Breivik and ‘V for Vendetta’

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?

  1. demirogue
    July 26, 2011 at 7:03 pm

    No as a matter of fact. He got to his breaking point and finally lashed out.

    Men like him who bring up these issues are starting to stay fuck it. The world seems to not want to listen. So either those men can keep repeating their words over and over again and still not be heard or maybe they’ll finally listen more of these episodes happen. BTW, what is the definition of insanity again? Even more important, have they started to listen?

  2. Nestorius
    July 27, 2011 at 3:15 am

    “You know something else- he might ultimately succeed even if he does not live to see that day.”

    Did you notice all those sections in his manifesto about making explosives and armors and about fighting strategies?

    All the strategies of winning against the current system are laid down in this manifesto. If you have 1000 men following these strategies, they could take over any country in Europe, because the difference between them and the armies of Europe is that they don’t fear death.

  3. demirogue
    July 27, 2011 at 5:26 am

    Why should they fear death? Realizing the impact of the last few decades of social engineering and Marxist socialist ideals is leading to eventual societal death anyway.

  4. July 27, 2011 at 10:24 am

    Democracy quashes dissenters. If it’s not popular, democracy doesn’t want to hear about it. This makes democracies an echo chamber.

    Breivik stepped out of that and gained crazy notoriety. It worked for Ted Kaczynski, Tim McVeigh and Kristian Vikernes. Maybe it will work here.

    If we’re really lucky, they’ll switch security to looking for angry white guys and then it’ll all be fun and games until the next jihadist attack. They might even beat Breivik’s total.

    • Nestorius
      July 27, 2011 at 1:59 pm

      “Democracy quashes dissenters.”

      If dissenters can’t have their word, then it’s not democracy.

  5. demirogue
    July 27, 2011 at 6:44 pm

    Nestorius :
    “Democracy quashes dissenters.”
    If dissenters can’t have their word, then it’s not democracy.

    We do have a democracy. Just one of mob rule though and controlled through the media who’s in cahoots with the other powers that be. And they do everything to keep the dissenters from speaking. Through shaming tactics to deleting comments or even manipulating them to outright ridicule.

    • Nestorius
      July 28, 2011 at 4:30 am

      If it does all this, then it’s no democracy.

  6. demirogue
    July 28, 2011 at 8:20 am

    Nestorius :
    If it does all this, then it’s no democracy.

    I agree but it is the modern version of democracy programmed into a populace that knows no better. Keep them fed and their minds occupied with trivial pursuits and if anyone questions it, then they are lacking. IN TERMS OF HAPPINESS OR SOME SORT OF SELF RELATED PROBLEM. Hence the self help culture. Question feminism? You automatically hate women or can’t get laid. Question welfare? You’re a racist. Question Wall Street? You hate the rich and so on and so forth.

    One other thing, the USA is a Republic and not a democracy. Once we got off that track and allowed those who have no real stake in it other than the expectations of government PAYOFFS the same as those that did, then the nation died. What we have today is an abomination.

    Been reading Brett’s blog, lot’s of good things on it.

    • Nestorius
      July 28, 2011 at 4:05 pm

      I’m not going into the etymology of the word ‘republic’, but the way it is used it means the same thing as democracy, as opposed to monarchy or oligarchy or aristocracy (these three categories are often the same) or feudalism.

      There is no modern version or old version, democracy is when the people has an effect and a decision into its own affairs. Half of Libya now is a democracy, the rest of Libya is a monarchy under Gaddafi. The USA is a feudal system, with democracy mostly on lower levels.

      Democracies existed throughout history even if Western historians don’t recognize them. The ancient Israelites, for example, lived in a state of democracy at certain times of their history before deportation.

      • Nestorius
        July 28, 2011 at 4:07 pm

        It doesn’t matter whether the constitution of this state says such and such. What matters is the practice.

  7. demirogue
    July 28, 2011 at 6:05 pm

    Nestorius :
    It doesn’t matter whether the constitution of this state says such and such. What matters is the practice.

    Totally agree. And did you read that the CBC is urging Obuffoon to use the 14th Amendment to get into deeper debt? So in a sense we are a democracy but the viable candidates chosen for us aren’t and never have played by the same rules. And don’t think that these fatcats aren’t chosen for us because that’s exactly what’s happening.

  8. DoesnotMatter
    August 12, 2011 at 5:28 pm

    I don’t need to fear that you would do something like this in order to get more exposure for your ideology. If you decide to, I hope I cross your path so I can stuff your face up your ass

  1. July 31, 2011 at 4:18 pm
  2. August 16, 2011 at 12:08 am

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: