By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
richardhutnik on 18 April 2012
Edit Thread
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
So, he says he did it out of goodness, not evil:
http://news.sky.com/home/world-news/article/16210107

The Norwegian far-right activist who killed 77 people last year has told a court that he was fighting a battle against multi-culturalism and acted out of "goodness, not evil".


Not really surprising.  He probably see's himself much like the main character from "They Live."

But better, because he doesn't need the special sunglasses?

Have to wonder what leads the human mind to get delusions that somehow, if people act like a big enough arse, they will ignite a revolution.  This dude does this.  You had the Unabomber do it also.  And around Occupy, there are/were a number of individuals who are just like this, thinking camping in a park will causes a Tahiri Square revolt in the west, just by being so.   I ran into one dude who apparently thought he was a prophet from God.  Not sure what God, because you did word association with him and mention Jesus, and he would say "Horus".  Tea Party has a bit of that, but less so.  More like individuals working on the Ron Paul grassroots campaign end up getting into this mindset.

I have looked to move away from it, and would rather try to build a better network of people, and hope that can do some change for the better.  Very likely around game stuff, as I am so burnt out on politics.

Well.  When you think the world is fundamentally fucked up, it's hard to accept at best you can cause minor slow change with little support and a LOT of work.  Protesting rarely if ever accomplishes anything, the best way to make changes is from the inside.   For all that OWS attemtped, Warren Buffet has been a lot more influential in getting those goals through.

I believe in this day and age, if you end up with sufficient numbers interested in a certain policy being implemented, it shows up in poll numbers politicians use, and they will address it.  This happening ends up putting into question whether or not the likes of Occupy is a product of the shift in opinion, cause of it, or a mixed vessel for showing the shift.

My response to the burn out I had of doing Occupy stuff was to come up with The Activist Game, which points out the futility of trying to be an activist and change the word.  Idea is you should repeatedly lose.  Link to the game is here:

http://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/122578/the-activist-game

With the Tea Party, you got major political guns involved who set up websites to gather a storm behind the Santelli rant on CNBC he did (I speak of this one, rather than the Ron Paul Tea Party folks) who then decided to have some impact on local elections and get "their guys in".  Well, that happened to some, and had some impact, but one wonders what the long-term effect is.  All you do is create a label that others will get upset with and not the critical mass needed (the Tea Party mentality, opposite of Occupy is that they have the answers, and you conform, no debate allowed).  Practical reality for Tea Party is that everyone wants their own pork, but wants to deny the pork to others, because it is pork.  Congressmen get elected based on the pork they bring to their district.

By the way, in order news, Occupy reoccupied a park in the area.  I guess they had to find something to do with their time, and I guess they feel significant camping out in a park not designed to support camping.  I would give them 2, maybe 3 months tops before the mayor cleans them out.  In the mean time, will end up with more "Get a job loser" shouted from windws as people drive by, and passive supporters who believe that the revolution they are waiting for will happen if you honk often enough.