Breivik’s social contract betrayal

The 76 lives wasted by Anders Behring Breivik in Norway on 22 July 2011 was a chilling betrayal by him of the democratic social contract by which citizens and governments co-exist with civility, but Dakota points out that Breivik’s action was provoked by a long-standing breach of the social contract by his government and that to understand one betrayal we need also to understand the other.

“In his manifesto Breivik makes it clear that for many years he and others had tried by democratic means to put a stop to what he considered to be the Islamification of Norway,” says Dakota. “He had given up hope in the democratic system because every new immigrant voted for the political party that allowed them citizenship, and most ethnic Norwegians – who lived outside of the big immigrant city of Oslo – were not fully aware of what was happening to their country, or did not care enough to vote the Labour / Green coalition government out.”

“Breivik’s political stance has been described as ‘far right’ or ‘Christian conservatism’, but in many ways he was a ‘reactionary’ in that he wanted Norway to return to the 1950s – a time long before he was born – when men were men and women were women and Norway was a relatively idyllic nation of seafarers, fishermen and ship builders with a distinctive language, culture, mythology and appearance.”

“Norway is not a member of the EU and as such has not been swamped as other EU nations have been by Eastern Europeans,” says Dakota, “but Breivik would have much preferred this outcome than what his government actually did instead.”

“The Norwegian government deliberately selected Muslim people from Somalia, Iraq and Pakistan as its new citizens,” explains Dakota, “and is happy for them to build mosques, practice sharia law and benefit from generous social services in return for their vote.”

“In large multi-ethnic and multi-cultural immigrant nations like the USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa these people would blend in quite well,” says Dakota, “but in a nation of just 4.9 million citizens where most people are typically blond and blue eyed Nordic types, they would literally stand out like a sore thumb.”

“What on earth was the Norwegian government thinking?”

“Because ethnic Norwegians are exceptionally friendly and polite people, there was no public outcry when this immigration was taking place,” says Dakota, “but when it became obvious that a lot of these people were ‘freeloaders’ as well as being disrespectful towards women and other cultural standards, a groundswell of anti-immigration sentiment started to build up.”

“In his manifesto and in his statement to police Breivik was very clear about who the enemy was,” says Dakota. “He saw the members of the political Labour / Green coalition party ruling the country as traitors, and that’s why he targeted them – at their head office and at their summer camp for upcoming young politicians.”

“He saw them as having an internationalist agenda rather than a Norwegian agenda and as a patriot he could not stand by and allow his country to loose every value he held dear.”

“Now that Norway is the wealthiest country in the world measured by per-capita income due to the discovery of massive offshore oil and gas fields,” says Dakota, “it could have invested huge sums of money into making Somalia, Iraq and Pakistan a better place for people to live rather than taking in immigrants from those countries and trying to make them fit into a chalk and cheese climate and culture.”

“As Breivik himself complained – the Labour / Green coalition party will stop at nothing to keep in power, even if it means bringing everyone from Somalia, Iraq and Pakistan into Norway for their votes.”

“This sort of behavior by a political party can be seen as a betrayal of the social contract – especially in a country with such a small population which, up until 20 years ago, was quite insular,” says Dakota. “We need to understand all of this before we can understand why Breivik turned from a model citizen into an assassin.”


Read more by Dakota:

Was Breivik a secret Israeli operative?
The ethics of politicizing children
Breivik’s online fantasy world
Breivik’s July 22 Sarajevo Code
Breivik the white knight
Breivik, Christ’s Knight
Dating psychos like Breivik
Stepfamily loners
be proud of your race!
immigration promotes white shame?

See also:

Age Secrets of Anders Behring Breivik
Breivik’s Aquarian Humanity?

rights and responsibilities

Under the social contract we are all pretty much aware of our rights and responsibilities, but Carmel wants to make it known that the only right that smokers have at present is the legal right to buy tobacco products - they have NO rights relating to discrimination against them shown when they actually use their legal product.

“When I returned to work after a long break I was shocked by the change in attitude of the people around me,” says Carmel. “I thought I had a legal right to challenge anyone who used smoking as a reason to hire, fire or vilify someone – but that isn’t true at all.”

“I agree that cigarette smoking is a health hazard to smokers and those caught in the slipstream of cigarette smoke; and I am well aware that it is a dirty, highly addictive and expensive habit having been banned world-wide in workplaces - and public buildings,” says Carmel. “I not only uphold that law but also consider it to be an excellent law, but I am adamant that the choice to smoke is personal and I should not be discriminated against, or vilified, because of that choice.”

