Norwegian Utøya shooter's manifesto

[Thanas]

Jesus camp?
Or how about several other organizations like Boy Scouts?

[Julhelm]

I said Republican or Democrat youth organization. In other words an official party-affiliated youth organization. Jesus camps or boy scouts don't really fit those criteria.

[Thanas]

Dude, there are literally hundreds of Young Republican Camps. One such example: Link.

[Elheru Aran]

I will note that as far as I know the Boy Scouts of America is supposed to be more or less non-partisan. The organization has somewhat of a conservative bent to its morality, but I don't believe it endorses any one party over another. I may very well be wrong about this, however, so...

[Dooey Jo]

After all Communism, National Socialism and Social Democracy and the various permutations of socialism share some common stylistic traits which are plain to see for anyone who doesn't suffer from ideological blinders

No, Julhelm. You would in fact need quite thick ideological goggles to see any similarities between

a paramilitary rally

and

some twenty people in matching t-shirts cheering at the camera

Maybe with ten seconds of googling you will be able to find similar pictures of people from Green Youth, or the Center Party. Hell, maybe even MUF sometimes do a bit of boot tramping with Hitler balloons around the town squares.

Just to finish, here's a nice photo of a 1930's Unga Örnar marching band. Nice uniforms, don't you think?

Right. You know, it's becoming clear to me now why you might feel that your opinions are being "repressed" by what the slightly further right would call cultural marxism: You might in fact just get called out for being a bit dumb. Have you considered this possibility?

[Serafina]

By Julhems logic, we can compare a LGBT youth group marching at a gay pride parade with the same t-shirts to the Hitler-youth, too

Now if political youth camps were something utterly alien to US-Americans, Glenn Becks comparision would at least be somewhat excusable. But as Thanas and others showed, they're not. Only explanation left to me: he's a shithead who thinks that leftists are Nazis, and secretly agrees with this terrorist.

[Alyeska]

The insidious thing is that much of the compiled works are not so far from mainstream thought. I know plenty of islamophobes who would agree to the majority of his manifesto.

That is part of the problem right there. There is no such thing as islamophobia, all religions should be open to criticism. When the term islamophobia is used to silence critics of islam it simply drives people underground and things begin to fester to the point you get acts like this.

It seems that this guy felt that nothing was being done to protect his culture and that muslims were not integrating into Norwegian culture.

Sometimes it is best just to let people vent their views rather than forcinging them to keep them bottled up.

You should tread carefully over here SDB. You will find this forum far less tolerant of your trollish behavior compared to SB.com.

[Eleas]

I don't give any particular weight to whatever stupid shit Glenn Beck says, but I find it completely plausible that an american could draw that conclusion from photos like the ones I posted and the term "party youth camp".

You're not getting it. If a person is given those pictures as a response to the question of what a party youth camp for the political left in Scandinavia is, then whoever gave him those pictures are cherry-picking the fuck out of his sources. In the case of a news organization, the one producing the pictures should by rights be a trusted source, putting the onus on the organization itself and its members.

Your argument seems to boil down to this: if for some inexplicable reason Glenn Beck saw these particular pictures instead of what really goes on, it might be less implausible that he'd think they really were Nazis.

If this is what you intended to say, that's... not really the strongest argument you could advance.

From what I'm aware, the Boy Scouts, though serving as the inspiration for these organizations, aren't a politically affiliated party youth organization where the primary purpose is political indoctrination of children/youth the way Unga Örnar, the SSU and the (pre-war)Hitlerjugend was.

The Boy Scouts of America are boycotted by, among others, the Swedish Scouts due to their frank intolerance of LGBT people. Well, that, and their exceptionalism.

Not just a summer camp. An official party summer camp. That's a world of difference. Breivik obviously targeted these kids because of their party affiliation. He didn't just shoot up a random kids summer camp. I'm sorry but the victims aren't just random kids here. They were targeted because of their party affiliation and what they represent.

