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.

ANNONSE

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 )

ANNONSE
Liker du det du leser? Vipps noen kroner til Document på 13629


  • clau­dine frank

    He cut-and-pas­ted from other sources as well.   Pro­bably tons of other sources….

    I just goog­led the phrase “deva­s­ta­ting assaults on the cur­ri­cu­lum” from p.24 of his text, which discus­ses Stan­ford and the lar­ger con­text of  ‘cul­tural marx­ism.’  Here’s what pop­ped up at http://www.worldviewweekend.com/worldview-times/print.php?&ArticleID=4104 
    Here, in an article tit­led “Poli­ti­cal Cor­rect­ness Is Cul­tural Marx­ism By Bran­non Howse”:T. Ken­neth Cribb, Jr. wrote in a rese­arch paper entit­led “Poli­ti­cal Cor­rect­ness in Hig­her Edu­ca­tion” that:Perhaps the most dis­tur­bing aspect of the Poli­ti­cally Cor­rect assault on the cur­ri­cu­lum is that it has occur­red at many of America’s elite uni­ver­sities. Take, for example, the case of Stan­ford Uni­ver­sity, an insti­tu­tion that has long played a lea­dership role in Ame­ri­can hig­her edu­ca­tion. Stan­ford eli­mi­nated its long-stan­ding Western civi­liza­tion require­ment in 1988 and replaced it with a mul­ti­cul­tural pro­gram known as “Cul­tu­res, Ideas, and Values.” Under this new pro­gram, fresh­man at Stan­ford can just as easily study Marx­ist revo­lu­tio­na­ries in Cen­tral Ame­rica as they can Plato, Shake­speare or New­ton. Because elite insti­tu­tions such as Stan­ford set an example for the rest of Ame­ri­can hig­her edu­ca­tion, other uni­ver­sities eagerly adopt these deva­s­ta­ting assaults on the cur­ri­cu­lum. This “trickle-down” effect will have a long-las­ting impact on the way future gene­ra­tions of Ame­ri­cans will be edu­cated. One dis­tin­guis­hed scholar recently lamen­ted that “hig­her edu­ca­tion is increas­ingly about acqui­ring atti­tudes and opi­nions that one puts on like a uni­form.”  Com­pare with Brei­vik text:Perhaps the most dis­tur­bing aspect of the poli­ti­cally cor­rect assault on the cur­ri­cu­lum is that it has occur­red at many of our elite uni­ver­sities. Take, for example, the case of Stan­ford Uni­ver­sity, an insti­tu­tion that has long played a lea­dership role in Ame­ri­can hig­her edu­ca­tion. Stan­ford eli­mi­nated its long-stan­ding Western civi­li­sa­tion require­ment in 1988 and replaced it with a mul­ti­cul­tural pro­gram known as “Cul­tu­res, Ideas, and Values.” Under this new pro­gram fresh­men at Stan­ford can just as easily study Marx­ist revo­lu­tio­na­ries in Cen­tral Ame­rica as they can Plato, Shake­speare, or Newton.Stanford has also led the move­ment away from serious study of his­tory. Stu­dents at Stan­ford, like stu­dents at all but one of the other top 50 uni­ver­sities in the Uni­ted Sta­tes, are not requi­red to take a single course in his­tory. Instead, they are offe­red a choice of cour­ses under the head­ing of “Ame­ri­can Cul­tu­res.” Accor­ding to one recent gra­duate at Stan­ford, it is impos­sible to fulfill the “Ame­ri­can Cul­tu­res” require­ment by study­ing Pro­tes­tan­tism, Irish Ame­ri­cans, or the Ame­ri­can West, while cour­ses that do fulfill the require­ment include “Film and Lite­ra­ture: US-Mex­ico Bor­der Repre­sen­ta­tions” and “Con­tem­po­rary Eth­nic Drama.” Stan­ford stu­dents must also take cour­ses in “World Cul­tu­res” and “Gen­der Stu­dies” that include “Chi­cana Expres­sive Cul­ture” and “Miso­gyny and Femi­nism in the Renais­sance.” Because elite insti­tu­tions such as Stan­ford set an example for the rest of Ame­ri­can and Euro­pean hig­her edu­ca­tion, other uni­ver­sities eagerly adopt these deva­s­ta­ting assaults on the cur­ri­cu­lum. This “trickle-down” effect will have a long-las­ting impact on the way future gene­ra­tions of Western Euro­pe­ans and Ame­ri­cans will be edu­cated.

  • If you are in the dark­nes the dark­ness will speak to you.
    And if you lis­ten. You will become a part of the dark­ness.

  • Jeg har lest ver­ket og jeg er nødt til å skuffe dere. Jeg site­rer:
    “I have writ­ten approxi­mately half of the com­pen­dium myself. The rest is a com­pi­la­tion of works from seve­ral courage­ous indi­vi­duals throug­hout the world.”

    Også TV2 overså dette. 

  • thank you for sha­ring this infor­ma­ton

  • han  er gal