“What’s the good of being able to buy a legal product that you can’t use?” asks Carmel. “And why is it okay to discriminate against and vilify smokers when it is not okay, for instance, to behave that way towards someone else who is different in some way?”

“What sort of society are we living in that allows this situation to exist?” asks Carmel. “I pay my taxes like everyone else – actually a whole lot more tax because I smoke – and I expect to be protected by my government under the social contract. It is taking my money but not protecting me!”

"If governments worldwide banned the sale of the substance, and ceased reaping a profit from nicotine addicts like me," says Carmel, "then I’d have a real chance to face my addiction and conquer it."

“I grew up within a generation that thought drugs were groovy and smoking cigarettes was a sign of sophistication,” says Carmel, “so I am not only dealing with nicotine addiction but also a powerful emotional factor supporting my smoking habit.”

“The more authorities dictate to me what I can and cannot do, the more likely I am to dig my heels in,” says Carmel. “I know it is no longer fashionable to smoke, but giving up cigarettes is not going to be as easy for me as discarding my flares and platform shoes – and why should I when I actually enjoy smoking?”

“Unlike drivers who have a god-given right to emit noxious vehicular fumes, smokers have NO such right because smoking has no 'social utility'; and, unlike drinkers, smokers can't even smoke 'responsibly' because cigarette smoke apparently never dissipates and always offends.”

“Furthermore, because smoking is a ‘choice’, smokers have NO redress against discrimination in employment and accommodation and vilification from the public at large (unless, of course, they also belong to a 'real' minority group).”

“The ONLY right smokers have is the right to purchase tobacco providing they’re 18+ and can afford it – but there’s absolutely nowhere in a built-up area where we can smoke in peace and quiet without being vilified,” says Carmel. “I guess the next obvious legislation is to ban smoking beyond city limits – forcing all smokers to sell up and move.”

“Hey guys, we vote and we pay a sin-tax for smoking so how about giving us a break?”

Read more by Carmel on this issue:

workplace nicotine nazis

sniffing out smokers

smelly co-workers

Is smoking a choice or a need?

Land of the free?

Clothilde is a self-employed florist and while she is annoyed enough at the red tape required to run her business, she is absolutely livid at the Mississippi proposal to prohibit restaurants and food establishments from serving food to obese customers

"Since when has it been the government’s job to force people by law to eat what it tells them to eat and to live their lives according to its dictates (backed by its Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Bank or Big Business cronies)?" asks Clothilde. "Also, to make private businesses the enforcers of these dictates –do as we say or we'll revoke your business permits –is blatant thuggery."

"When you consider that for most of the 20th century we were fighting against communist, fascist and other totalitarian regimes –and we’re currently fighting against the oppressive Taliban in Afghanistan (who denied their people the joy of music among other things)," says Clothilde, "it makes you wonder – I mean really wonder – about the hypocrisy of our politicians and the social contract they are supposed to uphold."

"Land of the free? Yeah, right!"

"Free to listen to music (as long as you don't disturb the neighbors) and free to show a bit of flesh in public (as long as you don't do a Janet Jackson), but don't you dare eat fatty foods, or smoke or drink or take recreational drugs or do anything vaguely entrepreneurial,” sneers Clothilde. “Instead, they force feed us their latest pharmaceutical snake-oil soma and tell us to have a nice day."

Read more of Clothilde's story:

pharma pushed fat laws

fat red tape

menopausal fighter

Health Nazis

independence vs nanny states

the curse of the katholikos ethos

Despite the legal separation of the church from government, Poppy believes that the katholikos ethos is very much alive and kicking in our governing bodies and that it holds as much sway in determining policies as it ever did, and is cursing us as much as it ever did.

“The Soviet Union was ostensibly atheist,” says Poppy, “but the Orthodox Church of Russia never died out, and indeed continued to pull strings.”

“It’s the same in even the most socialist of our governments,” says Poppy. “Politicians pretend to be freethinkers or even atheist, but none of them rose to prominence without the power of an almighty organization behind them.”

“The policies of our elected governments are mostly in synch with Church edicts,” says Poppy, “and when conflicts of interests arise the politicians always have the men in frocks to whisper into their ears and absolve them of their sins."

“Most parliamentary sessions start and end with prayer,” says Poppy, “and most officials swear on a Bible. Why is this done if there was, indeed, true separation?”