Of course. Just like Confirmation actually represents, in real life today, committing one's life to God (hint: today, it means fancy presents - a driver's licence, a brand new computer rig, a round trip overseas). Get real. In reality, this camp was a get-together. It was a social event. It was a place where people talked and hiked and socialized.

Most interestingly, and a matter which you seem to overlook: the difference between one party youth camp among many and the only acceptable party's party camp is pretty fucking vast. The difference between being able to choose whether to go to the camp and being coerced (possibly including putting your parents on the spot) into doing so is... well, not trivial.

[Julhelm]

Right. You know, it's becoming clear to me now why you might feel that your opinions are being "repressed" by what the slightly further right would call cultural marxism: You might in fact just get called out for being a bit dumb. Have you considered this possibility?

So are you just going to deny the S party drew a fuckton of inspiration and ideas from the Nazis, the USSR and the DDR and had complete control of all government media and academic institutions in a way that makes their youth organizations a completely different beast from 4% outfits like Young Greens or Center Youth. But since I'm a very poor debater you can just get away with calling me a retard, insinuating I'm an SD voter (because let's get serious, what the hell is "the slightly further right" supposed to mean if not that, huh?) and get high-fives all around for never adressing the fucking point.

You're not getting it. If a person is given those pictures as a response to the question of what a party youth camp for the political left in Scandinavia is, then whoever gave him those pictures are cherry-picking the fuck out of his sources. In the case of a news organization, the one producing the pictures should by rights be a trusted source, putting the onus on the organization itself and its members.

Your argument seems to boil down to this: if for some inexplicable reason Glenn Beck saw these particular pictures instead of what really goes on, it might be less implausible that he'd think they really were Nazis.

If this is what you intended to say, that's... not really the strongest argument you could advance.

I agree and that's why I conceded. I had no idea that the GOP and Dems run their own camps exactly the S do.

The Boy Scouts of America are boycotted by, among others, the Swedish Scouts due to their frank intolerance of LGBT people. Well, that, and their exceptionalism.

Well you learn something new every day.

Of course. Just like Confirmation actually represents, in real life today, committing one's life to God (hint: today, it means fancy presents - a driver's licence, a brand new computer rig, a round trip overseas). Get real. In reality, this camp was a get-together. It was a social event. It was a place where people talked and hiked and socialized.

But at the confirmation camp you don't have the entire new generation of would-be Labour party politicians all banded together. So I think it's rather different since that was his motivation for shooting it up. If they were just random kids at a get together, why would he bother? It wouldn't fit his political agenda at all. It's not like he planned for 9 years just to hit a random summer camp.

Most interestingly, and a matter which you seem to overlook: the difference between one party youth camp among many and the only acceptable party's party camp is pretty fucking vast. The difference between being able to choose whether to go to the camp and being coerced (possibly including putting your parents on the spot) into doing so is... well, not trivial.

Well I suppose you are right there. Put that way the comparison seems rather ridiculous. I was just looking at it from the huge political influence S used to possess. They literally built and ran society, you know. That has to make some kind of difference.

[Eleas]

The Boy Scouts of America are boycotted by, among others, the Swedish Scouts due to their frank intolerance of LGBT people. Well, that, and their exceptionalism.

Well you learn something new every day.

If you have friends active among the Boy Scouts, just ask for anecdotes. They're often hilarious.

But at the confirmation camp you don't have the entire new generation of would-be Labour party politicians all banded together. So I think it's rather different since that was his motivation for shooting it up. If they were just random kids at a get together, why would he bother? It wouldn't fit his political agenda at all. It's not like he planned for 9 years just to hit a random summer camp.

Oh, I'm not disputing the rationale behind his terrorism. Just like 9/11, it was effective. That doesn't make it right.

Well I suppose you are right there. Put that way the comparison seems rather ridiculous. I was just looking at it from the huge political influence S used to possess. They literally built and ran society, you know. That has to make some kind of difference.

Maybe.

[Big Phil]

I believe this website will be of use to the continuing discussion.

http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/03/0 ... tatres_en/

it's the official stats site for the Norway goverment. the page i link should let you pull up the stats as you want them.

