Archive

Archive for July, 2011

Behind the Failure of Old Media: 2

July 31, 2011 4 comments

In the first part of this series, I had written about how the lack of differentiating quality content and obsolete businesses models have contributed to the ongoing failure of old media. In both cases technology has destroyed what were once strong advantages of scale, in favor of new and smaller entities. Here is more..

3. Interactivity or the lack thereof

Old media had a top down model where a few ‘chosen ones’ told others what to think, read, listen, view etc. In the pre-internet age, writing letters to a newspaper or magazine was pretty much the only way for readers to interact with media. Such feedback was rarely published or even read other than as amusement for the ‘chosen ones’ and their flunkies.

Naturally, the only real feedback that most media was through sale figures which, though indicative of large trends, were often misleading due to the lack of true competition. Ask yourself, how many large newspapers, magazines etc can any given market support? In most cases there were 2-4 major and stable contenders in every area and field. In many respects, the situation was closer to an oligarchy. Relaxation of rules to prevent media consolidation, starting in the 1980s, made the situation worse by consolidating corporate influence and making media bland/safe enough to be produced like a widget.

The non-technological reasons behind the lack of interactivity in traditional media are also worth mentioning. Since old media was always a top down exercise in control via providing the ‘right’ information and content, attempts to add interactivity to any form of traditional media have always been half-hearted. It was always about intellectual coercion rather than a free exchange of ideas.

Now compare that state of affairs to blogs, forums, new media sites and social media.

4. Lack of Customization

One of the major strengths of new media is that its consumption can be customized to a hitherto unimaginable degree. You can not only select what you read or see but also what you want to know about and to what degree. Tools like RSS, Google recommendations, Reddit, StumbleUpon, FaceBook and Twitter links, blogs, Links within comments etc allow the average user to read and see what they are interested in rather than what they can buy or access in physical form.

Laptops, tablets and smartphones are the tools for this new form of customized media consumption. I recognized this eventuality after purchasing my first pocket PC in 2001. Though it initially lacked WiFi and ran on Windows Mobile, I found that it became a very important secondary device to my laptop as far as information storage, access and retrieval was concerned. Once I bought a CF-card WiFi modem for it, 2002, it became almost as important as my laptop for those purposes.

Given that people now see all of media as a repository which they can access at their pleasure and will, anything that cuts into this seamless experience (old media empires) will not be popular. Once again a ‘feature’ of the old business model and ways has today became a fatal flaw.

Other reasons for the failure of old media, including their counterproductive response to new media will be discussed in a future post of this series.

Comments?

Human Nature Can Change

July 30, 2011 15 comments

Many people, especially CONservatives, believe that “Human Nature Cannot Change”. In my opinion, this is more of a self-fulfilling prophecy for those who want the status quo.

Consider some behaviors that have characterized human beings for many thousands of years-

1. For most of human history people have been shitting and pissing in their drinking water supplies. Though some ancient people were observant enough to conclude that infectious diseases do spread through contaminated drinking water, their beliefs had little impact on human history.

This went on right till the late 1800s, when developments in science (microbiology) and technology (engineering) made it possible to supply clean drinking water and dispose sewage. Today more human beings have access to clean drinking water and sewage disposal than don’t. In any case, behavior that was acceptable and normal for all of human history before the last 100-odd years is now seen and enforced as unacceptable.

2. Consider human living arrangements.. For almost all of human history most of the people you interacted with or lived around were related to you. Today most of the people who live around you and interact with are not related to you. Urbanization is not an exclusively western phenomenon- indeed most of the worlds largest urban areas are found in Asia (Tokyo, Seoul, many Megacities in China and India) and Central-South America (Mexico City, Sao Paulo, Rio, Buenos Aires etc)

Current levels of urbanization were however possible only after public health and engineering issues (clean water, sewage disposal, availability of electricity, well maintained roads, automobiles etc) were progressively solved over the last 100-odd years. While I do not see them as utopias, urban areas are certainly better places than the rural areas where the bulk of its inhabitants originally came from.

3. Consider how we interact with other people.. For most of history we could only interact with people we could talk to in person or write/type letters to. Is that still the case and how has it affected our view of the world? Do you think extensive international trade does not affect the inner world of humans?

Today any person with a cellphone who is marginally literate can send/receive texts and pictures in addition to talking with people who are far way or who they have often never met in real life. Do you seriously believe that this new ubiquitous ability has not affected people’s worldview? Do you think governments today can control information like they used to- especially as far as the younger generations are concerned? Do you think that a guy like Hitler, Stalin, Mao would be able to do what they did no the same scale?