“If the Pope in Rome is the head of the universal Catholic Church, which is higher than any government and upholds the original Greek katholikos ethos,” says Poppy, “then the God Bods in government are not representing us, or our wishes, but that of their true masters and the end result will be a world government.”

freedom and inalienable rights

Mardi, 43, married with three children, welcomes increasing government control over freedoms because she believes that freedom was never intended as an inalienable right for everyone and thinks that it's about time the myth was dispelled.

"When the Founding Fathers talked about freedom they had white men and money in mind," laughs Mardi. "They weren't thinking about women or people of other colors, and slavery and indentured servitude was rampant at the time, too!"

"Most of us have never been free to do what we want," says Mardi. "Many freedoms involve trampling upon the freedoms of others or going against social mores and becoming alienated from society."

"Who in their right mind supports a murderer's freedom to murder, a thief's freedom to steal or a tyrant's freedom to demolish the self-esteem of others?" asks Mardi. "And yet when taken to extremes this is exactly the sort of freedom that some people believe is their inalienable right."

"Freedom is something that always comes with boundaries imposed by the society in which we live," explains Mardi. "I don't believe I am free. I don't always have the right to choose. I am circumscribed in all but simple choices."

"Sure, I am better off than someone in Biafra - I have more choices - but sometimes I think that having the choice of what to eat is not what freedom is all about. A Biafran with nothing on his/her mind except where the next morsel of food is going to be found may be experiencing more freedom than I am."

"It's idealistic to believe that we need freedom in order to live and make the most of our lives," says Mardi. "In reality, we are required to conform in order to live and make the most of our lives."

"From childhood we learn that obedience is rewarded and freedom is punished," says Mardi. "We do what our parents and teachers and then employers and government tell us to do. The script is to become good, law-abiding citizens with jobs and money and things. Since when has our society applauded and rewarded the kids who believe that freedom is their inalienable right?"

"I grew up with the myth of freedom as an inalienable right," laughs Mardi, "but I soon got wise about what I could and could not do. My life has never been my own, of my choosing. It has always been ruled by what society expects of me. And that goes for all of us."

"I may be a success in the eyes of society in so far as my career and marriage is concerned," sighs Mardi, "but in my soul I know I am a failure because I am not free. I am not free to take off my clothes and run down the street in the rain - and I am not free to speak my mind freely. Who is?"

"I am tied by a job and a myriad of things which, when they all boil down, are merely means by which I can put food into my mouth," says Mardi. "I have more food to put into my mouth than I need. It is a wasteful existence. Is my life more meaningful and free than our Biafran friend?"

"I don't think so," sighs Mardi, "and that's why I support the government making no bones about cracking down on every aspect of our lives. It's about time that the myth was exposed as a myth. We have no freedom. We never did and we never will."

"Very few people pursue what is important to them, "says Mardi. "Instead, we pursue what society says is important and we naively think it is what we need. We've got to have this thing and that thing in order to be to a success and to show the world how free we are."

"It's amazing how the Biafrans manage to find love, friendship, family, children, etc without all the trappings we are told we need!"

"I believe all life is a struggle to fulfill basic needs for food and shelter, everything else is what we desire when our bellies are full and our bodies are warm and sheltered and we feel good."

"Have you ever noticed that when trouble is brewing people stock up on basic food and clothing and bedding and draw their loved ones close?" asks Mardi. "Nobody talks about inalienable rights and freedoms when times are hard."

"Lack of freedom is the price paid for membership of a group and as the world divides into camps this simple fact is made more apparent," says Mardi.

"It's silly to talk about fighting for our freedoms. We may think we have more freedoms than other people in other parts of the world, but we don't."

privatizing government job selection

Daellea is single, 32, and wants a more permanent job than the one she has now but her efforts to gain a government job have left her cold. She queries the ethics of the increasing trend to privatize public sector job selection.

“I’m all for private enterprise,” says Daellea, “but I don’t think the selection of government jobs should be farmed out to private agencies. It figures that businesses out to make a fast buck are not going to be as scrupulous as government employees in the etiquette of selecting new recruits, and after three bad experiences I’m only going to apply for government jobs that recruit directly from now on.”

“I put the first two bad experiences down to bad luck,” laughs Daellea, “but when the third agency turned out to be worse than the other two I got smart about what was going on.”

“What really annoys me is that a government department places the advertisement but when you telephone for an information package you’re directed to a private recruiting agency which invites you to an information session at which information packages are given to interested applicants. It’s all about money! The more people who attend the information sessions the more money the agency gets.”

“I don’t waste my time applying for unsuitable jobs so the information packages are really vital,” says Daellea. “I resent having to give up a whole evening, sometimes traveling out of my way, in order to obtain something that can mailed to me.”

