and lessening of dependence. Just society provides for the needs of those who are helpless and destitute through community effort at the local level by one's neighbors and friends, in order to foster strong communities and relationships and to encourage the dependent class to become productive.

Just society does not take from the productive class and give to the dependent class at the behest of the dependent class, because that is the path to economic ruin and the ascendence of the the dependent class to political power, resulting in the perpetual slavery of the productive class to the greed of the dependent class.

Just society is the antithesis of socialism, which disrespects the rights of the individual in favor of the interests of the collective.

[Eriku]

The Norwegian unemployment was at 3.4 in April, the US and UK have 9.2 and 7.6, respectively, and South Korea, one of the nations that Breivik extolled in their isolationist policy to the question, have 3.6.

Secondly, the opulent Norwegians are often quoted as saying that they don't mind the taxes they pay, nor do I. And our socialist approach to society and distribution of wealth means that if their or my luck turns, I won't be on the street.

And like I've stated, IF people were really THAT worried about this, they'd be supporting the Progress Party, and possibly even collectively calling for them or another party to step up and to be even more cautious of immigration.

I find a lot of your views to be at odds with mine, so there's not much point in me waxing lyrical about why I deem it right that we continue to think of those outside our borders...

What "bigger picture?" The picture of Norway overrun with poor, ignorant, barbaric, unemployed Islamic refugees with an unknown number of radical Islamic zealots willing to kill to bring the Caliphate to fruition among them?

Yeah, go ahead and state things that you know nothing about. We also have a LOT of immigrants who are a credit to our nation, and a lot who are involved in politics and who are every bit as vocal about our values.

Norway overrun with barbarian radical Islamist zealots... That's the sort of hysterical nonsense that, when repeated enough on forums and blogs that act as echo chambers, and fed to stupid people, results in the minority of people which embarass our nation and others.

[Seth]

The Norwegian unemployment was at 3.4 in April, the US and UK have 9.2 and 7.6, respectively, and South Korea, one of the nations that Breivik extolled in their isolationist policy to the question, have 3.6.

So what? Universal employment is bad for business. Low unemployment results in poor service and rising prices as competition for jobs is limited, which leads to increases in salary levels as employers must offer more to find qualified employees in a job market where there are few unemployed people hungry for work. This translates directly to higher prices for goods because the cost of labor goes up.

Secondly, the opulent Norwegians are often quoted as saying that they don't mind the taxes they pay, nor do I.

It's easy to say that "opulent Norwegians" "say" they don't mind the taxes they pay when you're not one of them. And if you don't mind paying for the dependent class, nobody is stopping you from donating some or all of your wages to that cause. However, that's not how taxes work, is it? It doesn't matter how many imaginary "opulent Norwegians" you cite, taxes are pure government force. And if you took away that force, do you really think tax revenues would stay the same? Of course they wouldn't.

If you truly believed in the power of socialism, you would not advocate taxation at all, you would advocate socialist egalitarian ethics and voluntary "from each according to his ability" to serve the "to each according to his need." But you don't, do you? You aren't trusting enough of your fellow socialists to trust them to give "according to their ability" and only take "according to their need." No, instead you require the blunt force of a socialist government which uses naked force to extract what some bureaucrat has decided is one's share of the needs of society from everyone.

Sure, the "opulent Norwegians" say they don't mind paying taxes, but what choice do they really have? They live in a socialist tyranny that will take the taxes whether they agree with them or not, so they might as well put a happy face on it, so that the government won't send out the jackbooted thugs with machine guns to take EVERYTHING, like Marx advocated and Stalin did. Socialist tyranny is not conducive to true freedom of speech I'm afraid.

And our socialist approach to society and distribution of wealth means that if their or my luck turns, I won't be on the street.

Perhaps you might consider that you SHOULD be on the street, and that it's not about "luck," it's about hard work and perserverance, and that being "on the street" is an excellent stimulus to the kind of hard work and perserverance that is required to be economically successful, and that dependent-class indolence facilitated by the theft of the labor of others is not a moral or ethical thing to revel in.

Benjamin Franklin once said, "I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer."

And like I've stated, IF people were really THAT worried about this, they'd be supporting the Progress Party, and possibly even collectively calling for them or another party to step up and to be even more cautious of immigration.

When the dependent class outnumbers the productive class, it's inevitable that the dependent class will vote themselves largess out of the public treasury, at the expense of the productive class, and there's not a damned thing the productive class can do about it because they are in the democratic minority. Well, there is one thing they can do: they can give up being productive and join the dependent class and suck at the public teat. That's not much good for the economy or the dependent class, who will quickly starve if the productive class stops being productive.

I find a lot of your views to be at odds with mine, so there's not much point in me waxing lyrical about why I deem it right that we continue to think of those outside our borders...