I am going to keep this post short, however I could give you many more examples- and might do so in future posts.

Comments?

Sociopathy, Management and Emerging Organistional Dysfunction

July 30, 2011 13 comments

I am sure that many of you must have wondered about how once great and supremely competent organizations decay into mediocre and pathetic shadows of their former selves. In previous eras, it was hard to follow the behavior, decisions and internal atmosphere of many organizations due to lack of cheap and ubiquitous communication technology. That has changed in the last decade or so, allowing us to follow the course of slow train-wrecks in unprecedented detail.

Almost every single successful organization is usually started by very competent, innovative and dedicated persons. Even their generation 0 (present at founding) and 1 (first major hires) bureaucrats and managers are unusually competent and intelligent. So far so good.. The problem for every organization starts with its generation 2 bureaucrats and managers, whose ability and mentality are closer to those found in your average stagnating and dysfunctional organization.

Such mediocre people are hired because of reasons ranging from necessity, deception by job seekers to making it more like a ‘normal’ organization. Regardless of the reasons behind their initial hiring these scumbags soon proliferate and slowly ruin the organization through a variety of methods and behaviors. Since these scumbags are usually hired during the later part of the initial growth phase, they are around to influence the creation of the 2nd round of rules, procedures and other managerial bullshit. It is necessary to understand that most of internal managerial apparatus of any organization is meant for petty power plays and enriching unscrupulous rent-seekers.

The next step in the disease process comes about when the organization undergoes its 2nd or 3rd major expansion. This is usually the first time these, now promoted, scumbags get the first real chance to abuse their power. In pretty much every single case, the modus operandi follows a well-worn pattern. The scumbags start by hiring more venal and stupider versions of them as subordinates. They then start creating policies, rules and procedures that help them expand their little fiefdoms and consolidate their power. They also intimidate, harass and fire productive and innovative employees. The net result of this pattern is that while real productivity and innovation suffer, so-called ‘objective’ measures of corporate performance increase- setting the next step in motion.

As mentioned in the previous paragraph, power hunger and venal scumbags cut their teeth on screwing emerging divisions and groups in a company. However, they rarely hang around till their failure is evident. Instead, they use success to get themselves promoted up the hierarchy where they can repeat what they did on a much larger scale. The venal scumbags hired by them frequently also move up the corporate ladder and go on to hire even more venal and dumber sociopaths while harassing and firing most of the remaining competent people. Now you have an organization driven by scams, intrigue, fear, fiefdoms, warlords with barely any competent people to do the job or innovate. These dysfunctional organizations can however remain afloat for upto a decade after things go to hell because of size, inertia and purchasing political favor.

Since the external world keeps on evolving, malfunctional organizations do eventually have to contend with their demise- whether it is due to competitors, newer technology or loss of the original customers for their shit. At such times, the biggest sociopaths (senior management) in the organization either sell it, liquidate it or let it implode in a manner that will make them tons of money. They do nor care about inconsequential stuff such as most of their shareholders, remaining employees, acquired technology, human knowledge base or anything of value. For them it is a game about who can steal the most money and then repeat that same cycle at another organization.

Comments?

NSFW Links: July 29, 2011

July 29, 2011 Leave a comment

These links are NSFW.

nekkidcuties.tumblr.com/archive/2011/7 Tons of Assorted Pics!

Vickie 6: Paisley Booty!

Vickie 6: Boiler More Booty!

Rich A from MetArt: Holidays Slim and Flexible!

Brigi from HegreArt: Tulum, Mexico Slim and Shaven!

Enjoy!

Categories: Uncategorized

Looks Interesting: Devil’s Double

July 28, 2011 11 comments

You may have, in the last 2-3 weeks, seen ads for a new movie called “Devil’s Double”. It is a dramatized version of the personal account of Latif Yahia, a guy who the misfortune to be recruited as a body double for Uday Hussein (the elder psycho son of Saddam Hussein).

Note that the psychotic and highly sadistic behavior of Saddam Hussein’s elder son was well-known even when his father was in the good graces of the american establishment.

Comments?

Categories: Current Affairs

Breivik and ‘V for Vendetta’

July 26, 2011 14 comments

As I have previously mentioned, CONservatives of all stripes seem to be very eager to dissociate them from the ‘Breivik legacy’. The most supportive posts by CONservatives say something to the effect of:

The guy had genuine grievances, but his method for expressing them were uncalled for.

