Anders Behring Breivik and the hidden hate of ATS.

Originally posted by PapaEmeritus
reply to post by The Revenant

 

Thats funny I'm a mason I work in the sun 3-5 days a week covered in concrete and gris so my skin does look like stone alot of the time.

That's good then, you must've built the stone bridge you live underneath quite easily. A very handy talent... nasty business with what happened with Bilbo Baggins by the way....

The Revenant.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by PapaEmeritus


Are you going to bring anything to the debate? If not then go debate in a forum where you actually have an opinion. All you have done is make silly little comments and derailed what was an interesting thread, with people trying to learn a tiny bit from each other. It probably wont make the world a better place but it's an engaging experience, communicating with others on subjects people care about.

I feel sorry for you that your experience here is not fulfilling, I suggest you find something that interests you and stick to that, rather than try and bring people down around you. It's sad that you have found yourself in such a position.

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by ALOSTSOUL

 

But then you could argue that New Labour were far more on the right than their original premis as Labour a party created fro the workers movement.

What happened is that the middle class increased. Old party loyalties no longer held so firm as both parties wanted to go for Middle England. Thats where the votes were, so both parties toned down their original ideals in order to gain a broader spectrum of the votes. So now what we have is a Labour party that doesn't represent the ideological left and a Tory party that no longer represents the ideologically right. Both parties are now pretty indistinguishable from each other. They all go to the same schools and universities and study the same degree PPE ( Politics Philosophy and economics) at Oxford or Cambridge university.

Never has our political class been so out of touch with the citizens of this country. They live in a world of their own, obsessing about polls and media spin. None of them have much respect from the British public.

edit on 26-7-2011 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)

Perhaps then there is no left or right, there is only the far-left, the far-right and the middle ground (the system). Perhaps then, anyone who does not comply with the system (Middle ground) is considered far-left or far-right. Yet the concerns (bare with me) of both individuals (left and right) are perfectly valid within todays society, a society that will not give a platform to each individual. Which in-turn breeds fear and contemp.

Having said this perhaps (again) the left and right are closer to eachover than they are to the middle (system). I understand that this concept is completely counter-intuitive but it isn't far fetched.

ALS

reply to post by PapaEmeritus


Internet forums (especially ATS) are high important and productive in todays society. They are the new universities of yester-year, a place for like minded individual to debate and collaborate with eachover, learn and teach eachover. Internet forums like these allow us to share news and theory across continents in the blink of an eye.

Most importantly, they allow all people to voice there views and opinions indifferent of race, class, wealth, sex and sexuality because on the internet we are none of those things we are only souls typing on a keyboard

The Internet is truly the free-ist of the free, atleast for now.

ALS

My reaction to the Norway killings had absolutely nothing to do with left or right. I saw an insane man who went on a rampage based on what he saw as an excuse to play out his fantasy. I see no reason to argue about this with anyone. That would only feed the negative energy that stems from acts like this, which is because it comes from pure evil.

You have made a very (but sad) valid point with your thread. As of late, the hate bubbling to the surface of ATS has become more of a boil. I started a thread a short time ago which addressed the hate towards the police and what I considered a lack of moderation. It used to be much more controlled and I enjoyed that aspect of ATS. Lately it just seems to have become expected and worse...accepted. It is this apathy that concerns me, because it seems to be a true measure of our society.

Originally posted by Cythraul

Originally posted by The Revenant
what about the Thatcher / Reagan years when the right-wing dominated the Western world?

What exactly made Thatcher 'right wing'? I'm genuinely interested because I don't know much about her policies. What I do know is that she oversaw expansion of the Marxist EU project, large amounts of immigration, the socialist healthcare system and - unless I'm wrong - tax increases. What I'm saying is - official history, social dogma and her incredibly posh accent tells us that Thatcher was 'right wing conservative'. Does that automatically make it true? Likewise with the Conservative party as a whole. What exactly make them right-wing? In fact, what makes them genuinely conservative in any way? What exactly do they conserve?

edit on 26/7/2011 by Cythraul because: (no reason given)

You really want to know?

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)...

America rescued the world twice and underwrote the costs involved when Europe (and in particular Germany) couldn't get it's act together and started wars which threatened to destabilise the world. America said 'NO MORE'.

General Marshall realised that to wage war you must have access to coal and steel - so he ordered Europe after the war to merge their coal and steel making industries (making war less likely if their coal and steel were overseen by one regulatory body) and later when atomic weapons hit the stage Europe was ordered to have one regulatory body for those too. By bringing the means of making war under one roof America thwarted any prospect of future wars in Europe - as time passed it was realised that if their economies were dependent on one another then war would be a distant prospect - and that's what happened. 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.

Yes Thatcher and the Conservatives were right wing - but her ideology was not a product of her 70's success - it was the consequence of two intellectuals in Britain in the 60's who brainstormed policy and came up with what at that time was irrefutable policy approaches. 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. What they advanced was 'Freedom' - Freedom of the individual to choose, Freedom for markets, freedom for employers - How can anyone on the left argue against the concept of 'Freedom'? It was brilliantly simple and gave the right the impetus they needed to push Thatcher into downing street and Reagan into the White House (and of course Milton Friedman in the USA had been advancing the same ideas).

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' - but what we have seen in the meantime is that unregulated freedom (banks, financial institutions) leads to greed and chaos - and so the left are getting that little bit stronger again as 'Freedom' obviously needs to be regulated which of course undermines it as a policy concept. But still the left don't have an organised philosophical riposte to the concept of 'Freedom' - I mean how do you argue against it?

Sorry if my post appears a little incoherent but trying to explain the evolution of the EU and the resurgence of the right in a couple of paragraphs is somewhat demanding...

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 - which is why Thatcher is viewed as a Neoconservative - she did wade in and upset the Status Quo by launching a stream of policy changes particularly in relation to employment law and economics.

Oz

reply to post by The Revenant

Originally posted by ALOSTSOUL

 

There was a time when the left had the same "gun-only" perceptions. Over the past 30-40 years the left have had a major hold over the western world and for a time it was good but now, like my own political ideology, it is time for the pendumlum to swing back to the right. During this "swing" we are gonna see violence, likely even war but it is all part of the "natural" Human change process.

ALS

Originally posted by The Revenant

 

I agree that once upon a time the left did indeed have a violent aspect. But I disagree that the past 30-40 years have been dominated by the left... what about the Thatcher / Reagan years when the right-wing dominated the Western world?

In the interest of maintaining the correct context of the political climate in America in the 1980's (for those who may be to young to remember )...

The last years of the 70's saw gun control was an extremely contentious topic with the pro-gun control lobby gaining a lot of ground in social legitimacy, mainstream visibility and ultimately embraced by a greater portion of the voting public.

The 1980 assassination of John Lennon by handgun wielding Beatles fan Mark David Chapman saw a particularly strong surge of anti gun interest and donations although the pro gun lobby remained dominant by a comfortably large enough majority to neuter if not outright kill any kind of serious legislation.

Ronald Reagan, a conservative with a strong pro gun voting record, when elected President in 1980 was seen as 4 years of light duty for the second amendment bunch and then history threw a curveball.

In Washington D.C. in 1981 a mentally ill man named John Hinckley attempted to assassinate the president as he crossed the sidewalk to his limousine after a public function. President Reagan was shot once in the melee and was rushed to emergency surgery to remove the bullet which had narrowly missed his heart. 3 others were wounded as well including a D.C. policeman, a secret service agent and the White House press secretary James Brady who was struck in the head by a stray round causing a lifelong disability.

This caused an interesting quandary for the administration as it is difficult to advocate against gun control because you are arguing that the system which visibly failed to prevent an individual who was legally ineligible to own a gun from getting one and using it to attempt to murder the President.

( John Hinckley's motivation was revealed to be an unrequited affection for Jody Foster. Jody was politically active among the hollywood liberal democrat scene from a young age and had been publically critical of Reagan's election.

Of note was that Jody Foster had became famous a few years earlier for her role as a teen prostitute in the movie Taxi Driver. Part of the plot of Taxi Driver features an unbalanced and socially awkward Robert De Niro planning to assassinate a political candidate in a bid to gain the favor of a young woman on the politicians campaign staff who De Niro has unsuccessfully tried then failed to impress.

Its true, sometimes life does imitate art)

The pro gun control lobby seized the opportunity and even managed to co-opt the visibly impaired James Brady as the poster boy of an aggressive piece of gun legislation ."The Brady Bill", as it became known, greatly broadened the prohibitions on gun ownership as well as requiring anyone purchasing a handgun to submit to a federal background search.

It should be noted that during the remainder of his Presidency, Reagan continued to tow the party line and expressed opposition to increased handgun control after his own shooting. However in a speech at an event marking the assassination attempt's 10th anniversary Reagan endorsed the Brady Act: ...