I'd love to join the dogpile, but I did have fun the last time the Oslo 'stats' came up so it's probably someone else's turn.

I tried to use that to find the statistics crossed with the ethnicity of the accused/guilty, but I couldn't find a way to filter it that way. Do you know if it's possible to do so?

Otherwise, the only statistical evidence we have is from apparently biased right wing sites, which suggest that 14% of Muslims are committing 65% of violet rapes in Oslo. It doesn't matter if the raw number of rapes is "only" 50 or 100, it's bad that Muslims (or non-western immigrants, as it's apparently defined) are over-represented.

To put it another way, if I invite someone into my home, and they shit on the carpet, leave a mess in the kitchen, and insist that they don't have to follow any rules, would anyone criticize me for being pissed off and/or wanting to kick them out? Would any serious person actually argue that I need to be more sensitive to their culture, or that it's not a big deal because "it's only the kitchen?"

[Dooey Jo]

To put it another way, if I invite someone into my home, and they shit on the carpet, leave a mess in the kitchen, and insist that they don't have to follow any rules, would anyone criticize me for being pissed off and/or wanting to kick them out? Would any serious person actually argue that I need to be more sensitive to their culture, or that it's not a big deal because "it's only the kitchen?"

Or, to put it in yet another way, let's say you invite 100 000 people into your kitchen, of which 15 shit on your carpet, of which 9 are wearing silly hats, like 30 000 others of your guests. Then it turns out 13 of those who shat on your carpet have really bad eye-sight. Is it relevant to talk about what the fuck is up with people in silly hats? Let's also say you actually find 150 turds on your carpet, and you were only told about those 15 people, and those hats happen to have "They say I shit on carpets" written on them. And that 10 000 of those wearing hats also have bad eye-sight, compared to 15 000 of those without. So should you ask what the fuck is up with the culture of wearing silly hats, or should you ask why the fuck people shit on your carpet?

Of course, in reality, it wasn't your kitchen, you didn't find the turds, and the people weren't known to wear silly hats but were known to have relations to people who lived near people with silly hats.

Criminal statistics are complicated and not well represented by hilarious "blindingly obvious" sound-bites. Who knew?

So are you just going to deny the S party drew a fuckton of inspiration and ideas from the Nazis, the USSR and the DDR and had complete control of all government media and academic institutions in a way that makes their youth organizations a completely different beast from 4% outfits like Young Greens or Center Youth. But since I'm a very poor debater you can just get away with calling me a retard, insinuating I'm an SD voter (because let's get serious, what the hell is "the slightly further right" supposed to mean if not that, huh?) and get high-fives all around for never adressing the fucking point.

I'm going to take these awesome, out-of-nowhere, conspiracy theories as a big "no" (oh noes teh nazzie government media and academia!! Normally it'd be considered good form to back up such accusations instead of relying on the other part to "deny" it as if it were some sort of default position, but you know), that you have not considered that you may be wrong and get called dumb for it, and prefer to consider yourself a "poor debater" (can't it be both?). I did address your point: You need huge ideological goggles to see similarities between a group of people in t-shirts and a military parade with lines of people at attention (that you would even try to make that connection is a riot). Are you going to address my point; that you in fact possess these goggles? Are you going to support your own argument with something more substantial than "but look at them " and "but S are big and strong, like NAZZIES "? Because these crap arguments point to you being wrong, not having your points ignored.

[Julhelm]

I'm going to take these awesome, out-of-nowhere, conspiracy theories as a big "no" (oh noes teh nazzie government media and academia!! Normally it'd be considered good form to back up such accusations instead of relying on the other part to "deny" it as if it were some sort of default position, but you know), that you have not considered that you may be wrong and get called dumb for it, and prefer to consider yourself a "poor debater" (can't it be both?). I did address your point: You need huge ideological goggles to see similarities between a group of people in t-shirts and a military parade with lines of people at attention (that you would even try to make that connection is a riot). Are you going to address my point; that you in fact possess these goggles? Are you going to support your own argument with something more substantial than "but look at them " and "but S are big and strong, like NAZZIES "? Because these crap arguments point to you being wrong, not having your points ignored.