So let me play Devil’s Advocate, as I often do, and ask you an unpleasant question-

Can you think of an effective AND acceptable way to publicize his views and ideologies?

He could not have gone via the mainstream media route, because of the politically incorrect nature of his ideas. While an internet based approach would suffice for getting some people to listen to his ideas, it would not give him the mass audience necessary for ultimately changing anything. Career politicians and established parties would never say such things openly for fear of public and legal censure. Almost nobody in the “elite” of that country would want to be caught within shouting distance of such ideologies.

So what were his options? realistically?

He could do what he did or kept talking about it on the intertubes- like he had done for almost a decade. If you ignore morality or ethics, his actions were infact rational and logical. He chose to do something that would guarantee two outcomes.

1. Widespread notoriety and exposure to his ideas, which were well laid out.

2. A government security-law overreaction which will end up pushing moderates into extremism.

To put it another way, he chose the ‘V for Vendetta‘ approach right down to bombing the prime minister’s office and his verbose manifestos. You know something else- he might ultimately succeed even if he does not live to see that day.

Coming to think about it, didn’t the events and reaction after 9/11 expose the inadequacy and shortcomings of the american way? Can you really argue that the subsequent fuckups in Iraq, Afghanistan, TSA, Homeland Security etc have made people less willing to believe in the ability of government to act in a competent and reasonable manner.

Comments?

Sexual Jealousy and Breivik

July 26, 2011 8 comments

I have always suspected that sex, or the lack thereof, had something to do with Breivik’s actions. While we don’t know much about his recent sexual life, I cannot help but listen to this interview with an old high-school friend of his and wonder whether the seed of his ideology was planed by events in his teenage years.

h/t to Martin for the video.

Comments?

Categories: Current Affairs

Why Authoritarian Societies Flounder and Fail

July 26, 2011 6 comments

Many people believe that the West progressed because of some magical combination of race and other special ingredients. I think otherwise-

The main reason behind the rise of the West (after the renaissance) and the stagnation of Asian societies for hundreds, if not thousands, of years comes down to the degree of authoritarianism in those societies.

To put it another way, the ability of a society to progress is inversely proportional to the degree of authoritarianism within it.

While authoritarianism can provide stability in the short term, it carries a particularly nasty feature that sacrifices the future of that system. Human beings can be motivated by reward and fear, however using fear to run systems results in a particular set of problems.

Fear can only motivate people to do the bare minimum necessary for survival. Hence, societies which use fear are characterized by low productivity, paranoia, hoarding and lack of cohesion. They are very unpleasant places to live in and ripe targets for attack by outsiders as there are many in that society who would like to see it fall. Even rich authoritarian societies such as Japan, Korea and Taiwan are not known for innovation, personal happiness and only survive because of massive ritualized coercion supplemented by mercantile policies. These societies would be rapidly impoverished and destabilized if countries who buy stuff from them did not do so.

Since ruling with authority has little to do with actual competence and everything to do with making others fear you, they are also optimal for the rise of impressive but incompetent sociopaths. If you don’t believe me- look at large corporations and businesses which are often run into the ground by such impressive but incompetent snake oil salesmen. Authoritarian societies are almost always ruled by petty despots and their ass-kissers until they run out of luck or resources.

Another problem associated with authoritarianism is its negative effect of law, contracts, trust and resource allocation. Because these societies are full of paranoia and strong arm tactics, concepts like ‘rule of law’ and ‘independent and effective contract arbitration’ are effectively meaningless. Since each despot tries to use their power to maximize terror and rent extraction, laws are frequently altered or are effectively tilted towards the ruler’s ass-kissers and supporters. Similarly, contracts are meaningless if the system is not seen as a generally fair arbitrator between two parties. These societies are also characterized by low interpersonal trust and rampant power abuses. Consequently commerce is difficult and unstable under the best of conditions.

Authoritarian societies are also characterized by excessive rent-seeking by rulers and their supporters. However money gained through rent-seeking is often removed from the system, rather than recirculated, it results in a shrinking real economy and even more intensive attempts to extract rent. Such societies are also prone to divert an ever increasing proportion of their income into the security and coercion apparatus. Ultimately the only ways to become rich in such a society are: be the rulers, their ass-kissers, supporters or part of the security-coercion apparatus.

It does not take a genius to figure out that such societies are doomed to fail or flounder (if they are lucky) while destroying the lives of most people living in them. On a related note, aren’t most western countries (especially the USA) moving towards Authoritarianism?

