HOME | DD
TD-Vice — Knight Templar
Published: 2012-01-16 18:26:13 +0000 UTC; Views: 27966; Favourites: 117; Downloads: 473
Redirect to original
Description
Despite the deletion of the picture, I reupload it, because the dA staff had given me no clear answer as to why a simple portrait is considered Hate Art.In case that the admins will find the re-upload of the artwork a bannable offense, I'm ready to engage in CONSTRUCTIVE discussion of why it is so horrible.
And yes, I consider Breivik a hero and share his viewpoint on what he did. So what? It's my opinion, and you can't guess it by artwork alone. I can consider a hero anyone who I want - that doesn't qualify as hate speech either.
He called himself a Knight Templar, so that's the naming of the pic.
Related content
Comments: 619
might wanna get that cockeye looked at
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
They made an entire documentary about him and I've read his memoir. He seems like has the same outlook as hitler but a little tainted. Is that correct?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Regardless of whether or not one espouses his beliefs (I disagree with most of them) this man murdered unarmed and unaware non-combatants without warning. That is not heroism, that is thuggery.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And you think your admission would change my mind or my outlook?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Only if you were a sane, rational person willing to reconsider your opinions in light of new perspectives. Like "killing unarmed civilians is immoral".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The question of whether is something immoral or not, isn't a universal one. Circumstances, cultural and ethnic background, necessity and other facts weigh in. People who use the words like you do, share a childish, naive preconception of the term in it's entirety.
Killing unarmed civilians is immoral. Ok, let's consider this. Are you american or british? Then you must know that the soldiers of your state in the last decade or so, had killed a plethora of unarmed civilians of state's your country wasn't even at a declared war with. You call them heroes, you know. The same people like you who call Breivik a monster or coward, hail the pilots of bombers and soldiers. Or you think that because a bombing is more let's say, DETACHED, it's less of a murder?
But fear not. Of course those soldiers are heroes, because they protect the interests of those like you, because they do it for "freedom" and "liberty" and all these dead people are unfortunate collateral damage. Well, I therefore, with the same righteous grain of morality, think that those killed by Breivik were at best collateral damage, and at worst - enemies, rightfully slain in an attempt to protect freedom and liberty of his state. He was just a teeny bit closer to them at the moments of their death than those who kill people in the Middle East operations and those who did so in Kosovo.
Ah, but that is too hard for children to grasp. There's the white - and there's the black. Forces of light and darkness, locked in epic battle.
Funny.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Actually believing that "killing unarmed civilians is immoral" like say children is not childish or naive. Most people who aren't fucking monsters believe that. That our military and culture venerates soldiers who have committed atrocities in wars in no way justifies the committing of atrocities and genocides in kind, much less on defenseless and innocent children. The fact is that you know that and you just don't care. Because at the core of the issue, you personally find nothing wrong with killing defenseless children. That's it right there.
You need to be locked up quite frankly, our children need to be protected from people like you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
At the core of this issue remains the fact that enemies are enemies during war, and enemy children and "innocent civilians" still are a liable enemy force. Unlike you, I served in the military during a conflict, and I had seen how children were used and brainwashed to become a threat or distraction.
Being 16 years old leaves a person to be capable of killing or joining a military camp, being unarmed leaves the capacity to cause harm through means other than direct physical attacks. A good way to conduct war is striking the enemy preemptively, to destroy their resource, and as such, Breiviks actions were completely logical.
Sorry to live in a world different from your rose-tinted unrealistic bullshit.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Lets examine that logic and determine just how effective Breivik's preemptive strike was shall we?
Lets not discuss how twisted and self-serving it is that you are able to justify the killing of children who are non-active, non-resisting, non-combatants simply on the off chance that they might grow up and resist you ideologically.
However let it also be said that since you are essentially saying that killing of defenseless children is justified on an assumption of intent, you be assured that; yes, people will most likely try to resist you preemptively murdering their children based on your assumptions.
