• 40 000 people meet up in rain in front of Breivik court to sing song of unity
    58 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Conscript;35718472]Congratulations, you discovered I'm not a liberal and don't care about liberal constitutions. Maybe if liberals didn't insist on pluralism so much we wouldn't have to deal with far right scum like breivik.[/QUOTE] So you're advocating one of the core beliefs of fascism, which is abandoning pluralism, as the weapon against fascism. Right. Fun fact, "liberals" aren't advocating pluralism for the sake of it, but because it should be a basic human right to express yourself.
[QUOTE=Conscript;35719335]ESPECIALLY in light of history.[/QUOTE] We seem to see it completely differently. Islamophobia and this sympathy with the far-right isn't because of openness or fairness to far-right viewpoints because the governments 'let' them, it's purely bred from fear and propaganda from the popular press. The backlash from 9/11 and the war created a wave of ignorance, judgementalism and them vs us. The liberal agenda didn't create simple minded fascism, it's fear and the selling of fear. Breivik wasn't far right from birth and the governments and liberals decided 'oh yeah, we're let him grow up to be a fascist and preach hated'. He actively believed the Muslims were going to overtake his country, and so his actions were 'striking first'. This isn't something you 'allow', it's something you fear and are made to believe through lies and scaremongering. [quote]You are clearly pretty divorced from reality and never dealt with fascists before. It's certainly not unprecedented, liberals wait until the last minute to declare fascists as their enemy (usually when they finally reject your constitution) and, at least in the interwar period, look to the communists and anarchists to protect them.[/quote] I applaud your hated of facism, that I can't fault, I simply believe you're blaming the wrong people for its consequences. If you're referring to Hitlers uprising, there are many reasons for that. If you'd like to describe these 'liberals' and their failings, I'll happily rebuke or acknowledge them.
-snip-
Sobotnik 2.0 here guys
[QUOTE=Conscript;35719335]No, it's coercive, but not necessarily some far right belief. Sorry, I refuse to respect state-enforced rights when the state accepts fascists and other rabid nationalists as constituents. Pluralism is more or less kept around so the government can swing in whatever direction it wants when it's most advantageous to its constituents. Also this isn't just about breivik, he represents the wider wave of islamophobic fascism sweeping across europe and making gains by making themselves relevant to the state's politics. This is a dangerous development and I refuse to sit behind the liberal principles and morals I was taught and let them do what they want, ESPECIALLY in light of history. You are clearly pretty divorced from reality and never dealt with fascists before. It's certainly not unprecedented, liberals wait until the last minute to declare fascists as their enemy (usually when they finally reject your constitution) and, at least in the interwar period, look to the communists and anarchists to protect them. Um, the death penalty is not alien to liberalism or the states it created. Not even states wait until their enemies actually start shooting to attack them. If you're trying to construe anti-fascist action as fascism, you don't really know the meaning of either.[/QUOTE] Everyone look out Stalin's back.
[QUOTE=Conscript;35718472]Congratulations, you discovered I'm not a liberal and don't care about liberal constitutions. Maybe if liberals didn't insist on pluralism so much we wouldn't have to deal with far right scum like breivik.[/QUOTE] While I agree breivik should have been shot, [i]still[/i] should be executed, it doesn't work that way in Norway.
Did you guys know that Breivik actually wants to get executed? He stated in court that the only outcomes he would want is either death penalty or acquittal. Killing him would be doing him a favor.
