Anders Breivik Copied the Unabomber's Manifesto

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.)

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”:

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.

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.

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.

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.)

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.

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).

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 )

We’re getting a slew of postings on this subject and here’s the problem....

There is an earlier FR post which I don’t have handy to link to from Atlas Shrugs claiming that the original his “Face Book” account posting which was in Norwegian was hacked into. Then replaced with an English version claiming he was a Christian and a few other things. The posting had both examples.

I for one don’t trust any of these reports comming particularly from any source supporting socialist/communist causes which includes the New York Times.

But from the same bunch there has been no comment about the length of time the Norway police had while he calmly knocked off his victims. Roughly according to reports an hour and a half ! Inexcuseable !That you won’t hear about .

We’re going the have to wait and see if that comes out in his trial if they allow it. BTW There is another FR posting from a comment by someone in the Norwegian Justice Ministry claiming all he will get is 23 years because the Norwegians don’t have the death penalty.

Facebook alterations will create a public outcry against innocent targeted groups in America that are a threat to Obama and his continued unabated regime.

Mark my words.

Society has adopted the facebook as a false god, they literally worship it more so than the creator of all that we are.

Is the Oslo Gunman Really Right-Wing?

Posted on July 23, 2011 at 1:25pm by Jonathon M. Seidl

It’s also important to note that the terms of American politics are not easily transferable to European politics. Often, the extremes in Europe are communists on the left and fascists on the right. In America, “extreme right wing” has been hijacked to label conservatives who adhere strictly to the Constitution, or who fight for legal immigration. (Some on the American left have even succeeded in making “extreme right wing” synonymous with the Tea Party.) In Europe, however, the term could mean zealous nationalists and militant fascists.

So, an “extreme right wing” individual in Europe is not always an “extreme right wing” individual in America. That’s important to note, as the designation will undoubtedly make the rounds in the attack’s aftermath.

Considering what we know about Breivik, then, could it be that the term “extreme right wing” is a misnomer? Especially considering that when you start dealing with extremist groups and individuals who fall well beyond the fringe, their beliefs often blur — they handpick a tenant from the right and bastardize it, grab an ideology from the left and skew it, and then create their own belief system.

Breivik’s beliefs — and the actions he implemented — may show he and his ideology are as fuzzy as they come.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-oslo-gunman-really-right-wing/

1996:

Unabomber, Ted Kuzinsky had a copy of Algore’s book, “Earth in the Balance” in his cabin when he was captured.

http://www.mediaresearch.org/cyberalerts/1996/cyb19960607.asp :

In the “On the Prowl” section, the June American Spectator reported: “FBI agents on the scene are telling colleagues they were amused when, while tearing apart the shack of suspected Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, they came upon Al Gore’s 1992 eco-tract, Earth in the Balance.

Many sections were underlined in pencil, and there were copious notes in the margins. Why wasn’t Gore among the handful of titles listed in press references to the 80 or so books found in the cabin?

The FBI and Justice Department haven’t commented publicly, but some agents assume the title was clearly suppressed to avoid embarrassing Gore.”

This week Rush Limbaugh discussed the charge on his show, prompting former NBC News reporter Carl Stern, now Janet Reno’s chief flak, to issue a denial. From the June 6 Los Angeles Times:

“The Justice Department insists that Gore’s book is not among about 200 found by investigators. ‘We’re at the mercy of any mischief making,’ grumbled Justice Department spokesman Carl Stern. ‘There is no way to prove what isn’t there.’” It’s nice to see Stern squirm from a media report. If only the major media would show a little interest in pursuing the story.

1992 book: Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit by Al Gore
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0452269350/103-8542906-2335850?v=glance&n=283155

An excellent example of alarmism, inappropriate interpretation and outright misrepresentation, July 10, 2006
Reviewer: Gerald T. Westbrook “GTW” (Texas)

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.