Now lets examine the effectiveness of Breivik's methods: To "destroy their resources" as you say. Which means basically that Breivik is attempting to destabilize and depopulate Norway's ethnic population by murdering their children. Of Norway population, 14% are immigrants and of those; over a 110,000 children of first generation immigrants are born in Norway every year.
Breivik killed 69 children.
Did Breivik succeed at-least in scaring the immigrant populations enough to flee? Actually no, today over 47,000 immigrants enter Norway legally, which is a national record high. Every year that number increases. Norway has been experiencing an unprecedented expansion of its immigrant population since 2000 that has continued unmitigated in the face of Breivik's actions.
The obvious conclusion that should have occurred to you and Brievik is that it is impossible to destabilize a population of that magnitude with conventional wartime tactics. There is no weapon, no disease, no war that you could instigate that could cause enough death to even match the birth rate of the populations you intent to target.
To put it simply you can't kill them fast enough, cannot even hope to. You've already lost, you lost a long time ago.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Incorrect. Sometimes Heroes falter, and this should not be ignored. The bombing of Dresden was monstrous, and Churchill (who, you may remember was ousted from power after the war) expressed remorse for it. We may sometimes fall short of our ideals, but that is our failing. It is not the fault of our ideals. I believe that, when a war is over, the monsters who defended me should be on trial for war crimes alongside the monsters who wished to kill me. Western civilization has stumbled in the past, but unlike Anders, we seek to become better. I deem it monstrous when unarmed civilians are killed, even if their deaths profit me. If we were to apply the Kantian paradigm to your world-view, any profitable action would be good, even if it violated the rights of one's fellow man. violence is sometimes the only method of eliminating greater violence, but those who continuously advocate the death of the helpless are not heroes.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Violence is sometimes the only method of eliminating greater violence - and you are the one to judge which is which and when it's applicable, because your ideals are better by what margin?
Even more hilarious. The may you perform mental gymanstics to avoid facing a simple fact of nature, is amusing.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The minimum amount. Always. The playground logic of "it doesn’t matter who started it" is wrong. And the blame lies with the instigator. In Syria for example, it would be permissible to send a fully accountable commando team to hold a sword at Al-Assad's neck and demand that he sign an agreement to respect his peoples rights, and then to forcibly evict him from power (ideally without killing him, but killing him might be necessary if he put up a fight) if he violated that agreement. But simply to carpet bomb his nation would be criminal. And don't get so hung up on simple facts of nature. Geocentricism was once accepted as a simple fact of nature, and Galileo was only dissuaded from sharing that view when the pope threatened to injure him. I personally put far more stock in the rules that man makes than the delineations of nature.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well, in MY world, what happened in Syria should have been their and their neighbors matter, that's all. Noone should've had the right to evict him from power, except the people in his country. But ah-ah-ah - without the help of a superpower located a fucking ocean and a continent away. And if the rebels failed, as they should have, then it's just history taking its course.
You have no right to send commandos to any sovereign nation and kill their leaders unless you're in declared mutual war. If not, than by your own admission, I can fly to the States and massacre your leader on the behalf of all that's good and holy, can I? Because I view him a threat to the people of USA and the world. And I would be right, because the US baited our neighboring country into starting a conflict with us.
Man makes rules, and rules get overriden. Don't delude youself in the idea what is now is unshakeable and good for eons to come. See, I don't blame anyone. I see struggles occuring through natural urges of expansion and self-preservation, and I honor acts of self-preservation. Now, Breivik's deeds are truely exemplary there. If the blame lies with the instigator, then his actions were even more justified. He lashed out against traitor collaborationists that seek to destroy the fabric and identity of his motherland. What is more honorable than that? And who gives a fuck if they're unarmed and teenage? A brain and uterus/penis are weapons in a civilizational clash, so what now?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I don't think I mentioned their age, but if I did, I apologise, as their age is not relevant. I do believe in national sovereignty, but it is trumped by individual sovereignty, such as the right to not be killed by the government for expressing an opinion in a public forum. Of course war should be declared before international measures are taken, I shouldn't have assumed that that does not need to be pointed out. Also, as stated by my profile, I am a Briton (though I do have a great deal of respect for America and its ideals, even if it sometimes fails to live up to them) and I would decry your belief that humanity does not progress morally by the example of the international criminal courts. We in the civilized world believe that our leaders should be accountable for their crimes, and we have systems in place to punish them. Prior to the signing of the Magna Carta, this was not so. Mankind has advanced, although it is an uneven and uncertain road. We are better now, than we once were.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
But of course you're a Briton. You know, I have a deep dislike of the British. A once great nation, it had devolved to self-hating mess after it's imperial state was abandoned. You've given the world so much self-loathing, that you've begun to believe the virtues of this self-loathing.