Can you understand that some people might be more concerned with the people within their borders as a matter of priority?

What "bigger picture?" The picture of Norway overrun with poor, ignorant, barbaric, unemployed Islamic refugees with an unknown number of radical Islamic zealots willing to kill to bring the Caliphate to fruition among them?

Yeah, go ahead and state things that you know nothing about. We also have a LOT of immigrants who are a credit to our nation, and a lot who are involved in politics and who are every bit as vocal about our values.

So do we. So what? I'm sure there are a lot that aren't. But it's unsurprising that the beneficiaries of socialist largess would tout the values of socialist largess. That doesn't make socialist largess either moral or economically sound. So, how many non-immigrant Norwegians are unemployed because immigrants are taking their jobs? Do you know that statistic?

I'm not saying that immigrants may not be good people. I'm sure most of them are. But they can be good people In Afghanistan too, and they can work to better the plight of all Afghans rather than abandoning them and fleeing to the land of milk and honey.

Norway overrun with barbarian radical Islamist zealots... That's the sort of hysterical nonsense that, when repeated enough on forums and blogs that act as echo chambers, and fed to stupid people, results in the minority of people which embarass our nation and others.

So, you're saying that it could never happen? So again, how many Islamist immigrants would it take for Islamists to become the voting majority in Norway? What's the current population? Are you now saying that there is some limit on the number of immigrants you'll accept, or do you acknowledge that unlimited Islamic immigration could easily change the power structure in Norway? Do your ideals provide for any limitations on Islamic immigration?

Do you even understand what the Caliphate is, and how many Islamists are determined to bring it to fruition? Do you know anything about Muslim ideology and the roots and beliefs of the religion? Do you want to be a Muslim, or do you want to serve the Caliphate in dhimmitude? Do you even know what that is? You might want to look it up if you don't.

[Eriku]

Yes, I know about the ideology and beliefs of the religion... It's like Christianity, it has some horrendous parts and some nice parts and a lot of meh as well. I also know that there's also a matter of certainty and safety in life that influences which way the interpretation goes, and that religious inclinations rise when there's a lot of uncertainty.

I know what dhimmitude is, it's mentioned in the manifesto. And I don't subscribe to the fears of the perpetrator of this act of terrorism.

As for the the talk about politics... I'm pretty much done, Seth. We're obviously on opposite ends of the spectrum... It's like arguing with a colour-blind about whether something is green or red... That goes for both of us, I'm not comparing your views to a disability.

edit: just to answer one question you asked:

Islam is the largest minority religion in Norway, which consist between 2.0% and 3.4% of the population. In 2007, government statistics registered 79,068 members of Islamic congregations in Norway, about 10% more than in 2006. I

I also know that most of the Mosques have been open the past few days, to believers and infidels alike, in aide of those who need a place to go to try to get to grips with this tragedy.

Also, I just have to point out that it's weird to hear you going on about how they come over and steal jobs, and then when I mention our very low unemployment you change focus to talk about how that's bad for society too. Very flexible, I'm impressed.

[Eriku]

Back to what this thread should really be about: remembering the victims and those affected:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQc9UDxh ... re=related[/youtube]

"My Little Country"

[Seth]

Yes, I know about the ideology and beliefs of the religion... It's like Christianity, it has some horrendous parts and some nice parts and a lot of meh as well. I also know that there's also a matter of certainty and safety in life that influences which way the interpretation goes, and that religious inclinations rise when there's a lot of uncertainty.

It's far worse than Christianity, which you'd know if you'd really studied it.

I know what dhimmitude is, it's mentioned in the manifesto. And I don't subscribe to the fears of the perpetrator of this act of terrorism.

That's because you don't believe that most Muslims welcome the establishment of the Caliphate, and you believe that because they protest too much when the published tenets of their religion are thrown in their faces, and you believe them, despite the fact that one of those tenets is "lie to infidels all you like."

As for the the talk about politics... I'm pretty much done, Seth. We're obviously on opposite ends of the spectrum... It's like arguing with a colour-blind about whether something is green or red... That goes for both of us, I'm not comparing your views to a disability.

Nice evasion. When you get pinned down by your ideology, you just run away from the debate. Typical.

edit: just to answer one question you asked:

Islam is the largest minority religion in Norway, which consist between 2.0% and 3.4% of the population. In 2007, government statistics registered 79,068 members of Islamic congregations in Norway, about 10% more than in 2006. I

I also know that most of the Mosques have been open the past few days, to believers and infidels alike, in aide of those who need a place to go to try to get to grips with this tragedy.

Uh huh. Remember, Muslims have no problem dissembling and lying to infidels, right up until they can put the knife to your neck with impunity.

Also, I just have to point out that it's weird to hear you going on about how they come over and steal jobs, and then when I mention our very low unemployment you change focus to talk about how that's bad for society too. Very flexible, I'm impressed.

