Behring Breivik kopierte Una-bomberen

Hans Rustad

Anders Behring Brei­viks bok 2083 har kopiert den såkalte Una-bomberens Mani­fest ord for ord. Han er ellers nøye med å oppgi kilde, men det står ingen­ting om at han har lånt fra Una-bomberen.

Document.no var igår inne på at Behring Brei­vik kunne vekke asso­sia­sjo­ner til Una-bomberen. Nå viser det seg at Una-bomberen har vært en vik­tig inspi­ra­sjons­kilde, i den grad at Behring Brei­vik har kopiert hans manifest.

Stikk­ord er sivil­sa­sjons­kri­tikk og end­ring av sam­fun­net med vold.

Den eneste for­skjell Behring Brei­vik har gjort er at han har skif­tet ut ordet “left­ist” med “cul­tural marxist”.

Docu­ment har opp­lys­nin­gene fra en kilde som har stu­dert teks­ten grun­dig i hele natt, og ved en til­fel­dig­het kom til å se at det var iden­ti­tet mel­lom tekstene.

Una-bomberens mani­fest pkt. 6 til 23:

One of the most wide­spread mani­fes­ta­tions of the crazi­ness of our world is left­ism, so a discus­sion of the psycho­logy of left­ism can serve as an intro­duc­tion to the discus­sion of the pro­blems of modern society in general.

7. But what is left­ism? During the first half of the 20th cen­tury left­ism could have been prac­ti­cally iden­ti­fied with socia­lism. Today the move­ment is frag­men­ted and it is not clear who can properly be cal­led a left­ist. When we speak of left­ists in this article we have in mind mainly socia­lists, col­lecti­vists, “poli­ti­cally cor­rect” types, femi­nists, gay and disa­bi­lity acti­vists, ani­mal rights acti­vists and the like. But not eve­ryone who is associa­ted with one of these move­ments is a left­ist. What we are try­ing to get at in discus­sing left­ism is not so much a move­ment or an ideo­logy as a psycho­lo­gical type, or rat­her a col­lection of related types. Thus, what we mean by “left­ism” will emerge more cle­arly in the course of our discus­sion of left­ist psycho­logy (Also, see para­graphs 227-230.)

Anders Behring Brei­viks mani­fest, pkt. 2.17:

One of the most wide­spread mani­fes­ta­tions of the crazi­ness of our world is mul­ti­cul­tura­lism, so a discus­sion of the psycho­logy of mul­ti­cul­tura­lists can serve as an intro­duc­tion to the discus­sion of the pro­blems of Western Europe in general.

But what is mul­ti­cul­tura­lism or Cul­tural Com­mu­nism? The move­ment is frag­men­ted and it is not clear who can properly be cal­led a cul­tural Marx­ist. When we speak of cul­tural Marx­ists in this article we have in mind mainly indi­vi­duals who sup­port mul­ti­cul­tura­lism; socia­lists, col­lecti­vists, “poli­ti­cally cor­rect” types, femi­nists, gay and disa­bi­lity acti­vists, ani­mal rights acti­vists, environ­men­ta­lists etc. But not eve­ryone who is associa­ted with one of these move­ments sup­port
mul­ti­cul­tura­lism. What we are try­ing to get at in discus­sing cul­tural Marx­ists is not so much a move­ment or an ideo­logy as a psycho­lo­gical type, or rat­her a col­lection of related types

Det fort­set­ter, med ren avskrift og ube­ty­de­lige modi­fi­ka­sjo­ner for å inn “kulturmarxisme”:

Una­bom­be­ren:

8. Even so, our con­cep­tion of left­ism will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are try­ing to do is indi­cate in a rough and approxi­mate way the two psycho­lo­gical tenden­cies that we believe are the main dri­ving force of modern left­ism. We by no means claim to be tel­ling the WHOLE truth about left­ist psycho­logy. Also, our discus­sion is meant to apply to modern left­ism only. We leave open the ques­tion of the extent to which our discus­sion could be applied to the left­ists of the 19th and early 20th century.