Comments?

CONservatives and Right Wingers are Pussies

July 25, 2011 28 comments

I am going to keep this post short and to the point. So let us begin-

Have you noticed that CONservative and Right Wing sites, blogs and commentators have been largely quiet, willfully ignorant or apologetic about the whole Breivik event?

How come? Aren’t Breivik’s actions and worldview consistent with a traditionalist-type worldview. If anything, his views are far more moderate and rationally put together than many CONservatives or Right Wingers.

More importantly, the guy acted on his beliefs.

So why are people who expouse those same or similar views so quiet or apologetic? Where is the spine? Where is the commitment? Where is the support? Where is the solidarity? I find myself in the peculiar position of not being dismissive towards that guy’s ideologies and actions- inspite of my known antipathy towards CONservatism.

It comes down to intellectual honesty and having a backbone. Even if I don’t condone his actions and some views- it is obvious that the guy has a genuine set of grievances and coherent world view. To put it another way- he is not mentally ill, delusional or even particularly narcissistic. He is just someone who did not like the world he was living in and decided to change it.

While his methods of changing the world are not exactly endearing, he did get what he wanted- extensive attention to his cause. Even in term of sheer brutality, he scores much lower than many political figures alive today. So why are CONservatives and Right Wingers not supporting him?

In my opinion, they are pussies who talk a lot but without the will to act or even stand behind someone who does it for them.

It is far easier to talk about uppity blacks, IQ, traditionalism and other assorted bullshit than act on it. CONservatives are very similar to dogs who look at somebody else for approval or punishment- aka house slave mentality. Whether that master is the current ruling system, boss, wife, girlfriend- they exist to supplicate their master’s desire because of an illusory fear of loss. Anyway, I find this all quite entertaining.

Comments?

Sex In Breivik’s Manifesto

July 25, 2011 25 comments

OK, another post on the infamous guy du jour. This one concerns his views on sex. Start from page 1170 on his manifesto..

An alarming number of young girls in Oslo, Norway start giving oral sex from the age of 11 to 12. This might happen at an even younger age if sexual education is liberalised further. This development must be reversed to avoid complete collapse in our traditional social structures. Approximately 50% of my female friends end up under the definition/category; promiscuous (female sluts) as they have engaged in sexual activity with more than 20 partners. A majority of them have been infected with one or more sexually transmitted diseases –so called STDs such as herpes, chlamydia etc.

Hmm.. a bit alarmist but otherwise conventional.

A promiscuous lifestyle is glorified by the media through series such as Sex and the City and artists such as Madonna, Lady Gaga, Christina Aguilera and a multitude of other much nastier artists. The boundaries are gradually deteriorating as this development is allowed to continue. We cannot judge individuals too hard who follow media guidelines but we can and should do everything to restrict the massive influence that the media has.

Ahh.. blame the media!

I am not going to act like a hypocrite and pretend I have not been influenced by the typical “Sex and the City” lifestyle.I have been under the influence of this lifestyle as a majority of my friends and even my own family members. I used to be proud of my “achievements”. However, due to a change of mentality, all I feel is shame whenever I think about where this is going. I feel shame on behalf of my city, my country and my
civilisation.

Interpreting this requires a lot more background information than is available now, but will soon be. I am interested in events in his life before he became a CONservative- how they shaped him.

Why is he ashamed? What did he do before he felt ashamed about his “achievements”?

Although I have had a change of mentality a majority of my friends have not. My
stepfather Tore, one of my best friends Marius and my more distant friends Kristoffer,
Sturla and Ronny are all living manifestations of the complete breakdown of sexual
moral. All five have had more than 300 sexual partners (two of them more than 700) and I know for a fact that three of them have one or more STDs (probably all of them). I have several other promiscuous (slut) friends and I could list at least 30 male and
females in my social environment if I wanted to. I don’t blame them personally and it has absolutely nothing to do with envy. I could easily have chosen the same path if I wanted to, due to my looks, status, resourcefulness and charm.

I wonder.. how they went through so many without paying for it. On another note- Why didn’t he?