Nothing inconsistent at all. It's bad for the economy for there to be low unemployment just as it's bad for it to be too high. It's also bad when immigrants take jobs that rightfully belong to citizens.

[Eriku]

Yes, I know about the ideology and beliefs of the religion... It's like Christianity, it has some horrendous parts and some nice parts and a lot of meh as well. I also know that there's also a matter of certainty and safety in life that influences which way the interpretation goes, and that religious inclinations rise when there's a lot of uncertainty.

It's far worse than Christianity, which you'd know if you'd really studied it.

I know... But I also know that interpretation of scripture is far from homogenic across the board... There's plenty of atrocious material in the bible that's virtually completely invalid today... Which is to be expected in a more secure and evolved Western world.

I know what dhimmitude is, it's mentioned in the manifesto. And I don't subscribe to the fears of the perpetrator of this act of terrorism.

That's because you don't believe that most Muslims welcome the establishment of the Caliphate, and you believe that because they protest too much when the published tenets of their religion are thrown in their faces, and you believe them, despite the fact that one of those tenets is "lie to infidels all you like."

Again, not all material is valid to all moslems... and I have seen and been with plenty of their contingent in Norway, and have had far far more pleasant experiences than negative ones. You find plenty of people of Norwegian ethnicity who reckon they can lie as they like as well, not to mention do far worse things... and I'm not just alluding to the attacks.

As for the the talk about politics... I'm pretty much done, Seth. We're obviously on opposite ends of the spectrum... It's like arguing with a colour-blind about whether something is green or red... That goes for both of us, I'm not comparing your views to a disability.

Nice evasion. When you get pinned down by your ideology, you just run away from the debate. Typical.

I'm not pinned down... and it might be typical that I seek the "agree to disagree" compromise rather than get bogged down in debate right now, but I am emotionally depleted, have spent most of my time in front of the news on the TV or on the internet, have attended a vigil and been to work on top of it despite finding it hard to go to sleep. I'm prepared to clarify my beliefs, but we're so incredibly opposed and have such different and incompatible worldviews that it's retarded to pursue it for too long... Again, as valid a jab at me as at you, depending on your viewpoint... I'm not trying to fling shit.

edit: just to answer one question you asked:

Islam is the largest minority religion in Norway, which consist between 2.0% and 3.4% of the population. In 2007, government statistics registered 79,068 members of Islamic congregations in Norway, about 10% more than in 2006. I

I also know that most of the Mosques have been open the past few days, to believers and infidels alike, in aide of those who need a place to go to try to get to grips with this tragedy.

Uh huh. Remember, Muslims have no problem dissembling and lying to infidels, right up until they can put the knife to your neck with impunity.

So incredibly laden with offensive assumptions... whatever, you're entitled to your view.

Also, I just have to point out that it's weird to hear you going on about how they come over and steal jobs, and then when I mention our very low unemployment you change focus to talk about how that's bad for society too. Very flexible, I'm impressed.

Nothing inconsistent at all. It's bad for the economy for there to be low unemployment just as it's bad for it to be too high. It's also bad when immigrants take jobs that rightfully belong to citizens.

Did I mention inconsistency? It's just that you exploit a 2-3 per cent difference in employment from your ideals to justify taking a jab. Your disapproval is guaranteed so long as we allow as many immigrants as we do, it seems.

[MrJonno]

The sad fact is that when the political situation in any nation reaches the point where ideologies are so polarized that people are willing to use violence to forward their agenda, be it McVeigh, or this guy, or SEIU or neo-nazis, it's time for both sides to step back and move to the center and away from the political extremes.

Just because one 'side' is full of lunatics doesnt mean everyone else is away from the centre. These people should not be considered to even be part of the political process and should just be considered to be criminals

The left is as far away from the center as the right is, that's why the labels exist. Radical Marxists like our very own Bill Ayers are every bit as dangerous as some right-wing nationalist and Islamophobe. Bill Ayers, a self-admitted Marxist revolutionary, was blowing up buildings and people way back in the 60s, long before this nutjob was a gleam in his father's eye, so don't get up on your high horse. Stalin killed 40 million people as a result of his leftist ideals, Mao killed 60 million. The death toll from the left is much, much higher than anything you can concoct from the right, so look to your own wrongdoing before you criticize others.

"Cultural Marxism" is just Marxism without all the bullshit economic theory of capital claptrap. It's a simple ideology for simple minds, and it's essential component is mindless class-based hatred of the "rich" by the "not rich." The propaganda message of cultural Marxism is incredibly simple and attractive: "Those rich bastards have more than you do, so let's take it from them because they don't deserve to have it and we do." Most of "social democracy," otherwise known as "cultural Marxism" is based on this fundamental ideal.