9. The two psycho­lo­gical tenden­cies that under­lie modern left­ism we call “feelings of infe­riority” and “over­socia­liza­tion.” Feelings of infe­riority are cha­rac­te­ri­s­tic of modern left­ism as a whole, while over­socia­liza­tion is cha­rac­te­ri­s­tic only of a cer­tain seg­ment of modern left­ism; but this seg­ment is highly influential.

Behring Brei­vik:

Our con­cep­tion of cul­tural Marx­ists will remain a good deal less clear than we would wish, but there doesn’t seem to be any remedy for this. All we are try­ing to do is indi­cate in a rough and approxi­mate way the two psycho­lo­gical tenden­cies that we believe are the main dri­ving force of modern mul­ti­cul­tura­lism. We by no means claim to be tel­ling the WHOLE truth about cul­tural Marx­ist psycho­logy. Also, our discus­sion is meant to apply to modern cul­tural Marx­ists only.

The two psycho­lo­gical tenden­cies that under­lie cul­tural Marx­ists we call “feelings of infe­riority” and “over-socialisation.” Feelings of infe­riority are cha­rac­te­ri­s­tic of cul­tural Marx­ism as a whole, while over-socialisation is cha­rac­te­ri­s­tic only of a cer­tain seg­ment of cul­tural Marx­ism; but this seg­ment is highly influential.

Mindre­ver­dig­hets­fø­lelse

Una-bomberen skri­ver ana­ly­tisk og reflek­te­rende om venstre­ori­en­ter­tes behov for makt og inn­fly­telse, som han mener bun­ner i mindre­ver­dig­hets­fø­lelse. Feil ved Ves­ten blå­ses opp og ut av alle pro­por­sjo­ner, mens til­sva­rende eller verre feil hos land i tredje ver­den baga­tel­li­se­res eller aksep­te­res med et skuldertrekk.

Det er mulig Behring Brei­vik fant at dette var så godt for­mu­lert at han gjerne ville pynte seg med lånte fjær.

Una-bomber

FEELINGS OF INFERIORITY

10. By “feelings of infe­riority” we mean not only infe­riority feelings in the stric­test sense but a whole spec­trum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of power­lessness, depres­sive tenden­cies, def­eatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that modern left­ists tend to have such feelings (pos­sibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are deci­sive in deter­mi­ning the direc­tion of modern leftism.

11. When some­one inter­prets as dero­ga­tory almost any­thing that is said about him (or about groups with whom he iden­ti­fies) we con­clude that he has infe­riority feelings or low self-esteem. This tendency is pronoun­ced among minority rights advo­ca­tes, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hyper­sen­si­tive about the words used to desig­nate minori­ties. The terms “negro,” “ori­en­tal,” “han­di­cap­ped” or “chick” for an Afri­can, an Asian, a disab­led per­son or a woman ori­gi­nally had no dero­ga­tory con­no­ta­tion. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the femi­nine equi­va­lents of “guy,” “dude” or “fel­low.” The nega­tive con­no­ta­tions have been atta­ched to these terms by the acti­vists them­sel­ves. Some ani­mal rights advo­ca­tes have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replace­ment by “ani­mal com­pa­nion.” Left­ist anthro­po­lo­gists go to great lengths to avoid say­ing any­thing about pri­mi­tive peop­les that could con­ceivably be inter­preted as nega­tive. They want to replace the word “pri­mi­tive” by “non­li­te­rate.” They seem almost para­noid about any­thing that might sug­gest that any pri­mi­tive cul­ture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that pri­mi­tive cul­tu­res ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hyper­sen­si­ti­vity of left­ish anthropologists.)

Behring Brei­vik har kopiert ordrett:

Feelings of infe­riority

By “feelings of infe­riority” we mean not only infe­riority feelings in the stric­test sense but a whole spec­trum of related traits: low self-esteem, feelings of power­lessness, depres­sive tenden­cies, def­eatism, guilt, self-hatred, etc. We argue that cul­tural Marx­ists tend to have such feelings (pos­sibly more or less repressed) and that these feelings are deci­sive in deter­mi­ning the direc­tion of cul­tural Marxism.