"Anniversary" is a word we usually associate with happy events that we like to remember: birthdays, weddings, the first job. March 30, however, marks an anniversary I would just as soon forget, but cannot... four lives were changed forever, and all by a Saturday-night special – a cheaply made .22 caliber pistol – purchased in a Dallas pawnshop by a young man with a history of mental disturbance. This nightmare might never have happened if legislation that is before Congress now – the Brady bill – had been law back in 1981... If the passage of the Brady bill were to result in a reduction of only 10 or 15 percent of those numbers (and it could be a good deal greater), it would be well worth making it the law of the land. And there would be a lot fewer families facing anniversaries such as the Bradys, Delahantys, McCarthys and Reagans face every March 30.

Reagan assassination attempt

The Brady bill was finally signed into law by President Clinton in 1993.

In short, counter intuitively to most expectations, the impact of Reagan's presidency was influential in passing some of the strongest gun control legislation in modern history. I believe it makes both parties uncomfortable to ponder the legacy of America's conservative superman a more effective instrument of gun control legislation than any of his pro gun control democratic contemporaries.

I've tried to provide nothing but the facts and hopefully avoided allowing my own opinions to color the perspective of this brief outline of an important and often ignored moment in the contemporary history of gun control in the United States.

Thank you for reading my contribution and as a gesture of my sincere appreciation, I would like to leave you all with this...



and this...
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/1852494d619e.jpg[/atsimg]
Source-Taxi Driver

The best for last.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/fff2a3fc0bfc.jpg[/atsimg]
Source-Teaching American Exceptionalism and Ronald Reagan

How can a president not be an actor?
- Ronald Reagan

This was an act of a psychopath and which ideology he subscribed too is irrelevant.

A Psychopath snapped and then went to a youth camp and started assassinating people he did not know. His given reason has no meaning. His act is the problem.

Anyone trying to use this to further an ideological agenda is a fanatic and likely not someone worth knowing.

Simple facts.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Blaming the gun instead of the person using it is the same as blaming a group for the actions of one of it's members. It is completely and utterly dishonest.

It is also a mental weakness that can be used as a powerful weapon against a person to control them.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
This was an act of a psychopath and which ideology he subscribed too is irrelevant.

A Psychopath snapped and then went to a youth camp and started assassinating people he did not know. His given reason has no meaning. His act is the problem.

Anyone trying to use this to further an ideological agenda is a fanatic and likely not someone worth knowing.

Simple facts.

This would be a excuse if the planing was not 9 years and supported by others and pushed by propaganda. He had many people telling him to become a icon for there war on immigration. He did only get support to be a martyr from a few. But the propganda was from many. Your thought of just a single psychopath acting on his own ended when it was not a spontaneous thing that happened.

Click here for more information.

reply to post by Blaine91555

For what it matters I am in total agreement.

I believe freedom is rooted in personal responsibility.

I believe that the current social trend towards shifting the burden of accountability from the individual to some artificial value where blame for personal shortcomings like moral failures becomes the domain of a system empowered to monitor and intercede where it sees best.

I see the potential to find ourselves trapped on a slippery slope that will inevitably lead to the erosion of privacy and personal freedoms by encouraging a socialistic nanny state whose self endowed responsibilities to keep the individual safe from themselves will grow unchecked and eventually supersede all other considerations, whether we welcome the influence or not.

Oh, the tangled webs we weave when we endeavor to talk politics on an internet forum

For what it matters I am a registered gun owner as well. As a rural Oregon resident I practice subsistence hunting and make use of both my annual elk and deer tags as well as waterfowl (duck and goose) and the occasional pheasant. In addition to keeping a full freezer, both my spouse and myself have opted to take the precautions necessary to be secure in the unlikely event a home defense emergency were to supersede the response time from our local sheriff office.

I had hoped that my brief overview of the gun control climate prior to and through the Reagan administration was neutral enough in tone but not so much as to readily belie my own political values.

It would seem by the tone and content of your rebuttal that I may have succeeded a bit too well, I hope you don't take offense but I took the inferred liberal rebuttal of your post as a compliment. I am interested in historical accuracy not shepherding converts to my personal cause or trumpeting some faux moral superiority from an internet soapbox.

I hope this helps clear the air about where we all stand on the issue so we can return to a friendly discussion from a healthy mix of viewpoints.

reply to post by The Revenant



Maybe you could just turn off your computer and plant some flowers in your garden or go for a walk. I wonder how many posters on ATS are obsessive compulsive? Do you fit into that category?