My half sister, Elisabeth was infected by chlamydia after having more than 40 sexual partners (more than 15 Chippendales’ strippers who are known to be bearers of various diseases). Her chlamydia went untreated and she became one of several million
US/European women who were suffering from PID, Pelvic inflammatory disease caused by untreated gonorrhea and chlamydia which leads to infertility. As she lives in the US, costs relating to this were not covered by the state. She and her husband spent 40 000- 50 000 USD on two IVF treatments (in vitriol fertilisation) a process by which egg cells are fertilised by sperm outside the womb. She was lucky compared to many as these treatments may cost upwards of 100 000 USD. Furthermore, as far as I know, due to her condition as a result of the untreated disease, she needed a caesarean section for both childbirths. The last c-section almost killed her due to complications and she needed blood transfusion of more than 5 litres of blood in total.

His half-sister looks like an interesting woman.. any pictures?

My mother was infected by genital herpes by her boyfriend (my stepfather), Tore, when she was 48. Tore, who was a captain in the Norwegian Army, had more than 500 sexual partners and my mother knew this but suffered from lack of good judgement and moral due to several factors (media – glorification of certain stereotypes being one).

*S*

Unfortunately for her, her poor judgment resulted in her being afflicted by genital herpes.In addition to this, the herpes infection went to her brain and caused meningitis (this condition is usually rare and occurs in less than 1% of herpes infected individuals). As a result of this brain infection, which prevented the spinal fluid from flowing freely, she had to operate a shunt into her brain as the herpes attacks occurred regularly. She was forced into early retirement as a result and her life quality has been significantly reduces since, and she now has the intellectual capacity of a 10 year old.

Is this true? Independent verification would be necessary.

In any case, it appears that everyone around him was screwing and getting a few STDs. So why did he not partake? There is something behind his views on sexuality which I cannot put my finger on. What do you think?

Comments?

On The Rationality of Breivik’s Actions and Public Reactions

July 25, 2011 6 comments

This post is about a rational and objective analysis of Breivik’s actions and public reactions to them. I am not considering any of the emotional, legal, cultural, ethical, sexual or other aspects of this event- as there are many others doing that right now. Also, as most of you know – I have no sympathy for CONservative worldviews like his.

Let me begin by stating one very obvious, but often unmentioned, aspect of this event.

Guys who do stuff like this do not care about your version of reason, religion, ethics, morality etc. There is nothing to stop a guy who is competent and willing to die for what he believes in. It is also obvious that he had thought through his actions.

Now let us look at other aspects of that event.

1. What about killing kids? Is that not bad PR? What about ethics, morality etc?

Answer- If you condemn this guy for killing so many kids, what about members of the US army and airforce who have done the same to kids in Afghanistan, Iran or Vietnam? What about their morality, ethics, religiosity?

Unless you believe that a non-white child has less implicit value than a dog, you cannot say that he was especially evil. If anything he was far more honest about the effects of his actions than your average US soldier. There is of course the defense of ‘just following orders’ aka the Nuremberg Defense.

2. What about his worldview? Was killing so many justified for it?

Answer- What about Winston Churchill. Was starving millions in India during WW2 justified? What does that say about his worldview? What about Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot? What about Josef Mengele or Shiro Ishii? Didn’t all these people pretty much get home free inspite of their actions and ideologies? Compared to these people, Breivik’s actions are pinpricks.

Moreover don’t many CONservative cocksuckers worship Churchill inspite of his fuckups and needless genocides? What about Mao’s legacy? Didn’t the USA employ Shiro Ishii after WW2? On a scale of fuckedupness, Breivik scores much lower than many popular leaders from the last century.

3. What about the effects of his actions on his cause?

Two words- Who Cares?

People do all sorts of fucked up things for far more selfish reasons. Doctors prescribe anti-psychotics to hundreds of thousands of kids without considering long-term effects or even therapeutic efficacy- all because of peer pressure or monetary considerations. A very significant part of health care expenditure goes on similar known useless to harmful services and products. But who cares? Does the insurance company who uninsures a cancer survivor care about his/her well-being? What about the government who gives trillions to large financial institutions and cuts benefits to people who cannot find jobs?

People scam, hurt and kill each other over cartels, traditions, “laws” and similar assorted bullshit- and that is considered “normal”. Ask yourself- if those things are “normal” can you really condemn what he did.

While what he did is atrocious we routinely do/accept far worse and justify it.

Comments?

A Quick Word About Breivik’s Manifesto: 1

July 24, 2011 15 comments

While Breivik’s actions might prove counterproductive to his cause- his 1500+ page manifesto is actually coherent, well researched and internally self-consistent. Other than the parts about the supposed glory of Christianity, it is hard to disagree with a lot of what he writes about- and I have little tolerance for typical CONservative bullshit.

The guy is certainly well read about the subject matter in his manifesto.