When some­one inter­prets as dero­ga­tory almost any­thing that is said about him (or about groups with whom he iden­ti­fies) we con­clude that he has infe­riority feelings or low sel­festeem. This tendency is pronoun­ced among minority rights advo­ca­tes, whether or not they belong to the minority groups whose rights they defend. They are hyper­sen­si­tive about the words used to desig­nate minori­ties. The terms “negro,” “ori­en­tal,” “han­di­cap­ped” or “chick” for an Afri­can, an Asian, a disab­led per­son or a woman ori­gi­nally had no dero­ga­tory con­no­ta­tion. “Broad” and “chick” were merely the femi­nine equi­va­lents of “guy,” “dude” or “fel­low.” The nega­tive con­no­ta­tions have been atta­ched to these terms by the acti­vists them­sel­ves. Some ani­mal rights advo­ca­tes have gone so far as to reject the word “pet” and insist on its replace­ment by “ani­mal com­pa­nion.” Left­ist anthro­po­lo­gists go to great lengths to avoid say­ing any­thing about pri­mi­tive peop­les that could con­ceivably be inter­preted as nega­tive. They have now replaced the word “pri­mi­tive” by “non-literate.” They seem almost para­noid about any­thing that might sug­gest that any pri­mi­tive cul­ture is inferior to our own. (We do not mean to imply that pri­mi­tive cul­tu­res ARE inferior to ours. We merely point out the hyper­sen­si­ti­vity of left­ist anthropologists.)

Det er mulig at Behring Brei­vik fant det besnæ­rende at Una-bomberen er i stand til å kri­ti­sere venstre­ori­en­ter­tes par­tisk­het, deres for­svar av svake grup­per som i vir­ke­lig­he­ten er en skjult ned­la­ten­het, sam­ti­dig som han ikke tar stil­ling til om de vir­ke­lig er “svake”, i betyd­nin­gen pri­mi­tive eller analfabeter.

Eufe­mis­mer står sen­tralt i Una-bomberens beskri­velse, og dette er noe han kan ha fun­net tref­fende for norsk poli­tisk kul­tur, i fler­kul­tu­rens tegn. Ved å låne Una-bomberens tekst gir han inn­trykk av å være en sofis­ti­kert intellektuell.

Una-bomberen

12. Those who are most sen­si­tive about “poli­ti­cally incor­rect” ter­mi­no­logy are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immi­grant, abu­sed woman or disab­led per­son, but a minority of acti­vists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from pri­vi­leged strata of society. Poli­ti­cal cor­rect­ness has its strong­hold among uni­ver­sity pro­fes­sors, who have secure emp­loy­ment with com­for­table sala­ries, and the majority of whom are hete­ro­sexual, white males from middle-class families.

13. Many left­ists have an intense iden­ti­fi­ca­tion with the pro­blems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), def­e­ated (Ame­ri­can Indi­ans), repel­lent (homo­sexuals), or other­wise inferior. The left­ists them­sel­ves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to them­sel­ves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as inferior that they iden­tify with their pro­blems. (We do not sug­gest that women, Indi­ans, etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about left­ist psychology).

Behring Brei­vik:

Those who are most sen­si­tive about “poli­ti­cally incor­rect” ter­mi­no­logy are not the average black ghetto-dweller, Asian immi­grant, abu­sed woman or disab­led per­son, but a minority of acti­vists, many of whom do not even belong to any “oppressed” group but come from pri­vi­leged strata of society. Poli­ti­cal cor­rect­ness has its strong­hold among govern­ment emp­loy­ees, poli­ti­ci­ans, uni­ver­sity pro­fes­sors and jour­na­lists and pub­lis­hers in govern­ment broad­cas­ting com­pa­nies who have secure emp­loy­ment with com­for­table sala­ries, and the majority of whom are hete­ro­sexual, eth­nic Euro­peans from middle-class families.