shit norways like the end of watchmen lol
[QUOTE=Chrille;35719565]So you're advocating one of the core beliefs of fascism, which is abandoning pluralism, as the weapon against fascism. Right. Fun fact, "liberals" aren't advocating pluralism for the sake of it, but because it should be a basic human right to express yourself.[/QUOTE] It's so amusing when liberals try to call you a fascist for fighting fascists, just goes to show their idiocy and backwardsness I suppose. Pluralism is a negation of 'weapons' regardless, so your point is moot. It's even more amusing when they can only speak in 'shoulds' and 'basic rights', simple assertions that are made because liberal philosophy says so. Pretty damn close to 'for the sake of it' if you ask me. [QUOTE=MrEndangered;35719568]We seem to see it completely differently. Islamophobia and this sympathy with the far-right isn't because of openness or fairness to far-right viewpoints because the governments 'let' them, it's purely bred from fear and propaganda from the popular press. The backlash from 9/11 and the war created a wave of ignorance, judgementalism and them vs us. The liberal agenda didn't create simple minded fascism, it's fear and the selling of fear.[/quote] That's absolutely true, and I would be hesitant to credit fascism's rise simply because its permitted to. What I'm saying is pluralism recognizes all opinions as opinions of the nation's constituents and thus deserved to be heard or even advanced, and if they are the majority and control the state, then so be it. I don't see any value in this feel-good idea of tolerance, these political divisions exist because they are [i]real[/i] and [i]can't[/i] be reconciled. Liberals believe once these political views and their constituents enter the government they will negotiate and compromise with others, and cause the nation-state to revolve around a 'medium'. However this is a tragic mistake, no doubt owing to their rigid adherence to 'centrism' or the middle ground. Essentially you say that fascism's rise isn't because of pluralism, but because of social conditions we endure that cause us to turn to what seems to be the right alternative. This is technically true, but it's a mistake to excuse pluralism out of the picture. Liberal republics have a long history of being incapable of fighting or on occasion even conducive to fascism, from Peron to Franco to Mussolini, Hitler, etc. All of these nationalist chauvinists came from such conditions you speak of, quite often in the midst of a crisis in capitalism, and used them to their advantage, spouting inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric, exclusively attacking foreign capital and workers, and using institutionalization the nationalist culture as a leash on public opinion. The problem is their ideas are conducive to the nation's constituent, national capital, who can earn the loyalty of the public, which happens to be the working class, and lead them away from liberalism's social and political tolerance by abolishing other parties, unions, etc. and building ones that fit in to their corporatist structure and idea of 'social mobilization'. In that light liberalism is a smashed stepping stone for fascism/nationalism, it creates the nation-state for the fascists to use, and allows them to participate through their pluralist republic and means of creating constituents, which anyone who is not anti-capitalist can do because it boils down to capital (which is further confirmed by history, national industrialists in the interwar period adored fascists and nazis, and bankers in liberal nations were quite keen on investing in them and making loans as a means of fighting revolutionaries at the time). [quote]Breivik wasn't far right from birth and the governments and liberals decided 'oh yeah, we're let him grow up to be a fascist and preach hated'. He actively believed the Muslims were going to overtake his country, and so his actions were 'striking first'. This isn't something you 'allow', it's something you fear and are made to believe through lies and scaremongering.[/quote] Depends on what liberals you are talking about. For a time he was certainly compatible with right wing liberals and driven right by their views, he was after all a member of the right-wing Progress Party. I'll admit breivik's particular actions aren't commonplace for fascists but violence in general certainly isn't. But the point is the liberal state will protect the fascists all the way up to the very last minute when they are a confirmed threat to state, if it even happens, purely because of the pinnacle of liberal arbitrary principles, political pluralism. This only proves to me liberal management of the various interests and constituent groups in the nation means the mismanagement of them all. It's a band-aid on a deep gash. [quote]I applaud your hated of facism, that I can't fault, I simply believe you're blaming the wrong people for its consequences. If you're referring to Hitlers uprising, there are many reasons for that. If you'd like to describe these 'liberals' and their failings, I'll happily rebuke or acknowledge them.[/QUOTE] Ultimately your failing is your reliance on the state and capitalism, with the state being the sole source of 'legitimate' coercion and capitalism a source of crisis and social tension for fascists/nationalists to use in far-right agitation. I don't know how you can rebuke this as this is a huge chunk of the history of the 20th century, and quite often the means used to reinforce liberalism's control over the nation state was through alliances with stabler nation-states and the historical third international's popular fronts being elected into the government or defending it in a civil war, in the case of spain. Also who is sobotnik and why am I being compared to him?