Except I never came out and said "S are nazis". I said their youth organization showed some similarities - a point I later conceded on but you continue attacking after the fact because you obviously feel the need to pin me as an SD sympathizer or something. What else is terms like "huge ideological goggles" and "slighly further right" supposed to insinuate if not that? Are you going to bother explaining what that is supposed to mean? Because I take some pretty damned strong offence to being lumped in with neo-nazis and racist hicks.

As for what you refer to as "conspiracy theories":

It has never been a secret that S had own majority in parliament and ran the government for the better part of the 20th century until the late 70's and continued to dominate the government even until the early 90's. Nor was it ever a secret that S ran a eugenics program. None of that are conspiracy theories. Those are historical facts and I don't need to prove a negative. If you feel these "accusations" as you put it are somehow unfounded, the onus is on you to prove them wrong. I can back them up for all to see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/backg ... 290661.stm

The Swedish government has approved a draft document granting compensation to thousands of women who were forcibly sterilised as part of a 40-year eugenics programme.

...

Two years ago, an investigative reporter uncovered the policy carried out between 1936 and 1976 of forcibly sterilising women considered socially unfit.

They included women released from prison, the mentally ill, people with learning difficulties, the poor, epileptics, alcoholics and women of "mixed racial quality"

Emphasis mine. Are you going to deny that this period coincides perfectly with the same period S dominated the government?

Or how about the fact S and the military ran their own STASI-like political affinity-registration operation, IB and could do that all the way until Guilliou and Bratt exposed it? Is that a conspiracy theory too?

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/IB

Socialdemokraterna hade under slutet av 1940-talet byggt upp en egen underrättelsetjänst med hjälp av sina arbetsplatsombud, som i kampen mot Sveriges kommunistiska parti (SKP) om makten över fackföreningsrörelsen rapporterade vilka fackföreningsmedlemmar som antogs vara kommunister. Samtidigt började försvaret av i huvudsak två skäl känna ett starkt behov av att kunna identifiera personer i landet som kunde vara säkerhetsrisker. Det ena skälet var att det från USA fanns ett krav om att amerikansk vapenteknik som exporterades till Sverige inte fick komma i händerna på personer som kunde tänkas föra tekonologin vidare till Sovjetunionen, och det andra skälet var ett antagande om att tidig information om ökad verksamhet bland vänsterinriktade grupper i Sverige skulle kunna ge en förvarning om ett sovjetiskt anfall mot Sverige.

I början av 1950-talet slöts därför en överenskommelse mellan Försvarsstaben och representanter för socialdemokraterna, dåvarande försvarsministern Torsten Nilsson och den tidigare partisekreteraren Sven Andersson, om att försvarsstaben skulle få använda sig av den socialdemokratiska arbetsplatsorganisation som partiet hade byggt upp.

Rough translation:

The Social Democrats had, under the late 1940's, built up their own intelligence agency using union party representatives who would report union members that were assumed to be communists. At the same time the military, for two reasons, began to feel a need to identify individuals who could be potential safety risks. One reason was that the US demanded american weapons technology exported to Sweden could not fall into the hands of individuals suspected of transfering the technology on to the USSR, and the other reason was that early information about increased activity among leftwing groups in Sweden could provide early warning about Soviet attack on Sweden.

In the early 1950's an agreement was therefore reached between the military chief of staff and representatives for the Social Democrat party, the then defence minister Torsten Nilsson and former party secretary Sven Andersson, that the military chief of staff would use the Social Democrat workplace-organization the party had built.

Then when it was exposed, S through Palme denied any knowledge and the journalists who blew the story were sent to jail. Real classy.

None of the other parties here have ever had that much water flow under the bridges. It wasn't the right wing governments who ran eugenics programs to preserve the purity of the scandinavian people or threw journalists in jail citing national security because there never was a right-wing government during that time.

So your point about ideological goggles is a load of crap. You don't need ideological glasses to look at documented dirty laundry and conclude it stinks.