Many cul­tural Marx­ists have an intense iden­ti­fi­ca­tion with the pro­blems of groups that have an image of being weak (women), “so cal­led” oppressed minori­ties, repel­lent (homo­sexuals), and other groups in the “vic­tim hie­rar­chy”. The cul­tural Marx­ists them­sel­ves feel that these groups are inferior. They would never admit it to them­sel­ves that they have such feelings, but it is precisely because they do see these groups as
inferior that they iden­tify with their pro­blems. (We do not sug­gest that women, Mus­lims, etc., ARE inferior; we are only making a point about cul­tural Marx­ist psychology).

Hat mot Ame­rika og Vesten

Una-bomberen:

14. Femi­nists are despe­ra­tely anxious to prove that women are as strong as capable as men. Cle­arly they are nag­ged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

15. Left­ists tend to hate any­thing that has an image of being strong, good and success­ful. They hate Ame­rica, they hate Western civi­liza­tion, they hate white males, they hate ratio­na­lity. The rea­sons that left­ists give for hating the West, etc. cle­arly do not cor­re­spond with their real moti­ves. They SAY they hate the West because it is war­like, impe­ria­li­s­tic, sexist, eth­nocent­ric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socia­list countries or in pri­mi­tive cul­tu­res, the left­ist finds excu­ses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whe­reas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exag­ge­ra­tes) these faults where they appear in Western civi­liza­tion. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating Ame­rica and the West. He hates Ame­rica and the West because they are strong and successful.

Behring Brei­vik;

Femi­nists are despe­ra­tely anxious to prove that women are as strong and capable as men. Cle­arly they are nag­ged by a fear that women may NOT be as strong and as capable as men.

Cul­tural Marx­ists tend to hate any­thing that has an image of being strong, good and success­ful. They hate Europe, Ame­rica, they hate Western civi­li­sa­tion, they hate white males, and they hate ratio­na­lity. The rea­sons that cul­tural Marx­ists give for hating the West, etc. cle­arly do not cor­re­spond with their real moti­ves. They SAY they hate the West because it is war­like, impe­ria­li­s­tic, sexist, eth­nocent­ric and so forth, but where these same faults appear in socia­list countries or in pri­mi­tive cul­tu­res, the left­ist finds excu­ses for them, or at best he GRUDGINGLY admits that they exist; whe­reas he ENTHUSIASTICALLY points out (and often greatly exag­ge­ra­tes) these faults where they appear in Western civi­li­sa­tion. Thus it is clear that these faults are not the leftist’s real motive for hating Europe, Ame­rica and the West. He hates the West because they are strong and successful.

Kol­lek­tiv og taper

Una-bomberen

16. Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “ini­tia­tive”, “enter­prise,” “opti­mism,” etc. play little role in the libe­ral and left­ist voca­bu­lary. The left­ist is anti-individualistic, pro-collectivist. He wants society to solve everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of per­son who has an inner sense of con­fi­dence in his own abi­lity to solve his own pro­blems and satisfy his own needs. The left­ist is anta­go­ni­s­tic to the con­cept of com­pe­tition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

Behring Brei­vik

Words like “self-confidence,” “self-reliance,” “ini­tia­tive”, “enter­prise,” “opti­mism,” etc. play little role in the cul­tural Marx­ist voca­bu­lary. The left­ist is anti-individualistic, procol­lecti­vist. He wants society to solve everyone’s needs for them, take care of them. He is not the sort of per­son who has an inner sense of con­fi­dence in his own abi­lity to solve his own pro­blems and satisfy his own needs. The cul­tural Marx­ist is anta­go­ni­s­tic to the con­cept of com­pe­tition because, deep inside, he feels like a loser.

Kunst

Una-bomberen

17. Art forms that appeal to modern left­ist intel­lec­tuals tend to focus on sordid­ness, def­eat and despair, or else they take an orgi­a­s­tic tone, throwing off ratio­nal con­trol as if there were no hope of accom­plish­ing any­thing through ratio­nal cal­cu­la­tion and all that was left was to immerse one­self in the sen­sa­tions of the moment.