If so get some help and then plant some flowers or go for a walk.

Originally posted by JBA2848

Originally posted by Blaine91555
This was an act of a psychopath and which ideology he subscribed too is irrelevant.

A Psychopath snapped and then went to a youth camp and started assassinating people he did not know. His given reason has no meaning. His act is the problem.

Anyone trying to use this to further an ideological agenda is a fanatic and likely not someone worth knowing.

Simple facts.

This would be a excuse if the planing was not 9 years and supported by others and pushed by propaganda. He had many people telling him to become a icon for there war on immigration. He did only get support to be a martyr from a few. But the propganda was from many. Your thought of just a single psychopath acting on his own ended when it was not a spontaneous thing that happened.

You're trying to rationalize. In the end he was the one who acted and he is clearly a textbook psychopath. If you want to argue the others hold some blame for egging him on, that case could be made. A very weak case though. If he had not used this, he would have found another issue on which to center his rage.

I agree about what you say how everyone is so concerned with arguing about his affiliations, that they aren't taking the necessary actions or at least coming at it with the right frame of mind to push back against this kind of extremism.

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)

This is all in his manifesto.

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.

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.

If they cannot at least acknowledge that he was an extremist within their own ideological camp then they can't fight back against this extremism with in their own ideology.

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Good response and thank you for the conversation. I have a tendency to speak in generalizations in a way that makes people think I'm directing it at a target which is my bad.

It seems to be human nature to grab at major events and try and make it about ourselves.

I honestly believe this person would have simply found some other reason if this one had not entered his life. The way he surrendered without a fight is a cry for help, but the only help you can give a person with a physiologically dis-functioning brain is to humanely contain them for life to protect the public.

Beyond that the fact so many are jumping on this as evidence to support their own ideologies or hate is so dishonest as to describe who they really are.

The "hidden hate" at ATS is in all of society and what holds us back as a species. We are born with it ingrained in our genes. If another Tribe encroaches on our food supply, we respond violently or die from starvation. No longer true but our genes don't yet know that. Add to that a dysfunctional brain and you get a Breivik.

As a Species we are not ready for the hand we are being dealt right now. Easy worldwide travel between area's with diverse cultures and the Internet itself acts like an amplifier of sorts. It give a tiny minority a huge voice that others can't avoid.

This is an important OP

This is from my heart

ATS certainly has to change IMO. But what is happening in the world far transcends this forum

They are killing kids now so much that it really sometimes hurts in the heart. I know this wasn’t a political killing but the other day when some madman chopped up a poor innocent Jewish kid in New York City I couldn’t buy a newspaper for 3 days for fear of seeing those headlines. And in this Norway tragedy I ache thinking about those poor kids being gunned down by that madman. Of course it makes you think of all this insane violence that we have let get so out of hand that now our children are engulfed in our insanity.


Of course that’s nothing new, is it? Human beings have since all time have been so inhumane towards each other. And here in the 21st century we still slaughter each other. But we are killing each others kids now and that is an indication that we are in a bad state in this world. Whether they be Muslim children, Jewish or Christian or atheists children, white or black, yellow or red, or whatever, I don’t care . . . what is going on now is an abomination and tragedy that is unspeakable. And the unfortunate thing is that we are becoming immune and desensitized from this violence and pain we inflict on each other.


What we need are movements in the world that counter this hatred and violence. A new Ghandi, a new Martin Luther King, a world peace movement, a challenge that we try to understand each other and live in peace with each other, because the way things are going this world won’t last long.

Insanity, madness, political violence and terrorism, domestic violence, child abuse, sexual abuse, murder and rape, all this depravity must somehow soon be dealt with.

If humans do not challenge this evil we will destroy ourselves. All the division, hatred and violence has to soon be countered by something, or this world will slowly disintegrate.

If wisdom, love, peace, understanding, tolerance and humanity doesn’t come from somewhere soon, we as a race may be doomed.

I don’t know when or where it may come from, that is some force to counter all this hatred, violence, and division but it better come soon!

peace!

reply to post by inforeal


It's not new and repeats itself over and over again throughout history. I sometimes wonder if it is a genetically inherited means of population control? Every so often part of the population goes mad and well everyone can fill in the rest of that story.

We most certainly are at the point we need another Great Person to appear before we self-destruct.

The problem with ATS however is that this is not a representative population and most views here are held by a tiny, tiny minority.