Anonymous targets Norway killer’s manifesto

http://www.digitaltrends.com/cool-tech/anonymous-targets-norway-killers-manifesto/

by diggericon • 15 years ago

63 82 15 years ago

cschreiner• 15 years ago

Bad idea. The world needs to see what kind of a lunatic he is. The world needs to know his arguments in order to repeal.

yummyfajitas2• 15 years ago

The world needs to know his arguments in order to repeal or accept them.

He seems to be a nut, but that doesn't mean his ideas are wrong.

rbanffy8• 15 years ago

> but that doesn't mean his ideas are wrong.

Agreed, but after reading a bit of it (I downloaded a file with MD5 of 9e72e26916c20481a1f6e4781fd4d505) I can spare you the pain. It's crap.

Still, his actions make it necessary to repeal all of his arguments and assumptions.

savramescu• 15 years ago

I don't need to know his arguments. His actions speak louder than any of his words. I actually like their idea. If he bombed because he wanted people to read it, then by tainting any copy Anonymous can make sure that he has failed.

rl1987• 15 years ago

Yeah right... http://boards.4chan.org/b/res/343348504

pedram2• 15 years ago

"add stupid stuff"?

Doing that might make people suspect that the original document is well-written and that the "stupid stuff" was added later.

rbanffy8• 15 years ago

I'd like to point out it would be hard to add stuff that's more stupid than what he already wrote.

vixen993• 15 years ago

One of the delights of HN is that the comments rarely include pointless epithets. So how about replacing 'stupid' with a sentence or two from his 'manifesto' and then telling us what you think is irrational or wrong with it?

aw3c22• 15 years ago

Idiots. A strong handling of this would be to collaboratively debunk his arguments. Censorship does not help anyone.

yot8• 15 years ago

I agree, let's start here.

Facts: Current birth rate among indigenous Europeans in most if not all European countries is and has been below replacement level for a few decades. Most population growth in Europe in the last few decades has been from immigration from outside Europe. The birth rate among non-indigenous Europeans in European countries is higher than indigenous birth rate.

Projections (not fact): This trend doesn't appear to be changing and it looks like it will continue for many more decades. If the trend continues, in a few decades the genetic makeup of most Europeans will be more similar to that of non-European ethnic groups than to that of people who have lived in Europe for tens of thousands of years.

Arguments (assuming projections are true):

a) the projections above are a bad thing if you are an ethnic European and you predominantly carry genes that split from the ethnic groups of immigrants tens of thousands of years ago.

b) the projections above don't matter

c) the projections above are a good thing

State why the projections are likely to be wrong, debunk argument a) or justify why arguments b/c are correct. Proceed.

seabee• 15 years ago

I believe your starting point is largely irrelevant, but first...

A good justification for (b) can be found by determining the genetic diversity of indigenous populations from thousands of years ago and comparing to the present day. As an example the UK has had many 'immigrants' in just the past two thousand years alone, with the Romans, Saxons, Vikings and Normans being notable topics on a good school's History lessons.

Nevertheless, I believe your arguments aren't particularly relevant to the issues held by these extremists, who fear Islamic culture more than they fear Muslims themselves. They view 'multiculturalism' as the replacement of indigenous culture. If you want to go anywhere with this, you have to debate this more nuanced (and less scientific) viewpoint.

tripzilch2• 15 years ago

The demographic "threat" Bawer and others constantly go on about is massively overhyped. Basically, every Muslim in Europe would have to have equal amounts of kids to those in Palestine and Yemen (two of the highest birthrates in the world) consistently for the next 50 years, while all of Europe would have to suffer the kind of demographic decline Russia has supposedly suffered (I doubt the official statistics, but you know the ones I mean) during the same period. It's a statistical impossibility, in other words.

Vivtek2• 15 years ago

a) is ridiculous - if you want to reproduce, reproduce. Nobody's stopping you. Obviously ethnic Europeans have found other priorities.

Only idiots think other people should reproduce so they themselves won't feel so lonely.

alain94040• 15 years ago

d) survivor bias: you conveniently use the term "European" because it is now considered an integrated population, but one century ago, French people were scared of Italians immigrating. That's just an example. There was no such thing as being "European".

icebraining3• 15 years ago

But that argument is incomplete! It boils down to:

. The current trends lead to a projection of a different genetic makeup than the current

. The projection is a bad thing

Therefore, the current trends are bad.

But the argument fails to address why the projection is bad. That premise needs to be justified for the argument to be valid.

paulgb2• 15 years ago

I hate censorship, but I think the intent here is not so much to censor his ideas as to negate the "advertising" value of the tragic attacks.

It's wrong to say "that guy has dangerous ideas and should be censored", but it's another thing to say "that guy killed nearly 90 people to promote his manifesto, we should make sure he doesn't get what he wanted"

tripzilch2• 15 years ago

Except that he didn't do the killing to promote his manifesto (I thought that was a bit weird in Anonymous' statement), he did it to harm the Norwegian Labour Party.

Quite successfully, unfortunately. Those kids in the camp, especially the older ones, were probably going to fill the ranks of the real Labour party later on in life, politicians of the future. Now their future intelligentsia is either dead or suffering PTSD. (also remember that Norway is rather thinly populated)

That was his goal. To hurt the Labour party, and he hurt them bad.

knieveltech2• 15 years ago

"It's wrong to say "that guy has dangerous ideas and should be censored", but it's another thing to say "that guy killed nearly 90 people to promote his manifesto, we should make sure he doesn't get what he wanted""

But that's still censorship, you've just added some spin. Simply put you can't have it both ways. Either individuals are free to speak their mind (regardless of how heinous you may find their viewpoint) or they aren't, and if they aren't that's censorship and oppression.

aw3c22• 15 years ago

That should be the media's responsibility.

torstesu• 15 years ago

What would be very effective and what they really should do is add and/or remove crucial details in his recipe on how to make fertilizer bombs. Or maybe the one about the body armor. Or maybe render the tips on how to contact criminals in order to acquire guns into insults that may get them killed in the process.