Behring Brei­vik

Art forms that appeal to cul­tural Marx­ist intel­lec­tuals tend to focus on sordid­ness, def­eat and despair, or else they take an orgi­a­s­tic tone, throwing off ratio­nal con­trol as if there were no hope of accom­plish­ing any­thing through ratio­nal cal­cu­la­tion and all that was left was to immerse one­self in the sen­sa­tions of the moment.

Anti-science

Una-bomber

18. Modern left­ist phi­lo­sop­hers tend to dis­miss rea­son, science, objec­tive rea­lity and to insist that eve­rything is cul­turally rela­tive. It is true that one can ask serious ques­tions about the foun­da­tions of scien­ti­fic know­ledge and about how, if at all, the con­cept of objec­tive rea­lity can be defined. But it is obvious that modern left­ist phi­lo­sop­hers are not sim­ply cool-headed logici­ans
sys­te­ma­ti­cally ana­ly­zing the foun­da­tions of know­ledge. They are deeply involved emo­tio­nally in their attack on truth and rea­lity. They attack these con­cepts because of their own psycho­lo­gical needs. For one thing, their attack is an out­let for hos­ti­lity, and, to the extent
that it is success­ful, it satis­fies the drive for power. More impor­tantly, the left­ist hates science and ratio­na­lity because they clas­sify cer­tain beliefs as true (i.e., success­ful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e. fai­led, inferior). The leftist’s feelings of infe­riority run so deep that he can­not tole­rate any clas­si­fi­ca­tion
of some things as success­ful or superior and other things as fai­led or inferior. This also under­lies the rejec­tion by many left­ists of the con­cept of men­tal ill­ness and of the uti­lity of IQ tests. Left­ists are anta­go­ni­s­tic to gen­etic expla­na­tions of human abi­lities or beha­vior because such expla­na­tions tend to make some per­sons appear superior or inferior to others. Left­ists pre­fer to give society the cre­dit or blame for an individual’s abi­lity or lack of it. Thus if a per­son is
“inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

Behring Brei­vik

cul­tural Marx­ist phi­lo­sop­hers tend to dis­miss rea­son, science, objec­tive rea­lity and to insist that eve­rything is cul­turally rela­tive. It is true that one can ask serious ques­tions about the foun­da­tions of scien­ti­fic know­ledge and about how, if at all, the con­cept of objec­tive rea­lity can be defined. But it is obvious that cul­tural Marx­ist phi­lo­sop­hers are not sim­ply cool-headed logici­ans sys­te­ma­ti­cally ana­ly­zing the foun­da­tions of know­ledge.
They are deeply involved emo­tio­nally in their attack on truth and rea­lity. They attack these con­cepts because of their own psycho­lo­gical needs. For one thing, their attack is an out­let for hos­ti­lity, and, to the extent that it is success­ful, it satis­fies the drive for power. More impor­tantly, the cul­tural Marx­ist hates science and ratio­na­lity because they clas­sify cer­tain beliefs as true (i.e., success­ful, superior) and other beliefs as false (i.e. fai­led, inferior). The cul­tural Marx­ist feelings of infe­riority run so deep that he/she can­not tole­rate any clas­si­fi­ca­tion of some things as success­ful or superior and other things as fai­led or inferior. This also under­lies the rejec­tion by many cul­tural Marx­ists of the con­cept of men­tal ill­ness and of the uti­lity of IQ tests. cul­tural Marx­ists are anta­go­ni­s­tic to gen­etic expla­na­tions of human abi­lities or beha­viour because such expla­na­tions tend to make some per­sons appear superior or inferior to others. Cul­tural Marx­ists pre­fer to give society the cre­dit or blame for an individual’s abi­lity or lack of it. Thus if a per­son is “inferior” it is not his fault, but society’s, because he has not been brought up properly.