Well let me explain some simple truths to you. Truth one - nobody gives a shit about the international court system aside those who've put it up in place. China and India, and some other civilizations, have an ethic vastly different from ours. Do you think they share the same outlooks on things with you and me? No, they don't. When they gather enough power to outweigh the US on the international arena, they'd show a big finger to all of your "measures". They'll dictate their rules, when time would come. Because all we have now is a product of a Cold War era, and now the geopolitics shifted so strongly, that these principles are outdated.
Asians have no concept of "war crime". They have no concept of "punishment" as you think of it. They'll dismantle all your precious institutions of human rights and other pretentious bullcrap if it becomes a detriment to then.
There is no universal morals. There's interests and power to maintain that interest. Everything else is veil for gullible fools like you, who believe that invasive wars are fought for freedom, who believe that USA's ideals could be - and should be - extrapolated on all of humanity. Well, you'll learn the hard way, that we've seen your shameful, self-loathing anglo-saxon bullshit in hell itself, and that you've bitten off more than you can chew. You already have trouble swallowing.
It would be for the best of the white europeans to abandon your "morals" as fast as they can.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I do not believe all civilizations to be equal. The Asians can live as they wish, the Muslims can believe what they will, and I will not hate them for it, unless they try to inflict violence upon me (or anyone else) in order to enforce their views. And you are wrong. The fact that Leopold was forced to relinquish his iron grip upon the Congo proves that western civilization is better that brutish savagery. And I say that as an advocate of British Imperialism, and as a proud Briton, although I am ashamed of the times we employed brutality in our expansionism, I believe our empire, with all of it's quaint "justice" and "equality before the law" has improved the world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, I'm right. My views are based in the dynamics of the human mind and nature. I don't believe we're frozen forever in those "laws" and "justice", which are nor laws nor justice, but a mock setup to lull the cattle - I believe that we live in an ever-changing landscape of available opportunity, and those who don't cease the opportunity, perishes.
Improvement of the world was done by bloodshed almost exclusively - or by the threat of even bigger bloodshed. All of our social and technical advancement is thanks to war and conflict. The facts that war and conflict happen, absolutely ignoring what you call "justice", serves as a great example that these values are nothing more than loud words, and under them there is only a struggle for opportunity.
You, however, as anyone else, tries to enforce your views on others. So why the sad face that we, who don't share them, oppose them, with violence in tow? Ah, because you've persuaded yourself that your views are the only universally "correct" ones, I forgot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I do not deny people the right to believe violence is a good response to all differences, I simply deny them the right to act upon those convictions. I state my opinions and if people choose to disagree, they may. Might I ask what YOU deem to me justice, and what YOU would consider to be a law?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
yall need to get laid freal
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Your insight is truly spectacular, O wisest of us all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"Wanting people to listen, you can't just tap them on the shoulder anymore. You have to hit them with a sledgehammer, and then you'll notice you've got their strict attention."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah. John Doe was right.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The picture itself isn't horrible, but you are. And that's why this, and your whole profile, should be deleted.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I have other ideaa about who and what should be deleted.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I love this man with all my heart. Thank you for making this.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
He's a hero to you, beacuse he murdered people, just so completely insane people like yourself would read his "book" and agree with him, is this correct?