[QUOTE=Conscript;35720169]It's so amusing when liberals try to call you a fascist for fighting fascists, just goes to show their idiocy and backwardsness I suppose. Pluralism is a negation of 'weapons' regardless, so your point is moot. It's even more amusing when they can only speak in 'shoulds' and 'basic rights', simple assertions that are made because liberal philosophy says so. Pretty damn close to 'for the sake of it' if you ask me. [/QUOTE] I'm fond of your use of the word "backwardness", you're very liberal in your use of it. First off, I'm not calling you a fascist. Fascism is a very specific ideology. Secondly, you are clearly saying that we should abandon the freedom of thought, the very same idea that is one of the main tenets of fascism. You support the fact that a state should decide what its citizens should believe, and that it should actively pursue those who deviate. That is fucking backwardness. What you're saying is essentially equal to this: [quote]The recognition of the plurality of autonomous life would, however, immediately lead back to a disastrous pluralism tearing the German people apart into discrete classes and religious, ethnic, social, and interest groups if it were not for a strong state which guarantees a totality of political unity transcending all diversity.[/quote] And yes, I'm speaking in 'shoulds', because not everybody have these rights (that we in 1948 decided would be for the better of us all).
[QUOTE=ewitwins;35717471]In a twisted, bizarre sort of way, Breivik may have partially achieved his goal after all.[/QUOTE] Care to explain why?
[QUOTE=Conscript;35718472]Congratulations, you discovered I'm not a liberal and don't care about liberal constitutions. Maybe if liberals didn't insist on pluralism so much we wouldn't have to deal with far right scum like breivik.[/QUOTE] gj blaming the victims, asshat
[QUOTE=Conscript;35718472]Congratulations, you discovered I'm not a liberal and don't care about liberal constitutions. Maybe if liberals didn't insist on pluralism so much we wouldn't have to deal with far right scum like breivik.[/QUOTE] Don't want constitutions? Don't want your rights? As I said, go to fucking north korea or china, come back, and tell me it's better there.
[QUOTE=Conscript;35720169]blah blah blah[/QUOTE] my god....
yeah i agree conscript lets remove right to life what could go wrong
[QUOTE=Conscript;35720169]It's so amusing when liberals try to call you a fascist for fighting fascists, just goes to show their idiocy and backwardsness I suppose. Pluralism is a negation of 'weapons' regardless, so your point is moot. It's even more amusing when they can only speak in 'shoulds' and 'basic rights', simple assertions that are made because liberal philosophy says so. Pretty damn close to 'for the sake of it' if you ask me. That's absolutely true, and I would be hesitant to credit fascism's rise simply because its permitted to. What I'm saying is pluralism recognizes all opinions as opinions of the nation's constituents and thus deserved to be heard or even advanced, and if they are the majority and control the state, then so be it. I don't see any value in this feel-good idea of tolerance, these political divisions exist because they are [i]real[/i] and [i]can't[/i] be reconciled. Liberals believe once these political views and their constituents enter the government they will negotiate and compromise with others, and cause the nation-state to revolve around a 'medium'. However this is a tragic mistake, no doubt owing to their rigid adherence to 'centrism' or the middle ground. Essentially you say that fascism's rise isn't because of pluralism, but because of social conditions we endure that cause us to turn to what seems to be the right alternative. This is technically true, but it's a mistake to excuse pluralism out of the picture. Liberal republics have a long history of being incapable of fighting or on occasion even conducive to fascism, from Peron to Franco to Mussolini, Hitler, etc. All of these nationalist chauvinists came from such conditions you speak of, quite often in the midst of a crisis in capitalism, and used them to their advantage, spouting inflammatory anti-immigrant rhetoric, exclusively attacking foreign capital and workers, and using institutionalization the nationalist culture as a leash on public opinion. The problem is their ideas are conducive to the nation's constituent, national capital, who can earn the loyalty of the public, which happens to be the working class, and lead them away from liberalism's social and political tolerance by abolishing other parties, unions, etc. and building ones that fit in to their corporatist structure and idea of 'social mobilization'. In that light liberalism is a smashed stepping stone for fascism/nationalism, it creates the nation-state for the fascists to use, and allows them to participate through their pluralist republic and means of creating constituents, which anyone who is not anti-capitalist can do because it boils down to capital (which is further confirmed by history, national industrialists in the interwar period adored fascists and nazis, and bankers in liberal nations were quite keen on investing in them and making loans as a means of fighting revolutionaries at the time). Depends on what liberals you are talking about. For a time he was certainly compatible with right wing liberals and driven right by their views, he was after all a member of the right-wing Progress Party. I'll admit breivik's particular actions aren't commonplace for fascists but violence in general certainly isn't. But the point is the liberal state will protect the fascists all the way up to the very last minute when they are a confirmed threat to state, if it even happens, purely because of the pinnacle of liberal arbitrary principles, political pluralism. This only proves to me liberal management of the various interests and constituent groups in the nation means the mismanagement of them all. It's a band-aid on a deep gash. Ultimately your failing is your reliance on the state and capitalism, with the state being the sole source of 'legitimate' coercion and capitalism a source of crisis and social tension for fascists/nationalists to use in far-right agitation. I don't know how you can rebuke this as this is a huge chunk of the history of the 20th century, and quite often the means used to reinforce liberalism's control over the nation state was through alliances with stabler nation-states and the historical third international's popular fronts being elected into the government or defending it in a civil war, in the case of spain. Also who is sobotnik and why am I being compared to him?[/QUOTE] If you advocate the killing of people because of their political opinions then you are no better than the goddamned Nazis.