Ingen selv­drift

Una-bomberen

19. The left­ist is not typi­cally the kind of per­son whose feelings of infe­riority make him a brag­gart, an ego­tist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruth­less com­pe­ti­tor. This kind of per­son has not wholly lost faith in him­self. He has a defi­cit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still con­ce­ive of him­self as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make him­self strong pro­duce his unp­lea­sant beha­vior. [1] But the left­ist is too far gone for that. His feelings of infe­riority are so ingrai­ned that he can­not con­ce­ive of him­self as indi­vi­dually strong and valuable. Hence the col­lecti­vism of the left­ist. He can feel strong only as a mem­ber of a large orga­niza­tion or a mass move­ment with which he iden­ti­fies himself.

Behring Brei­vik

The cul­tural Marx­ist is not typi­cally the kind of per­son whose feelings of infe­riority make him/her a brag­gart, an ego­tist, a bully, a self-promoter, a ruth­less com­pe­ti­tor. This kind of per­son has not wholly lost faith in him­self. He has a defi­cit in his sense of power and self-worth, but he can still con­ce­ive of him­self as having the capacity to be strong, and his efforts to make him­self strong pro­duce his unp­lea­sant beha­viour. [1] But the cul­tural Marx­ist is too far gone for that. His feelings of infe­riority are so ingrai­ned that he can­not
con­ce­ive of him­self as indi­vi­dually strong and valuable; hence the col­lecti­vism of the cul­tural Marx­ist. She can feel strong only as a mem­ber of a large orga­ni­sa­tion or a mass move­ment with which she iden­ti­fies herself.

Masochisme og selvhat

Una-bomberen

20. Notice the masochi­s­tic tendency of left­ist tac­tics. Left­ists pro­test by lying down in front of vehic­les, they inten­tio­nally pro­voke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tac­tics may often be effec­tive, but many left­ists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochi­s­tic tac­tics. Self-hatred is a left­ist trait.

Behring Brei­vik

Notice the masochi­s­tic tendency of cul­tural Marx­ist tac­tics. Cul­tural Marx­ists pro­test by lying down in front of vehic­les, they inten­tio­nally pro­voke police or racists to abuse them, etc. These tac­tics may often be effec­tive, but many cul­tural Marx­ists use them not as a means to an end but because they PREFER masochi­s­tic tac­tics. Self-hatred is a cul­tural Marx­ist trait.

Reelle driv­kref­ter

Una-bomberen

21. Left­ists may claim that their acti­vism is moti­vated by com­pas­sion or by moral prin­ciple, and moral prin­ciple does play a role for the left­ist of the over­socia­lized type. But com­pas­sion and moral prin­ciple
can­not be the main moti­ves for left­ist acti­vism. Hos­ti­lity is too pro­mi­nent a com­po­nent of left­ist beha­vior; so is the drive for power. More­over, much left­ist beha­vior is not ratio­nally cal­cu­lated to be of bene­fit to the people whom the left­ists claim to be try­ing to help. For example, if one belie­ves that affir­ma­tive action is good for black people, does it make sense to demand affir­ma­tive action in hostile or dog­ma­tic terms? Obviously it would be more pro­duc­tive to take a diplo­ma­tic and con­ci­li­a­tory approach that would make at least ver­bal and sym­bo­lic con­ces­sions to white people who think that affir­ma­tive action discri­mi­na­tes against them. But left­ist acti­vists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emo­tio­nal needs. Hel­ping black people is not their real goal. Instead, race pro­blems serve as an excuse for them to express their own hos­ti­lity and frust­rated need for power. In doing so they actually harm black people, because the acti­vists’ hostile atti­tude toward the white majority tends to inten­sify race hatred.

I det neste avsnit­tet har Behring Brei­vik byt­tet ut ordet “svarte” med “mus­li­mer”, inter­es­sant nok.

