Skip to main content

View Diary: Utøya Killer's lslamophobe Manifesto: The Attack on Multiculturalism Reaps a Bitter Harvest (141 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Yup (7+ / 0-)

    And this is like a modern day version of Mein Kampf, only it has a detailed blueprint for commiting acts of terror (complete with biblical justfications) and freely available to anyone who has access to the internet.

    Will work for food
    Will die for oil
    Will kill for power and to us the spoils
    The billionaires get to pay less tax
    The working poor get to fall through the cracks
    -James McMurty

    -9.75/-8.26

    by SwedishJewfish on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 08:30:38 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Manifesto is very enlightening as to Anders (9+ / 0-)

      I skimmed it.  It's a blueprint for terrorism, along with a well-written (not well-thought out) justification based on centuries of tensions in Europe between Christians and Muslims.  Anders is articulate and intelligent.  However, he is blind to the striking similarities between his own acts and those he decries.  For example, he says ideology is the cause of all problems because it blinds people to reality, which it certainly did in his case.

      The diary yesterday that called this a politically-motivated attack intent on mowing down the next generation of Norwegian liberal politicians seems accurate.

      Anders advocated steroids and stimulants for the "operation".  I suspect he may have been on them.  If so, it could offer an enterprising defense attorney a toehold, because long-term steroid use can make someone very aggressive.  Prosecutors need to be ready to counter such a claim.

      Something he said made me think he may have been either employed on Utoya or a ringer in the youth organization - it will be interesting to see if my suspicions are accurate.

      To my chagrin I found myself in agreement with Anders' distaste for critical theory and the whole postmodernist deconstruction fetish.  An examination of the Frankfurt school and any political motivations it may have had would make interesting reading.  One of my own disappointments with liberalism has been the unwillingness to look at the problems wrought by postmodern theories.

      Anders wants women back at home being housewives and mothers.  His manifesto is virulently antifeminist.  Which makes me wonder why.  He lived with his mother until recently.  Hmmm.

      Although reports call him a Christian fundamentalist, his manifesto contained little Christian rhetoric, and what was there was mostly about the Crusades.  His problem with the Crusades seemed based on Islamic oppression and cruelty (from about 700 to about 1500 the "Moors" occupied parts of Europe) and not so much on Christianity per se. He seemed more theoretical than observant, which is in line with his later, decidedly and obviously unChristian actions.

      After stating how chivalrous he is, Anders advocates killing Muslim women in order to enrage Muslim men, to facilitate an armed and violent backlash.  He also gives dates and times.  I sure hope law enforcement is trying to track down all of his contacts, and that they are putting them under surveillance.  

      Anders' manifesto is basically a declaration of war, with detailed instructions on how to carry it out, including enemies' lists with target values.  I shudder to think of this material in the wrong hands.

      Which side are you on?

      by wiseacre on Sat Jul 23, 2011 at 09:59:18 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Breivik doesn't believe he's a racist (7+ / 0-)

        And he takes pains in his manifesto to distance himself from Nazism.  He says anyone of any race can join his crusade as long as they are Christian and committed to fighting multi-culturalism.  He aligns himself with those Israelis who are anti-Palestinian but puts European Jews who support multiculturalism in the enemies camp.  He even states that his movement has a common cause with Christian Arabs.

        •  The Islamophobes skated free (6+ / 0-)

          of this charge last year during the "Ground Zero mosque" fiasco. It's become packaged in with the rest of right-wing hate in the U.S. wherein the haters deny racism. A truth campaign needs to be waged.

          •  In Breivik's case he conflates (8+ / 0-)

            the battle against multiculturalism with the battle for Christianity.  It's significant that he didn't go after Muslim targets but what he saw as the "multicultural elites".  Individuals associated with political groups he sees as responsible for the "humanist suicide" of Europe.

            In some countries outright racism and identification with the Nazi party repels as much as it attracts.  Marine LePen's coalition has dropped overt identification with neo-Nazi groups and has found greater acceptance with the French populace. In Russia, the anti-immigrant groups which are huge and well organized seem to have no problem with identifying themselves with Nazism.

            I think all of these groups are very different (especially when we're comparing them to the Tea Party Movement in the US) but what seems to unite them all is a hatred of immigrants.  

          •  They need a lecture on treating similarly (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            SwedishJewfish, JDsg

            situated people differently, and treating differently situated people the same.  That is a pretty clear test for discrimination.

            Which side are you on?

            by wiseacre on Sun Jul 24, 2011 at 09:06:56 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (125)
  • Community (60)
  • Memorial Day (31)
  • Culture (23)
  • Environment (21)
  • Law (20)
  • Rescued (20)
  • Civil Rights (20)
  • Science (19)
  • Labor (18)
  • Education (17)
  • Elections (16)
  • Marriage Equality (16)
  • Media (16)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (16)
  • Economy (15)
  • Republicans (14)
  • Ireland (14)
  • Josh Duggar (13)
  • Racism (13)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site