As a norwegian, i feel that this is appropriate. [img]http://flvrd.com/static/pics/hCKEV.gif[/img] I like the fact that Breivik is trying to provoke us by telling us all the gruesome details of the executions of his plans, we respond with flowers. Sure he is a murderer, but that still doesn't mean he can change our culture.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;35721117]gj blaming the victims, asshat[/QUOTE] Wow, fail. And every other post after that, fail. Liberals suck at arguing, lmao.
[QUOTE=Conscript;35728549]Wow, fail. And every other post after that, fail. Liberals suck at arguing, lmao.[/QUOTE] [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yThfdrdFL8[/media] [highlight](User was banned for this post ("Image/Video macro" - Swebonny))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Conscript;35728549]Wow, fail. And every other post after that, fail. Liberals suck at arguing, lmao.[/QUOTE] Apparently you do too if you have to result to this eventually. Don't get me wrong, I get at what your saying, even agree with it to a minor extent, but "lol you suck at arguing stupid liberals lmao" isn't going to help your argument which seems to be a loosing fight here as is.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;35728753]I love how you people attack him for posting short, meaningless replies while dumb posters like go unnoticed because they're on your side of the argument. or that hilarious reaction video[/QUOTE] i'm just pointing out that his arguments are on the same verbal level as jessica chobot's i'm not going to read through thousands of words so that i can pick apart the arguments of a fascistic armchair politician on the internet. he makes himself look ridiculous enough all on his own.
[QUOTE=Marbalo;35728753] [editline]27th April 2012[/editline] I love how you people attack him for posting short, meaningless replies while dumb posters like [/QUOTE] Shit, I didn't mean that as an attack; just as a "you're discrediting yourself by posting a message like that". If anything, I would want to be attacking the people who don't listen to what Conscript is saying in his entirety. Like I said, I have to agree atleast partially to the idea that people with biggoted opinions have no place in most modern societies. That said, flat out executing them of the bat as he suggested is probably not the best idea.
[QUOTE=Cap'nSpacePants;35728712]Apparently you do too if you have to result to this eventually. Don't get me wrong, I get at what your saying, even agree with it to a minor extent, but "lol you suck at arguing stupid liberals lmao" isn't going to help your argument which seems to be a loosing fight here as is.[/QUOTE] The problem is there is no fight here to be had, especially with morons like scorpio who are 'above' the debating and just cast judgement. More or less it seems like my last post killed the discussion unfortunately, except for the 'youre a fascist too!' which I'm not interested in.
[QUOTE=Conscript;35729201]The problem is there is no fight here to be had, especially with morons like scorpio who are 'above' the debating and just cast judgement. More or less it seems like my last post killed the discussion unfortunately, except for the 'youre a fascist too!' which I'm not interested in.[/QUOTE] Fine, then lets have a civilized argument with neither sides calling eachother names and I promise you I won't compare you to fascists. Sounds good enough for you?
Alright but is there anything left to be said?
[QUOTE=Conscript;35730102]Alright but is there anything left to be said?[/QUOTE] Well is there anything you want to say? That kinda came late in the argument :/
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.