Behring Brei­vik

Cul­tural Marx­ists may claim that their acti­vism is moti­vated by com­pas­sion or by moral prin­ciple, and moral prin­ciple does play a role for the cul­tural Marx­ist of the over­socia­lised type. But com­pas­sion and moral prin­ciple can­not be the main moti­ves for cul­tural Marx­ist acti­vism. Hos­ti­lity is too pro­mi­nent a com­po­nent of cul­tural Marx­ist beha­viour; so is the drive for power. More­over, much cul­tural Marx­ist beha­viour is not ratio­nally cal­cu­lated to be of bene­fit to the people whom they claim to be try­ing to help. For example, if one belie­ves that affir­ma­tive action is good for Mus­lims, does it make sense to demand affir­ma­tive action in hostile or dog­ma­tic terms? Obviously it would be more pro­duc­tive to take a diplo­ma­tic and con­ci­li­a­tory approach that would make at least ver­bal and sym­bo­lic con­ces­sions to non-Muslims who think that affir­ma­tive action discri­mi­na­tes against them. But cul­tural Marx­ist acti­vists do not take such an approach because it would not satisfy their emo­tio­nal needs. Hel­ping Mus­lims is not their real goal. Instead, pro­blems related to Islam serve as an excuse for them to express their own
hos­ti­lity and frust­rated need for power. In doing so they actually harm Mus­lims, because the acti­vists’ hostile atti­tude toward the non-Muslims tends to inten­sify the irri­ta­tion or hatred.

Avslut­nin­gen er også tro kopi: venstreorienterte/kulturmarxister ska­per pro­ble­mer som ikke er der og set­ter der­ved i gang en dyna­mikk som tje­ner dem selv.

Una-bomberen

22. If our society had no social pro­blems at all, the left­ists would have to INVENT pro­blems in order to pro­vide them­sel­ves with an excuse for making a fuss.

23. We emp­ha­size that the for­ego­ing does not pre­tend to be an accu­rate descrip­tion of eve­ryone who might be con­side­red a left­ist. It is only a rough indi­ca­tion of a gene­ral tendency of leftism.

Behring Brei­vik

If our society had no social pro­blems at all, the cul­tural Marx­ists would have to INVENT pro­blems in order to pro­vide them­sel­ves with an excuse for making a fuss.

We emp­ha­sise that the for­ego­ing does not pre­tend to be an accu­rate descrip­tion of eve­ryone who might be con­side­red a cul­tural Marx­ist. It is only a rough indi­ca­tion of a gene­ral tendency of cul­tural Marxism.

Både inn­hol­det i tan­kene til Una-bomberen og det fak­tum at de er kopiert ord for ord, uten attri­bu­sjon er betyd­nings­fullt. Una-bomberen valgte også for­andre sam­fun­net ved vold, og holdt på i mange år før han ble tatt.

Vår kilde som har stu­dert begge teks­ter observerer:

Til og med Una­bom­be­rens fot­note­hen­vis­ning i punkt 19 og bru­ken av STORE BOKSTAVER flere ste­der er kopiert rett over i Brei­viks mani­fest, nøy­ak­tig slik de stod på trykk i Una-bomberens mani­fest (slik dette fin­nes til­gjen­ge­lig flere ste­der på Inter­nett, se f.eks. http://www.math.osu.edu/~nevai/USA/wholemanifesto.html )




Om du ikke følger Document på sosiale media kan du følge oss på e-post.

Donere engangsbeløp?Kan du forplikte deg til fast betaling?

Penger kan også doneres til kontonummer 15030249981. Du kan også støtte oss ved å kjøpe bøker eller varer.

Leserkommentarer på Document er gjenstand for moderering, som ikke skjer kontinuerlig og under enhver omstendighet ikke om natten. Vi ønsker en respektfull tone uten personangrep, sleivete språk eller flammende retorikk. Vis særlig nøkternhet når temaet er følsomt. Begrenset redigering av skjemmende detaljer kan finne sted. Skriv til debatt@document.no dersom du ikke forstår hvorfor en kommentar uteblir. Se her for nybegynnerhjelp.