He's a hero to you, because he was ruthless in his method of attracting attention? Because really, that's all he did, getting people who already thought the way he did, to agree with himself (which they would have anyway) and wasting many lifes for it.
Or is that just a thing for all those pretentious "hardcore" people with equally silly, pretentious names like "Torture-device" to like what everybody else hates?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Oh look, self-righteousness. That's hardcore without the quotemarks, aint it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I do enjoy a bit of trolling.
But in all seriousness, what aspect are you worshipping about him?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Check out his journals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nah, I really don't want to read anymore from people like that
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Then what's the point of asking?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Hoping to get an answer without giving his work more views.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thinking about it, I probably wouldn't want to hear the ridiculous answer anyway.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You seem like a very confused person. That would, ofcourse, explain a lot.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
On the contrary, I am quite secure in my belief that murdering teenagers is a bad thing and
that I do not wish to endorse a person who supports such a thing, nor really want to hear
what kind of insane thougths could lead a person to come to such a conclussion.
Then again, it's probably just the same "anti-establishmen" thinking, that rebelling teenagers
usually want to display.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Funny thing, that. You don't want to hear "insane thoughts" you don't like, but then act all surprised when guns start to do the talking.
Must be a really comfy worldview to go by.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
So, your point is: when nobody listens to you, you should get violent, because people HAVE to listen to you? You believe you are entitled to being paid attention to?
Guns don't have to do the talking. Nobody HAS to do the talking, if you can't convince people to agree with you by using your brain, achieving it with brawn is not justified.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What a naive kid you are.
Did it ever occur to you that all of the relevant verbal agreements made by mankind happened because of a prospect of violence?
People agree with ideas not out of thin air. They do it out of fear of violence,in any of its forms. Coupled with benefits of course.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You call me naive while talking like almost every 90s villain ever?
And while you might have never experienced it, it is quite possible to convince people of ideas without any violence at all. Of course, violence is the easiest way, but it's also what kept humanity in the dark ages.
Only through cooperation, has humanity advanced as far as it did.
With that said, I am not going to continue this debate. You are already defensive and in no capable position of changing your mind and I do not feel convinced by your arguments either, given how it boils down to "violence rules the earth".
It's kind of funny though, that the right wing supports what they connect with their favourite enemies, the foreigners: terrorism.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, youre naive. You didnt even comprehend what I was talking about when I said its the fear of violence in all its forms behind the words.
Economical violence. Societal. ETC.
Kind of funny is that anti-fascists are the most rabid opponents to free speech.
And terrorism isnt a muslim invention, kid. British and Russians used politically motivated terrorism long before, theres nothihg contradictory for anyone to use terror to achieve the desired goals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
He killed white people. The race traitor!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The white people he killed were the traitors. The next generation of Norway's local Davos elite. Their little youth worker party was formerly Marxist. Vlaams Belang doesn't get a pass from the left for having formerly been National Socialist, so why should we on the right give a pass to these Young Communists just because they changed their name?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Traitors to who - themselves? Is that logically possible?
The analogy is bizarre, when was the last time a massacre of neo-fascists occurred in Western Europe? It seems a complete non-sequitur to compare this mass murdering crackpot to opposition to a Belgian racist party. Irrational as the Vlaams Belang may be, 'the left' didn't have cause to let loose with a machine gun.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
The white people who help cause the demise of other white people, white culture and white country through their stupidity and subjectivity? Oh yeah, what a vile, vile traitor he is!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
They seemed pretty alive to me before he personally facillitated their demise. Breivik didn't like their white culture since it was different from his own. If he didn't like multiculturalism he was welcome to move permanently to a more racist climate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
The people he killed did not like white culture, which is why they aligned themselves with a movement bent on destroying it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
How can white people not like white culture? All their culture is white.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Mr Breivik could have easily killed more, yet didn´t.
Oh and he might still have killed a few dozens of them but thankfully, at least he wasn´t racist about it!
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
<= Prev | | Next =>