He talks about many things such as-

1. How ‘cultural marxism’ is affecting freedom of thought and expression.

2. The origins of political correctness- especially as a tool of though control.

3. How feminism, cultural marxism, political correctness and deference towards other religions (notably islam) are part of the same ideology.

4. How Islam is glorified, while Christianity is vilified inspite of historical evidence to the contrary.

5. A fairly extensive catalog and analysis of the atrocities performed under the name of Islam.

6. He makes a good case that Islam is unreformable under the present circumstances.

7. The reasons behind the fall of Christianity in Lebanon and what they mean for Europe.

8. An overview of various battles fought between the 7th century AD and 1683- between Christians and Muslims.

9. About deliberate attempts to Islamize Europe- “Eurabia”.

10. Why multiculturalism is bad for Europe. It appears that he is not so much against immigration as multiculturalism.

11. Why the EU is a bad idea.

12. Why the UN is a dysfunctional institution.

13. How Feminism is delusional, war against men and paved the way for the rise of Islam in Europe.

14. The problem of fatherless societies.

There is more, and I will write about it in subsequent parts.

Too Early?.. July 23, 2011

July 23, 2011 6 comments

So it too early to make fun of this moron- Anders Behring Breivik? The good people at 4chan/b don’t think so.. and here are some of their meme creations. Enjoy!

Comments?

Categories: Current Affairs, Dystopia, LOL

The Long Term Effects Of Breivik’s Actions

July 23, 2011 21 comments

By now you must have heard about how Anders Breivik killed over 90 people, including over 80 kids. Whether he was acting alone or as part of a group is largely inconsequential to their long-term effects.

Let us list them-

1. He has done more to discredit CONservatism in Norway than any person on the left could have ever dreamed.

While his car bombs killed a few people and caused considerable damage, they were aimed at politicians and bureaucracy- neither of whom have a great image even in Norway. However his next action- killing over 80 kids at a summer camp have effectively tainted everything he believed or was interested in.

Imagine a CONservative trying to explain why ‘that guy who killed over 80 kids’ shared his views on politics or anything else. It is almost a given that any CONservative organisations he was associated with are toast and discredited. Moreover killing 80 mostly white kids to defend a CONservative worldview is should we say.. massively counterproductive. Do not forget that Norway is a small country, population-wise, and this event will not be easily forgotten for a few years.

2. Exposed white CONservatives for the nutters they really are.

While many people initially thought that the Norway bombings and massacre were the handiwork of Islamic extremists, the course of events showed otherwise. I cannot resist pointing out the irony of a white christian CONservative actually doing what they believe Islamic terrorist would do. I mean.. irony doesn’t get better than that.

After this event a Scandinavian CONservative might have a hard time convincing others that Islamic terrorists want to kill white children and destroy government buildings- because we know who has done those things and it is not a bunch of swarthy guys from the ME. Breivik’s name (Anders Behring) and persona (look at his photo and business profile) are Scandinavian to a level of parody.

3. Its effect on neighboring countries.

Do you really think that his actions won’t affect events and policies in neighboring Scandinavian countries? Unlikely! You can bet a lot of money that people in Sweden, Denmark and even countries as far as France and Germany are going to be influenced by the events and their fallout.

Do you really think that CONservatism in Sweden or Denmark will not suffer a loss of credibility from these events? What about governmental perception of groups and people with such ideologies? Breivik has, in a perverse way, strengthened what he wanted to destroy in that part of the world.

As most of you know, I detest CONservatives and their ideologies, and am happy that one of their own has fucked up their public image in such a spectacular manner.

Comments?

About The Norway Bomber and Shooter

July 22, 2011 14 comments

While I have serious doubts that he acted alone, it appears that the main suspect in the recent bombings and shooting in Norway is white CONservative guy- Anders Behring Breivik

Oh ya.. his actions killed over 80 people at that summer camp.

His Twitter account has the same profile photo and one tweet, dated July 17: “One person with a belief is equal to the force of 100000 who have only interests.” He ran a business growing vegetables since 2009, and I would not be surprised if he diverted ammonium nitrate from that into his “personal interests”.

Here is a picture, from a news/rescue helicopter, of his activities on the island of Utoya. I have a feeling that such pictures and videos are not going to help his public image or legacy. The reasoning behind him killing 14-19 year olds unrelated to him or any of his personal adversaries is unclear.

While we can all speculate about the reason he snapped, I have a feeling that issues with women might have precipitated them. What do you think?

Comments?

Categories: Current Affairs