“And when the information package presented by these private agencies is not up to the usual standard of government information packages - and none of the three I’ve received have been - my resentment is exacerbated.”

“Despite all this, I actually applied for the third job - it was something very unusual, requiring unique talents that I possessed and the money was good, too,” says Daellea, “but I should have listened to my gut feeling and given it a miss.”

"I really don't think it is proper or ethical for the government to privatize public sector job selection."

Read more by Daellea on this issue:

government job selection ethics
Interviewed for government job by foreign consultant
Psychometric tests and medicals?

political victimization

Jaylee is single, 37, and was an aspiring politician eager to stand for office and represent people whose needs were not being met until her local male dominated and upper-class entrenched political party broke her spirit.

"A story I read about babies turning on another baby in a nursery, nearly biting it to death, caught me eye," says Jaylee. "It led me to believe that victimization is a behavior that we appear to be born with or learn very early in life and it's a behavior that's honed to perfection in government circles."

"What happened to that poor baby happens to every one of us, to a lesser or greater extent, every day," sighs Jaylee. "It's called bullying, victimization or being pulled down to a level where others believe you belong, and being an outsider -- or different in some way -- makes you an easy target in a closed group. And no group is more closed that a political party in government or out of it."

"I've come to the conclusion that there's no such thing as a 'right' to anything be it free speech or a safe environment or the right to stand for election," says Jaylee. "And my naivety in believing that I had a 'right' to be heard and recognized and treated fairly and equally got me into bad trouble. I thought I lived in a free country with the right to represent the people whose issues aren't being met, but nothing can be further than the truth."

"Fighting injustice may be a noble cause," laughs Jaylee, "but only when the injustice has been suffered by others. When the injustice is personal -- being ganged up against, wrongful imprisonment, job dismissal or marital betrayal -- fighting for one's rights invariably invites more injustices."

"I've heard that a wise victim walks away, turns her back upon a victimizing incident, and gets on with a life devoid of the people and situations that precipitated the victimization," says Jaylee, "but I'm torn between following that good advice and getting my pound of flesh out of the political bullies who ruined my life."

"By spending the next ten years in litigation designed to seek compensation for the injustice done to me, I may or may not gain financial reward but I will definitely lose what remains of my youth and vigor and sanity. And the same goes for any attempt I make to re-enter politics or to get even with my oppressors."

"No financial reward or ephemeral political success or act of vengeance will ever take away the humiliation of what they did to me -- laughing at me, calling me a hick and undermining my credibility," sighs Jaylee. "The people who designed my downfall have won, and they will continue to win because I will never be the same person again and God help the little people out there who think that politicians care about them because they don't. The social contract as far as they are concerned is all one way -- their way."

"I am wounded and the best place for me, like a wounded animal, is to lie low, lick my wounds and learn from the experience," says Jaylee. "Sure, I have supporters who are encouraging me to stand up for my rights and continue the fight to get their voice heard in government -- but I think about that bitten baby and feel the hurt it felt because it was out of place at that nursery just like I was out of place in politics."

"I do have a passion for politics and I do want to play a role in government to truly represent the voice of the people but I have powerful enemies in high places and if I try to return to politics they could very well arrange a convenient accident that will get rid of me for good," says Jaylee. "I'm not threatening enough for a political assassination, but too many people these days are disappearing or dying in strange circumstances. I don't want that to happen to me."

"Sure it's unfair that I can't pursue my passion for politics and justice without being victimized, but the political arena is not noted for being fair and polite and welcoming to newcomers -- especially those from the wrong side of tracks like myself."

"No arena, political or otherwise, is fair to newcomers, or people who don't fit in," sighs Jaylee. "Even nurseries. The nature of all groups is to victimize, isn't it?"

"I never fitted into the political arena," admits Jaylee. "My appearance is striking, my style is confrontational, my education is pretty ordinary, my platform is politically incorrect and my family is poor. We're not even new money! Now that they've got to me -- wounded me badly -- I guess I'm going to be less able than ever to hold my own in a hostile arena."

"It's not a case of those people trying me out -- testing me for leadership," explains Jaylee. "They just didn't like me and they never will. They smooth the paths of the chosen ones -- the kids of old money families who toe the party line -- and they put rocks in the paths of people like me."

"I believe the days of good, solid working class people being able to represent the majority of people in this land are well and truly over -- if, indeed, there ever were such people," sighs Jaylee. "When I think about who in government -- on one side or the other -- actually represents my class and what we stand for I can't think of anybody. Can you?"