The cloak in which cultural Marxism veils itself is "egalitarianism" and "democracy," but the real goal is to take from those who are productive and have wealth because they have been productive, and redistribute that wealth to people who are not productive and have no wealth because they don't care to be productive. That's the goal of socialism, which is in fact "cultural Marxism," or Marxism without reference to theories of economic justification for redistribution. It's all about greed.

All the pretty-pretty and idealistic propaganda of socialism (cultural Marxism) is just a smoke-screen for the fundamental purpose of socialism: taking from the productive class in accordance with their ability (not necessarily willingness) to produce, and giving to the dependent class according to the central planner's ideas of egalitarian social justice.

It's the essence of killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and it's not in the least bit surprising that some people who have had what they worked hard to attain taken from them by cultural Marxists rebel violently at the theft. This was not an acceptable manifestation of that anger of course, it was a heinous act of cowardice, but I completely understand why and how someone living in a socialist society could reach the conclusion that violence is the only remaining defense against the creeping cancer of Marxism.

After all, that's precisely what Marx himself said about capitalism. Marx was the original leftist terrorist (and traitor) because he advocated, and fomented, and participated in the violent overthrow of the existing government and called for the murder of the bourgeoisie merchant class and the stealing of their property.

Socialism is based on that corrupt foundation of theft and murder, so you don't get to stick your nose up in the air and look down on the right, because the left is far more smeared with blood than anyone else is.

As I said extremist lunatics shouldnt even be considered to be part of the political system but should be in jail. It would be complete mistake to even consider negotiating with them you corrupt yourself merely by being in their prescence.

[Seth]

The sad fact is that when the political situation in any nation reaches the point where ideologies are so polarized that people are willing to use violence to forward their agenda, be it McVeigh, or this guy, or SEIU or neo-nazis, it's time for both sides to step back and move to the center and away from the political extremes.

Just because one 'side' is full of lunatics doesnt mean everyone else is away from the centre. These people should not be considered to even be part of the political process and should just be considered to be criminals

The left is as far away from the center as the right is, that's why the labels exist. Radical Marxists like our very own Bill Ayers are every bit as dangerous as some right-wing nationalist and Islamophobe. Bill Ayers, a self-admitted Marxist revolutionary, was blowing up buildings and people way back in the 60s, long before this nutjob was a gleam in his father's eye, so don't get up on your high horse. Stalin killed 40 million people as a result of his leftist ideals, Mao killed 60 million. The death toll from the left is much, much higher than anything you can concoct from the right, so look to your own wrongdoing before you criticize others.

"Cultural Marxism" is just Marxism without all the bullshit economic theory of capital claptrap. It's a simple ideology for simple minds, and it's essential component is mindless class-based hatred of the "rich" by the "not rich." The propaganda message of cultural Marxism is incredibly simple and attractive: "Those rich bastards have more than you do, so let's take it from them because they don't deserve to have it and we do." Most of "social democracy," otherwise known as "cultural Marxism" is based on this fundamental ideal.

The cloak in which cultural Marxism veils itself is "egalitarianism" and "democracy," but the real goal is to take from those who are productive and have wealth because they have been productive, and redistribute that wealth to people who are not productive and have no wealth because they don't care to be productive. That's the goal of socialism, which is in fact "cultural Marxism," or Marxism without reference to theories of economic justification for redistribution. It's all about greed.

All the pretty-pretty and idealistic propaganda of socialism (cultural Marxism) is just a smoke-screen for the fundamental purpose of socialism: taking from the productive class in accordance with their ability (not necessarily willingness) to produce, and giving to the dependent class according to the central planner's ideas of egalitarian social justice.

It's the essence of killing the goose that lays the golden egg, and it's not in the least bit surprising that some people who have had what they worked hard to attain taken from them by cultural Marxists rebel violently at the theft. This was not an acceptable manifestation of that anger of course, it was a heinous act of cowardice, but I completely understand why and how someone living in a socialist society could reach the conclusion that violence is the only remaining defense against the creeping cancer of Marxism.

After all, that's precisely what Marx himself said about capitalism. Marx was the original leftist terrorist (and traitor) because he advocated, and fomented, and participated in the violent overthrow of the existing government and called for the murder of the bourgeoisie merchant class and the stealing of their property.

Socialism is based on that corrupt foundation of theft and murder, so you don't get to stick your nose up in the air and look down on the right, because the left is far more smeared with blood than anyone else is.

As I said extremist lunatics shouldnt even be considered to be part of the political system but should be in jail. It would be complete mistake to even consider negotiating with them you corrupt yourself merely by being in their prescence.

I agree. You should immediately report to your nearest jail facility and turn yourself in...

[MrJonno]

I agree. You should immediately report to your nearest jail facility and turn yourself in...

Regardless of what shit I come up with unarmed people tend not go around massacring children just because someone considers them to be 'cultural marxists'