Who would not like the idea of these lone wolfs blowing themselfs to kingdom come in a deserted location. I, as a Norwegian, surely do.

Iv• 15 years ago

Exactly, you would expect Anonymous to know better about the impossibility to censor the information

Shenglong• 15 years ago

Why would anyone read a 1516 page document written by a maniac? Even sane pieces tend to be TL;DR these days.

innes• 15 years ago

It's interesting in a macabre way - not the screeds of copy-n-paste so much, but the self-written sections.

vixen993• 15 years ago

Would anyone spend hours and hours listening to an opera by a (by universal-agreement) disgusting anti-Semite like Wagner?

rbanffy8• 15 years ago

No.

His ideas should be repealed and refuted by reason and with an open debate. Anything other than that will make them stronger. There are many people who already believe them and, thanks to his actions, countless more will. They must be proved wrong and convinced they are wrong.

krongoth• 15 years ago

What makes you think anything like a majority of people care enough to get into a reasonable, open debate about what he said?

rbanffy8• 15 years ago

Hope.

cynicalkane• 15 years ago

I downloaded a copy of the manifesto, read through the first few dozen pages or so, and skimmed through a few other parts.

The table of contents suggests 90-year war plan to unite Europe under the Knights Templar and restore pan-European identity. It doesn't need to be altered--it's already unbelievably stupid.

But he also knows a great deal about the political history of Europe and liberal thought, seen through a twisted lens. Furthermore, he follows a sort of Geert Wilders-like strain of Euro-nationalist ideas, dangerous ideas that have been gaining ground in parts of Europe. To alter this manifesto to include 'dumb things' is dangerous because first, it devalues the idiocy of his claims; second, readers will be more tempted to read it for the "good parts" while ignoring the "dumb parts"--who knows what parts were added, anyway? They'll be reading about the evils of Islam and multicultralism without understanding the fact--or dismissing it--that his ideas fit in a bizarre megalomaniacal framework of fantasy European domination, and deserve extreme scrutiny and mistrust.

Fjolle• 15 years ago

Yes. It doesn't need to be altered for most people to think that it is incredibly stupid.

People who would already tend to agree with his points might either ignore the added "dumb" parts, or just agree with them.

brown9-2• 15 years ago

I thought these guys were anti-censorship?

wisty• 15 years ago

A contrasting opinion: no sane person would really be moved by his ideas. But no-one wants to be a joke. Humiliating him, and his manifesto is an effective punishment, and maybe even a deterrent.

hetman• 15 years ago

Wait. So their great idea is to give credence to his claims?

The guy was convinced there's an organised Marxist agenda actively working in western society to distort truth and keep its citizens in the dark. This will just vindicate his claims in the eyes of anyone who was willing to buy it.

And lets face it, the originals are going to be around a lot longer than the Anonymous spoofs because these kids are going to get bored and move onto something more interesting by next week/month/whatever. They can't outlast someone festering in hatred for years.

A concerted censorship effort by anyone is the worst thing that can happen to the internet. No matter how righteous you feel your cause (of course everyone feels theirs is). Simply, the only way for wayward ideas to be uprooted is to expose them to the full light of scrutiny. Pushing them into dank corners, veiled by mystery, away from public discourse, will always find fertile ground in minds of individuals on the fringes searching for someone to blame for their woes.

At the very best this is misguided cowardice.

JamesBlair2• 15 years ago

Yes. Their great idea is to give credence to his claims. And an audience.

Don't forget that an Anonymous was one of the forces behind the Streisand effect of Tom Cruise's Scientology video. They know exactly what they're doing.

peterwwillis• 15 years ago

> They know exactly what they're doing.

Oh yeah. A bunch of teens and really bored adults photoshopping pictures, posting gay furry anthropomorph fanfic and child porn must know EXACTLY what they're doing.

This is the fucking streisand effect! This is the definition of it! They're trying to censor/cover up the original and make a big deal about it, so guess what's going to happen? More people will look for the original to see what it says. This is the worst Anon operation so far.

xefer• 15 years ago

I don't care what Anonymous "targets". Frankly, I don't care about Anonymous at all.

rdouble2• 15 years ago

This is clever. However, I read the manifesto over the weekend and am not sure what could be added or changed to make it seem more ridiculous.

vixen993• 15 years ago

Ridiculous, stupid, idiotic: these words cut communication with people who have differing views. Difficult to believe you sat through 1500 pages (why?) and have only that comment to make. On the positive side, you've more dedication or is it stamina (?) than me.

ForrestN• 15 years ago

I don't know if this is actually a helpful action or not, and what, if any, consequences will arise, but it's certainly good marketing for Anonymous. Much of the public don't understand their more nuanced reasons for attacking companies like Sony. For many, Anonymous are those people who took out Playstation. Attempting to thwart the desires of someone who's universally accepted as a villain at least starts to complicate their image as villains themselves.

adrianwaj• 15 years ago

Anders Behring Breivik plagiarised 'Unabomber'

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8658...

jvdh• 15 years ago

He "plagiarised" many others as well. You have to wonder though whether plagiarism even applies to the ravings of a mad man.

hackermom• 15 years ago

My first thought when seeing this was that it's not a very democratic thing to do. Ironic.

edw• 15 years ago

So Anonymous wants the power to fabricate — or destroy — history, facts, ideas, and so forth? Welcome to the dystopia!

Anonymous targets Norway killer’s manifesto

Related Stories