Skip to main content

Anders Breivik, a child of the European Union

"Anders Behring Breivik, 32, admitted to carrying out both attacks, which he described as "gruesome but necessary".

At least 93 people were killed in the attacks - 96 have been injured and some are still missing.

Memorial services are being held across the country, including at the main Lutheran cathedral in Oslo. - bbc"

I have said for quite a while that the EU is a racialist concept.

A racialist, as opposed to a racist, is one who likes to be amongst her/is own without necessarily viewing different others as inferior. However, it can easily be argued that racialism produces racism - where one prefers one's 'own' for no significant reason, it can lead to a view of different others as inferior in others not abiding by 'our' norm. This would especially be the case where such a group becomes dominant in numbers or socio-economic status.

(singapore is a very good case in point where the state, with the official pronouncement that singapore must always have a chinese majority, the state was steered down along down the racialist path, and thereafter, produced the popular unstated but oft-practiced view that non-conformity to the promoted 'chinese', or more accurately, Legalist-Confucian culture, is inferior. Thereafter, according to the above logic, the population turned racist. China went down an almost identical path from 221 b.c. from where the Legalist-Confucian 'culture' originates.)

Both the EU and Anders differ only in the means by which they seek to keep the numbers of non-whites down in the EU.
Hitler was himself a child of the west, and not particularly of Germany. Eurocentrism and pseudo-scientific race theories were used to explain and justify the exploitation, slavery, and slaughter of difference encountered in the non-western world, or within the western world - like in the case of the mass slaughters and apartheid faced by the natives of what is now, unfortunately, known as the u.s. of America. So it is not surprising that within such a milieu, a bloke like Adolf Hitler was produced. And we should also keep in mind that western persecution of the Jews did go on way before the colonial period.

The EU is undoubtedly a racialist concept. If we look at it from a historical point of view, as opposed to a zen-like 'here and now' vantage, it can be explained as,

"we went around pillaging the world, and now we would like to close our 'European' borders, become one entity, and keep the wealth and advances accrued from our past and present pillaging to ourselves. This way, though we might have non-whites within our borders, we will be able to cut down the number of the non-European migrations whilst enabling the dominance of the European race as their birth-rates would still rise way above that of 'others' as we are numerically superior."

So now we have Anders Breivik. A child of the European Union. Is he an anomaly in w.Europe, or a more blatant example of the idea behind, or consequence of, the EU. It is through the actions of more blatant examples that we are led to the true meaning of that which we hold dear, or view as alright.

As I had once said, some years ago, "The Root of All Evil finds its Incubatory Refuge in that which we Perceive to be Good."

Both the EU and Anders differ only in the means by which they seek to keep the numbers of non-whites down in the EU. But the end goal is the same isn't it.



Popular posts from this blog

Is singapore a tyranny, or are people to dumbed down to feel it?

The following is a consideration of the perspective posted at the site, 'article14'. The site, in discussing the so-called 'Black Sunday movement' whose members wear black and congregate at Starbucks - perhaps they have an unstated desire to boost Starbucks sales of overpriced beverages, or perhaps Starbucks is paying for their black garments...silly people - to express their support for the freedom of expression - brought up certain points that seem to be commonly held by the 'singaporeans' of today.

Manifesto Against Same-Sex Marriages and Homo-Promotion

My stand against homosexuality is based on the following.  It is a logical, rather than a personal, decision.

Under the slogan, 'the freedom to love', it in principle justifies incestuous, group, etc, marriages.  All it requires is 'consenting adults', without an inquiry into what it means to be an 'adult' in intelligent, moral, and introspective terms.

This in turn encourages a ‘go with your feel’ tendency, which in itself gives rise a myriad of tendencies that go unquestioned.  Right and wrong ceases to matter, and even if something is illegal, one can still view it as society just having its own bias against it, just as it once had a ‘bias’ against homosexuality.

‘Nothing is natural.  Everything is just a matter of preference.’  That is the basic thrust of this unfortunate situation.  In fact, having a preference is in itself seen as evidence of one’s intelligence.  No attention needs to be paid to intellectuals, thinkers, philosophers, sages, religious te…